Editor's Note: Due to rampant misbehavior by the subject, the name of the Skeptic being addressed has been replaced with the moniker "Skeptic X."

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

The "Abiathar error" is a famous one among skeptics, who bounce this around like taffy. Abiathar, they sniff, was not high priest when David did this; David was before Ahimelech. We have previously provided an answer based on analysis from Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, and we now expand on that here.

The initial and simple answer notes that the verse in Mark says that this event took place "in the time of" Abiathar the high priest, which is not the same thing as saying that he was the one involved in the episode in question. This remains essentially correct but requires more detail.

To begin, the description of Abiathar as "high priest" is not titular. Neither Ahimelech nor Abiathar are ever given the title in the OT, though it is clear that Abiathar served as a leading priest (along with Zadok) and Ahimelech may have ranked highly as well. The word for "high priest" is archierus, a combination of hierus, or priest, and arche, a word most often meaning "beginning" but also meaning supreme in rank or order. Casey sees behind this language an Aramaic description too literally rendered in Greek: It does not mean Abiathar was "high priest" but indicates that he was a great priest, a renowned priest. That much is obviously true. Abiathar served David for the entirety of his reign of 40 years and had the privilege, along with Zadok, of carrying the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred Jewish religious object. As a renowned priest, it is expected that in his days, the Law would be correctly observed [Casey, 151] and his name would invoke the honoring of the law. Jesus mentions Abiathar in order to say, in effect, "In the time of Abiathar, who as a renowned priest was a real stickler for the law, and in whose days we would expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar and his contemporaries were?" Bringing Abiathar into the mix was actually a subtle slam against the Pharisees' authority.

In response to this general explanation, Skeptic X fumes about "verbal gymnastics that biblicists will resort to in order to try to make the Bible not say what it clearly says," but last I checked, Maurice Casey was no "biblicist." Some translations read the preposition as meaning, "in the time of" or "in the days of" and Skeptic X accuses these of "glossing over" the inconsistency (while regarding those that translate the preposition as "when" as more honest -- a typical skeptical boo game from Skeptic X, who has no idea what the motives, credentials, and experience of any of the translators are, and has no proof as to dishonesty, or who if anyone is being dishonest, but uses this type of argumentation because it easily sways gullible Skeptics who are sure there is a conspiracy already). Skeptic X, however, chooses to read the preposition (epi)as being able to mean "before" or "to": "The statement could, in fact, be seen as a usage that conveyed both the sense of appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation, because the high priest would have been someone familiar with the legalities of letting a nonpriest eat the showbread." But Skeptic X is floundering through Strong's (or whatever, see below) without a license. No commentary takes epi here to mean physical location. The Translator's Handbook to Mark's Gospel (Brill, 1961) indicates that epi with the genitive makes this a "time" delineation [100].

And what about our return that Abiathar was cited as an example of someone who would be a stickler, in whose days the law would be expected to be followed? Skeptic X complains that I quote no textual evidence for this, and replies that "Ahimelech was depicted much more favorably in this respect than was his son Abiathar." How?

1. By noting that Abiathar used an "ephod" to forsee the future. This, Skeptic X tells us with a sniffle, was "divination" comparable to tarot cards and palm readings. Oh? Only by the Skeptic X Spin. The inquiry using the ephod (whatever it was, and however it worked) was to Yahweh, and inquiring of Yahweh was not forbidden by the law, no matter what spin Skeptic X puts on the matter.
2. By saying, there is nothing in the OT to suggest that Abiathar was especially a stickler for the law. There did not have to be; it is implicit in the context. As noted, Abiathar was one of two (other than Zadok) to carry the Ark of the Covenant under David, and he did so for 40 years. Skeptic X would certainly not dispute that for whatever flaws he had, David was regarded as Israel's greatest king. One may as well say that any man who served under George Washington in a high position for the duration of his Presidency was not thereby implicitly someone who did his job very well. One can only counter that by showing examples of malfeasance, and Skeptic X's "ephod charge" is all he can come up with, plus this:
3. By noting one place where Ahimelech did something with integrity (which Skeptic X admits does not show him to be a stickler for the law). Ahimelech, it is said, "was a person of high integrity, who was willing to reprimand a king who he thought was wrong" (though the context is that of responding to an accusation by Saul against him, to which we would expect such a response!) while Ab "aligned himself with David in order to save his life and then later proved himself to be an opportunist, who with Joab, David's leading general, plotted against Yahweh's choice of a successor to David as David lay dying (1 Kings 1:7)" and was banished by Solomon. Excuse me? Nothing in 1 Kings says that Ab took his side because he was an opportunist. Nothing at all is said about his motives, or how he came to choose Adonijah over Solomon; this is Skeptic X applying spin to make his case sound worthwhile. Nor can it be shown except by Skeptic X-spin that Ab originally aligned himself with David purely to save his own life; nothing is said about his motives there, either. Skeptic X, who speaks snidely of "how it could have been" scenarios, seems to feel free to posit "how it looks to me" scenarios whenever it suits his purposes!

Update: Skeptic X has thrown out another effort while rummaging through the attic and while trying to buy time from responding to other materials where he has erred even more egregiously, such as saying we argued that the priests expected Jesus' body to ascend. (Note, 2/14/03: a link previously in this sentence has been removed because of X's refusal to respect my privacy by using my writing pseudonym.) As before we'll just ignore his request that we quote EVERYTHING (which he now denies making, which makes the history of the last several years rather remarkable) and cut to the chase found in the 5% of his work that actually argues anything.

X begins by admitting that, yes, "high priest" is not used as a title in the OT. Shazam! The revelations come pouring down! But that puts him in a bit of a bind. "Why the term was used in Mark 2:26 is anyone's guess," he mumbles in astonishment at this new revelation. We of course tell why it was used, and we'll see what he mumbles in reply in a wee bit. Skeptic X prefers to suppose rampant stupidity ("perhaps [Mark] thought that since the office of high priest existed in his time, it had also existed in the time of David" -- even as he says it was never used in the OT as a title, not even by Aaron!) but that's the inevitable resort when a skeptic has his back against the wall: Just call everyone gullible and stupid and be done with it.

Skeptic X then defies us to "cite a single passage of scripture that even implied that Abiathar had any special prominence at the time of the incident at Nob." We don't have to. As our answer, derived from Casey, shows, the key issue is:

1. Abby was a renowned priest, one whose stature and time in office suggests a successful priest who followed the law.
2. Obviously, for Abby to be such a decent priest, he could not be born in a vacuum. He had to have been influenced by people before him (as well as influencing people after him, but that is another issue that doesn't come in here).
3. Therefore, the purpose of citing "at the time of Abiathar" is to show that this was a time when the law must have been closely followed and highly respected.

Now our man Skeptic X wastes a great deal of time to start on nitpicky comments about non-data. When I note that Ahimelech may have ranked high as well, Skeptic X proffers the comments that, "Ahimelech was the priest whom David dealt with at the time of the incident. If he had not 'ranked highly' at the time, then surely he would not have made such an important decision on his own when he gave aid to David but would have consulted with whoever was the 'ranking' priest." Well, that's Skeptic X anachronizing with fond memories again. We have absolutely no idea what sort of rank and authority structure was held by the priests of this day; we do not know how much freedom low-ranking priests were given, and in what circumstances. I do consider it likely that Ahmy ranked high, but it's not one of those sure-fire, we-got-his-drivers-license-and-resume-on-file things, so it's hardly an issue to say that he may have been high-ranking. Short of uncovering the Nob Org Chart, or the Nobbie Operations and Procedures Manual, we simply don't know and have no further evidence. What's happening here is that Skeptic X is furiously desperate for anything he can try to catch me on, and that is why he is resorting to an egregious and baseless nitpick. This is the sign of a desperate man trying to scratch out any victory he can.

He does try to find a way to promote Ahmy, though:

Furthermore, when Saul heard what had happened, he called Ahimelech, not Abiathar or anyone else, before him to give an accounting of what he had done. No other priest was questioned at this time except Ahimelech.

Well, yowsa! Ya don't suppose Saul asked for Ahmy becase Doeg the Edomite saw Ahmy talking to David, do ya (1 Sam. 22:9)? Either way, like I say, Ahmy MAY have been a top dog; he may also have been a janitor in charge for the night shift. We just don't know. It remains that Skeptic X is grasping at straws trying to preserve an argument and score points against a non-essential in context -- playing a "how it must have been" game that the Church of Christ could use to make Monopoly boards out of.

Showing further how uni-dimensional he is, Skeptic X burps, "...but Abiathar 'escaped and fled to David' (v:20). It wouldn't have been very likely that Saul, who was bent on killing every priest at Nob, would have allowed the 'ranking' priest to escape." Well, we said zip about what rank Abby might have had, but anyway, this assumes that Saul a) knew where Abby was at the time; b) that Abby was not smart enough to escape anyway (Saul doesn't show much in the way of a reasoned ability at times! -- this is a man in the grips of an obsession and perhaps paranoia, not exactly winner of the Clear Thinking Trophy); c) that Saul was familiar enough, or cared enough about, the Nobbie organizational chart to know who he should go after; d) that the Nobbies had such an org chart in the first place. Skeptic X has a long way to go before he makes his "hichbing" scenario anything more than fluff in a pan baked to hold up an argument.

After whinnying a bit for the gullible skeptical readers about my reference to the "high priest" as it stands in Greek (and saying nothing in the process that answers my point), we again get to actual argument with this diversion:

Well, first of all, Casey assumes that the incident in Mark 2:26 even happened.

Oh he does, does he! And there's something wrong with that? Well, when Skeptic X proves that other private conversations recorded in works like that of Tacitus or Josephus even happened, then maybe we'll entertain his little historiographical fantasy that this is a worthwhile argument and not just a diversion. Like I said, this is a desperate man grasping at straws. He's ticked to the max and scurrying for any way to save his reputation, even to the point of throwing a blanket of "how do we know" over every mattress. That's fine. It helps keep other people outside his circle from listening to him. Now as to my actual point, via Casey, that the Greek word is derived from an Aramiac description that means "great priest," not the titular "high priest," and is a case of an overliteral translation by Mark as a bilingual (a much simpler "mistake," as Casey does call it and which we have no problem calling it, than supposing that Mark was too dumb to not see that the title was never used in the OT!), Skeptic X throws this out:

...this was the same word that was used thirty-eight other times in the New Testament in reference to either Annas or Caiphas, or both, as "high priest." I can find no other term in the New Testament that was used to refer to this office.

Not bad, scout! No other term is used of the man in that office, but -- er, excuse me. We have another phone call from our friend Hyper the Literalist, who is phoning from poolside at the C. Dennis McKinsey School of Biblical Exegesis. Did you have a comment, Hyper?

"Yeah! Skeptic X is losing his shorts as usual, because he doesn't know how to really spot errors. The man needs to retire and let Dennis take over, because he's really flubbing things. Why one day I saw him going out of Wal-mart with a bag full of Jelly Bellies, and I asked him -- "

Um, can you get to the point, Hyper? Skeptic X has an almost 1 meg reply from us to deal with now, and he has to quote EVERYTHING in it, so...

"Yeah, yeah, all right. Here's the thing. I got some verses to quote, OK?"

Go ahead.

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Mark 10:33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

Acts 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.

All right, Hyper, what's your point?

"The point is, Skeptic X is missing a huge bonehead error in all of the Gospels. It refers to "chief priests" -- heck, check your Greek, Holding, you're so blinkin' expert at it. The word behind 'chief priests' is just another form of the one used for Abiathar. Plural, I guess, but it starts with the same letters, the 'arche-" thingamajig. So the Gospels are telling us that more than one man was occupying the same office. Ridiculous."

Um, Hyper, Skeptic X does say later that more than one person could hold the title, what about that?

"Buncha malarkey. That's just him giving in to the pressure, like he did on that Ezion-geber thing. He's in the palm of the fundies' hand and eating out of it like a swallow, and trying to baffle people with BS. He needs to -- "

OK, thank you, Hyper, you can go now. Well, anyway, Skeptic X still hasn't actually answered the issue here. The arche- prefix does mean first in sense, either in order, time, place, or rank. Skeptic X bellows back based on the other uses that there "is no reason to think, then, that the word used in reference to Abiathar had any intended meaning other than the meaning of the word when it was applied to the high priests officiating during the period covered by the gospels and the book of Acts." There is every reason to think this: There were no titular high priests at the time of Abiathar or Ahimelech, and positing rampant stupidity by Mark isn't an answer. The simpler answer -- one that works within Mark's status as a bilingual translating from Aramiac to Greek -- is that he overliteralized the Aramaic words "great priest" into something that was just like "high/chief priest" in a titular sense.

Let's make a broader point of this where Skeptic X's overall methodology is concerned. Skeptic X will moan to the max as he often does about "how it could have been" scenarios (as he talks from the other side of his mouth using them freely!). As we noted in another context, what Skeptic X calls "hichbing" and "speculation" is really nothing but historical detective work. A classic example of this, in a non-Christian context, is David Ulansey's work on the origins of Mithraism, in the observation of the procession of the equinoxes. Ulansey has no Mithraic document saying, "We started this because of the procession." He pieces together evidence that converges in time and space and reaches a conclusion. This is just normal historical detective work.

Obviously some "hichbes" are not as valid as others. As we suggested, we can posit many reasons why the woman at the well in John 4 was there at noon:

• She was a social outcast who could not come at the ordinary time for getting water.
• She spilled her water supply that morning and was thirsty.
• She didn't want to miss The Bold and the Beautiful at 1:00.

Every one of these is a "hichb" scenario, because none of them are specifically stated. So how do we decide? We draw on converging lines of evidence. #3 is obviously out, because The Bold and the Beautiful came on at 2:00 in Palestine. Skeptic X, if he had some reason to argue and our case was supported by #1, would probably choose #2 and fume onward and upward about how we are "reading minds" or "speculating" to arrive at #1. Of course #2 isn't something that is impossible by any means. But #1 is supported by the social data offered in John 4, namely, the woman's many relationships with men that would cause her to suffer social ostracism from the other women of the community. Skeptic X may then spit more stuff about "reading minds" and "you're only assuming that happened," blase squase, etc etc. Well, at that point, he's already roadkill. When the resort is to endless and pointless questions, that's where the terminus is and Skeptic X is running his gator in a darkened room where the party ended 6 hours ago. It's rather like this:

Skeptic X: I went to the dentist today and had a tooth pulled.

MCKINSEY: I don't believe it. I think you had that tooth knocked out in a fight.

T: WHAT! Where do you get off with that?

M: I think you're just covering up something and don't want to admit you got bested in a fight.

T: Baloney! Do you see any other bruises on me? How could I have been in a fight?

M: You probably lost after one punch, ya wimp!

T: OH YEAH! Well, here's a card from my dentist showing I had an appointment today, plus the lollipop he gave me for being good. So what do you say to that?

M: Big deal. You can get a lolly from any candy store and say it came from a dentist. And you could swipe a card from his desk and write your own appointment in it.

T: Well, this is his handwriting! I can prove it! Here's a letter from him with the same handwriting.

M: You probably paid him off to make that stuff, to get out of the embarrassment of being bested in a fight. Or maybe you're a good forger. Or you hired one. Heck, you probably even paid your dentist to say you were there today. You'll do anything to get out of jams like this, just like you did with Ezion-geber.

T: &%$#*#!

Absurd? Not at all. What we will see is that while our answer derives from relevant background data, Skeptic X's attempts to counter are rooted in hooking or crooking any excuse he can make -- even to the point of making a sociological bungle that will send him to the corner for weeks. Now let's get to that.

To begin, Skeptic X misses our comment, "That much is obviously true," and takes it as a reference to "that the word archiereus was used in reference to Abiathar" -- we follow this phrase with a description showing how Abby would be a renowned priest, and it is his "renown-ness" that we say is obviously true. Skeptic X claims we gave no answer to this, but then gets to our answer: "Abiathar served David for the entirety of his reign of 40 years and had the privilege, along with Zadok, of carrying the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred Jewish religious object." To this it is said:

...I showed that the probable reason why David selected Abiathar to join his group was a feeling of guilt that David had over the massacre of Ahimelech and the other priests at Nob, which David correctly believed had been caused by the aid that Ahimelech had given him.

Wha ha! Let's reply with the same mantra Skeptic X uses: "What? He can read David's mind?" "It doesn't say in the text that David felt guilty!" Now I'm sure Skeptic X will want to turn the table here and say, "Yeah, well, it's a reasonable supposition, isn't it?" Nope! It isn't. This is where Skeptic X makes his humungous sociological blunder. Skeptic X fans are advised that what follows is the sort of thing that would go in your "baffling with BS file" as something you have no answer for, can't understand, and think I am making up. Ready?

News flash: There is no way David took on Abby out of guilt, because guilt is a modern invention. Now while you skeptics out there are trying to wipe the baccy off your juice harp, here's a little blurb from Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Speaking on forgiveness in the NT, they say: "Since the introspective, guilt-oriented outlook of industrialized societies did not exist [in NT times], it is unlikely that forgiveness meant psychological healing. Instead, forgiveness by God meant being divinely restored to one's position and therefore freed from fear of loss at the hands of God." [63] Of course we don't think it was any different in OT times, either, and you can try to say that it is, but we say it wasn't. Dave didn't ask Abby along out of guilt; he asked him along because it was the right thing to do, and the right thing to restore to him a position of the sort held by his father, and give him the safety his father had not had. Guilt? Pah humbug. That's Skeptic X anachronizing again. And that he does so tells us how much any of his other "hichb" scenarios might be worth.

Skeptic X might fume back that it does not matter if Dave felt guilty or was just righting a perceived wrong guilt-free. That's fine -- but we never argued that Dave made the initial selection because of Abby's good rep in the first place. That rep came out of 40 years of faithful service, and while any man who held a job 40 years today would 99% of the time be regarded as someone who did a danged good job (Skeptic X worked 30+ years at one place, did he not? Did he manage that with lousy performance reviews?), Skeptic X says no, can't be, we need something more specific than that, and then burps:

As for [Holding]'s claim that Abiathar and Zadok "carried the ark of the covenant," which was the most sacred of Jewish religious objects, he should read the text again.

Skeptic X quotes 2 Sam. 15:24-25, but whoops, that's not far enough:

2 Samuel 15:29 Zadok therefore and Abiathar carried the ark of God again to Jerusalem: and they tarried there.

"Not specific enough!" Skeptic X may fume. "Maybe it means he was supervisor over people who carried it!" Don't forget this:

1 Kings 2:26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.

So what happened to that famous Skeptic X-bility to quote Scripture? But we're not through yet. It's said, "How would that prove [Holding]'s claim that Abiathar was a 'stickler for the law' and a 'renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law'?" Well, d'oh! Do you work under a great king like David, a king eminently loyal to God other than a few blecks, for 40 years and do so without being A-1 rated on following the law? Do you get to carry the most sacred object in Judaism if you are under this king and your nose is not clean? How many crayons does Skeptic X, the Church of Christ preacher with the degree from Bam Bam Bible College where we bet even suggesting using extrabiblical sources might get you thrown in the slammer, need before he can connect the dots? Was his 30 years of service at his community college accomplished by eating chips and drinking beer and telling students to write papers only if they felt like it? He proposes to "show later that priests who accompanied the ark were sometimes moral reprobates," but unless he corresponds that with being under a king like David, and staying in that position under such a king for such an extended period, it's just the usual shazam, and yes, it will be. Ulansey needed no specific statement from Mithraists to connect the dots, and be acclaimed by his peers for breaking open a new thesis of Mithraic origins; nor do we need it spelled out in 3-letter words just for the satisfaction of a former fundamentalist who is still a fundamentalist.

Now on epi. Let's recall that Skeptic X wanted this to mean, "before" as in, David was before the priest in a legal sense. I said he was floundering in Strong's without a license. "No, actually I was 'floundering' through Arndt's and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and a copy of the Greek New Testament," he says. In other words he was driving a limo rather than a pickup, but it turns out he had the same accident. I note that "no commentary takes epi here to mean physical location," to which he gripes:

Hmm, [Holding] must be familiar with all commentaries; otherwise, he couldn't have made this statement. How could he possibly know that no commentary takes epi in Mark 2:26 to mean physical location?

It's real easy. I live near one of the largest seminaries in the Southeast. They had 17 commentaries on Mark ranging variably in date and ideological slant. All but one opted to see epi as meaning either "when" or "in the days of" -- a time reference. The one that differed read it as meaning, "in the section of the OT on Abiathar," an idea based on a parallel to Mark using epi in Mark 12:26. Not one single, solitary commentary said it meant "before" in the judicial sense Skeptic X wants it to mean, and if he wants to beg off to the two translations he found that use "before," then by his own reckoning, from the old Hosea 1:4 debate game of "quote the English versions to prove your point and the heck with detail linguistics," he's lost bad enough to need a cargo hold full of band-aids. Not that we expect such consistency from Skeptic X in the first place -- the English versions are only right when they support him; otherwise, they're trying to cover an embarrassing error or something.

I noted that, "The Translator's Handbook to Mark's Gospel (Brill, 1961) indicates that epi with the genitive makes this a 'time' delineation [100]." Skeptic X offers back:

It can convey this but doesn't necessarily have to. Arndt & Gingrich said that epi could be used with the genitive, dative, or accusative and "with the genitive" conveyed "place," "on, upon, answering the question ‘where?'" They cited several examples (Matt. 6:10; Mark 6:47; Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:51; etc.), none of which conveyed the sense of "time."

The second definition given by Arndt & Gingrich stated that epi could mean "in the time of" in the sense of "under=during the rule or administration of." They again cited several examples, most of which are not at all helpful to [Holding]'s position.

Ironically enough, the third example that Arndt & Gingrich gave in this section of their definition of epi was none other than Mark 2:26.

Skeptic X isn't polite enough to say what edition of BAGD he is using, or on what page he found this, but I dug out two editions, the 4th ed. from the 50s [286] and an edition published in 2000 (which has Danker on board, too [363-5]). And guess what -- this material completely fizzles his idea that epi could mean here, "before" in a sense of "appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation". BAGD gives examples of those from 1 Tim. 6:13 and about half a dozen places. Mark 2:26 is conspicuously missing from that batch. Skeptic X quietly dodges this and whistles that Mark 2:26 means, "under the administration of Abiathar the high priest," which sorry, is not "appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation". That's a different part of BAGD's entry under epi. So Skeptic X made a big booboo here, and isn't willing to admit it, and hopes like heck no one will notice.

Hence, Skeptic X is reduced to saying, "[Holding] seems to think that if he cites what Casey said or what Brill said, that should settle the matter in his favor, but if I cite authorities like Arndt & Gingrich, who say the opposite, do we have a stalemate or what?" By Skeptic X's Quote the Versions Rule, it does; not that we follow such an absurd rule in the first place, but if Skeptic X wants to play the majority game he needs to do it consistently, not just "when I say so and when I like it." That he hasn't the wherewithal to answer arguments brought forth by scholars who know their business is just too bad. And anyway, we see that BAGD doesn't disagree with us at all -- it makes epi in Mark 2:26 a time reference, just as Casey and the Brill book do.

But now to where Skeptic X tries to diss Abiathar, and this is more amusing than Jerry Lewis getting a cream pie in the face. After whining that I did not give enough space to showing Skeptic X's data that Ahimelech was an honorable man (we showed more than enough for anyone not on the Nitpick Parade and desperate to score points with gullible readers -- not that it matters, since the whole issue is a matter of long-term reputation, which Abiathar had 40 years and more of behind him, as opposed to Ahmy's fleeting cameos), and re-repeating his previous arguments, we get to the place where Skeptic X actually tries to sniffle back with a reply to my counters. On Abby using an "ephod" for divination, I said that "inquiring of Yahweh was not forbidden by the law, no matter what spin Skeptic X puts on the matter." To this we are given a diversion on divination in the ANE, but none of this shows that inquiring of Yahweh was forbidden. Skeptic X barks, "I suspect that this would have been done much in the same way that king Mesha of the Moabites inquired of Chemosh, wouldn't it? So what do we conclude here? Was it divination if some non-Hebraic king 'inquired' of his god but not divination if a Hebrew king so inquired of his god?" Skeptic X needs more than suspicions, by his own rhetoric ("Where is that in the text?"); but if this is so then we end up with the ridiculous conclusion that one cannot use a telephone to call a doctor if it is also used to call a prostitute. What it comes down to is that Skeptic X can find no prohibition anywhere, on any particular means, of inquiring of Yahweh (i.e., it was not mainly how you called, but who you called, and Skeptic X needs to show beyond that that the methods were similar enough), and to cover his embarrassment needs to resort to a mini-lecture on the ANE (as if he knew that from "A & E" or the History Channel) and then bark about how silly it is to believe in things like miraculous contact with Yahweh in the first place. A blatant dodge which reads, "Whoops, I forgot to prove that this was actually against the law. Silly me. Can we change the subject?"

So now back to Ark carrying. Now even Nazis who carried the Ark got shazammed, and Skeptic X wants to try to muffle that high-level resume item on Abby's list by showing that scoundrels, too, carried the Ark. Too bad for Skeptic X, the examples he chooses are essentially the same as trying to use as an example the guy who was fired for viewing porn at his desk rather than someone like Abby who stuck it out for 40+ years under a pretty serious king. He points to "Eli's sons, Hopni and Phinehas," -- guys who as he admits, ended up with a case of dead for their indiscretions! Rather than countering my point, this only proves it! Abby spent 40+ years in the job and didn't get the divine zap. That sounds like someone who was 99% likely to have the law on the ball to me! But next Skeptic X switches gears and tries to make Abby's earthly boss out to be a softie. Re my comment that "...David was regarded as Israel's greatest king," it is sniffled:

Well, yes, I would dispute that, and I have the "inspired, inerrant word of God" on my side.

2 Kings 23:24-25 Moreover Josiah put away the mediums, wizards, teraphim, idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, so that he established the words of the law that were written in the book that the priest Hilkiah had found in the house of Yahweh. Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.

To quote the operator, "Sorry, wrong number!" Josiah was a reformer; he had a reversal to accomplish and that's what he got praise for here. Dave didn't have a reversal to do like this one. This is apples and oranges. In contrast, David gets more "air time" in the OT and NT than any other king (since Skeptic X likes word counts: Dave is mentioned 1085 times, Josiah only 53); he accomplished more politically, religiously, and personally combined (even if he was exceeded in singular aspects by his son Solomon -- who of course, owed him much in terms of influence and setting things up so that he had time to gather wealth and power, just like the WWII generation set the tone for later ease and prosperity!) than any other Jewish king; he also got it said of him, "...David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite," and he was the point of comparison for all later kings, including Josiah (2 Kings 22:2, "And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.") Josiah outranked David? Josiah was measured by the standard of David! Skeptic X still hasn't learned his lesson about reading Semitic language with the proper nuances. All that stuff is probably buried in his BS Baffle File.

I note that, "one may as well say that any man who served under George Washington in a high position for the duration of his Presidency was not thereby implicitly someone who did his job very well." I'll add this as a comparison. One may as well say that Skeptic X, after spending 30+ years at the same job, was implicitly someone who did not do his job well. We take nothing away from Skeptic X for this: Few people survive even a decade in any job; to last that long indicates dedication and professionalism in a position, or maybe an inability to get a better job, but we won't go there. We wonder if Skeptic X would allow us to reply that we have an "idealistic" view of his superiors and if he would accept an implication that he stayed where he was 30 years via "political rewards and cronyism." What's all this about not finding stuff in the text? Can we have some consistency, here? Of course, if Skeptic X wants to tell us he did kiss various anatomies to keep his job, who are we to argue?

And then, back to defending Ahimelech. Skeptic X repeats his same arguments about him and about Abaithar first, just to make sure the gullible skeptical readers are sufficently dazed, and then, where I say, "Ahimelech, it is said, 'was a person of high integrity, who was willing to reprimand a king who he thought was wrong' (though the context is that of responding to an accusation by Saul against him, to which we would expect such a response!)," it is said:

We would expect such a response to an angry accusation from an absolute monarch? Surely, [Holding] is kidding. An unprincipled person would certainly not have spoken so bluntly to a king who held the power of life and death in his hands. A person without principles would have tried a diplomatic route.

Whoa! There's that guy reading minds again, even if he thinks no one else can. Where is there a blunt tone of voice in any of this? You think "diplomacy" would be first choice anyway before a nutcase like Saul who was known for his rashness? What is "diplomacy" and how would it emerge in this context? Why would it be wrong in the first place? I see no reason to think Ahmy was being blunt or mouthing off bravely -- he was telling the truth; he pointed out, very accurately, that David had been one of Saul's faithful servants (put to Saul in the form of question, which is actually a very "diplomatic" way to approach a king! -- which is not to say it is wrong or bad, contrary to Skeptic X's implication). None of this is enough to say one way or the other whether Ahmy was a man of integrity. Maybe he was brave here, and if he was that does not mean he was not telling the truth anyway. We do not know whether he held a high position or for what length of time he did so. We do not know what responsibilities he had. We do not know if his service was so valued that he would have been excused (as Abby was) from the death penalty. Again: This is Skeptic X trying to make the Mona Lisa out of postage stamp-sized piece of paper and a fingerpaint set. He can spread all the manure he wants, but the roses aren't growing.

Finally we get to where Skeptic X tries to diss Abby over his miscue in Solomon's time in siding with Adonijah. After wasting space recounting the story all over again (guaranteed to make the skeptical readers nod in agreement and keep nodding long after the parade has passed), we get to tacks in which Skeptic X refers to 1 Kings 1:5-7 and asks, "Does [Holding] think that this conference that Adonijah had with Abiathar and David's leading general was just a friendly chat that didn't involve any political angles at all?" No, I don't. What I said was that nothing here shows Abby to be an opportunist, or displays his motives. Skeptic X fumes back that we should be able to find such things "implicit in the context" but he's forgotten something in one of those contextual moments. By this time Abiathar was at least 55-60 years old -- 40 years under David, and he wasn't just a kid when he met David from the looks of things. There wasn't any gingko baloba around, and what I see is more of a case of Adonijah trying to take the old man for a ride by telling him lies and giving him the same cock and bull story he was feeding everyone else, telling them just what he wanted them to hear and more. Does Skeptic X want to talk political realities? How about the scenario of the old and complacent "official emeritus," not quite all there any more and giving in to the wiles of a conniving young usurper? Skeptic X is fairly sharp for his age, but I don't have to remind him, I think, of the many elderly victims of scams in this era who end up dumping their life savings into some scheme to raise the Titanic or some nonsense like that. This is why we have organizations like the AARP and the Better Business Bureau. Abby wasn't so lucky, and lived in a time when living was harsher and the ravages of age were around every corner, so if he wants to posit a scenario, mine uses more of the data far more efficiently than his "Abby the opportunist" scenario. In fact, it does better, since it is silly to see Abby "consolidating his own position with the next king." What power did the king have to legitimately replace or place priests, and how do we know Abby needed that security in the first place? He wouldn't, unless he knew David's other possible successor was a threat to him, and we have no sign that Sol would have been like that.

Skeptic X adds that he "can't help wondering why Abiathar didn't just whip out his ephod and 'inquire of Yahweh' to learn what course of action he should take during the power struggle," but I say you may as well ask why the elderly (or even the younger set) don't call a lawyer or the BBB before plopping down the life's savings on that new mohair farm. When the risk is low enough, or covered up enough by whatever means, flattery and promises can get you anywhere, especially with the vulnerable. Finally he adds this blurb:

After Solomon's sentence was pronounced on Abiathar, the writer said, "So Solomon banished Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh, thus fulfilling the word of Yahweh that he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh" (1 Kings 2:27). So Abiathar died in disgrace, stripped of his priesthood, a turn in his life that was claimed as a prophetic fulfillment that had been pronounced on the house of Eli because of the priestly corruption of Hopni and Phinehas.

Thank you. And the point is? This doesn't make any poor reflection on Abby at all. Next we get to where I say, "Nor can it be shown except by Skeptic X-spin that Ab originally aligned himself with David purely to save his own life..." To this Skeptic X remands to "a description of the extent of Saul's massacre of the priests at Nob," quoting 1 Samuel 22:18-23, in which Abby escapes and gets to David, who takes him in as noted above. Skeptic X blerps:

Why did Abiathar flee after David, who had gone into Philistine territory? Why didn't he just flee elsewhere? David said, "You will be safe with me." Does [Holding] think that Abiathar wasn't aware of this?

Well, yowsa again! Where was Abby supposed to go? Philistia? Florida? The woods? Note again I say that it is not a case of aligning with David purely to save his own life. There is not a whit of reason to say that Abby was only out to save his skin, as opposed to aligning with David for the long term health of the nation, or because he thought David was a better person to choose sides with. Of course, odds were that he'd get the bonus of living longer if he sided with David, but so what? Why should that make him do something different? That's like saying you should refuse to do CPR because you might get a reward or publicity for saving a life. What Skeptic X needs here, and will never find, is something specifically showing (either explicitly, or implicitly in a way that is the most in accord with available data) Abby to be an opportunist, as opposed to either an ignorant victim (as above) or someone who knows he needs to join the ranks of the righteous for the good of all. His 40+ years serving Israel's greatest king suggests a person with the right motives and the right performance. Of course one can always throw out the idea that maybe he was actually a rotten egg who kissed rear ends endlessly, just as one could readily accuse Skeptic X of keeping his 30+ year job by paying enormous bribes, simply because we now and then saw him go from the bank straight to the president's office. Maybe he even used some of those donations to his own organization to get the job done. It's very easy to blow smoke and flash mirrors, but in the final analysis it is our argument that fits the data better, and Skeptic X has done zippo to countermand it, beyond writing his own column for The National Enquirer.

Next round: here.