When was Jesus Born?

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

"So, you still have nothing to suggest that Kiefer committed the fallacy of special pleading, and absolutely no specific evidence that his paper did not properly follow established prinicples of historical study.

Great work, Dingo Dave!

Maybe your next post can take us even further from your original topic?

Special pleading was only one of the sins I accused Kiefer of committing in his article. The others were that the article was full of outlandish speculations and 'how it could have been' scenarios. For some reason you have chosen to latch onto the 'special pleading' section of my comments.

Did you happen to also read part two of his defence of the birth narratives, in which Kiefer speculates about the legend of Herod's slaughter of the Bethlehem babies? If not, you can read it here. Just click on the link.

'Part two - The Massacre of the Innocents'

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/ol...y/infancy2.html

In which he writes;

A MYTHOGRAPHER LOOKS AT THE BETHLEHEM STORY

A friend of mine who is interested in myth and legend offers the following comments at this point.

QUOTE: Yes, as you have just pointed out, there is a close parallel between the story of Pharaoh and the baby Moses, and the story of Herod and the baby Jesus. In fact, that is precisely why I cannot accept such stories as history. They are part of a pattern as old as the human imagination. In every country we find the story of the baby whom the wicked king tried to kill, usually because he was warned by an oracle that this baby, or some baby born that year, would grow up to overthrow him. Romulus and Remus, Oedipus, Jason, Paris, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus himself, Cyrus, Arthur and Mordred (to shift mythologies) -- the list goes on and on. Is it not clear that this is the stuff of legend -- that tales like this collect naturally about the childhoods of great men, whether the men themselves are real or legendary? But although the theme is common to legends throughout the world, the specific working out of the details by Matthew is Jewish. Matthew wishes to show that Jesus fulfilled numerous prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures. He also wants to show that there are parallels between the life of Jesus and the history of great Jewish heroes of the past, or the history of the Jewish people as a whole... Stars, comets, or other heavenly portents hailing the birth of a great man were almost routine in the thought of that time... In fact, it is difficult to point to an element in Matthew's story of the birth that is not straightforwardly explained by the story-tellers' conventions as to what such a birth should be like, or by Matthew's wish to work in fulfilments of prophecy, or by his wish to draw parallels with past sacred history, or by his wish to draw morals about Jews and gentiles... Why does Joseph keep getting messages in dreams? Because the original Joseph, who was the guardian in Egypt of an earlier Holy Family, was an outstanding dreamer and interpreter of dreams. At the same time, Matthew has a good sense, perhaps not always consciously exercised, of what is appropriate in a fairy tale. The wise men seek advice from the scribes, not only to point a Jewish-Gentile moral, but also because someone journeying on a quest must naturally stop to seek advice or guidance from someone, say a witch, or a holy hermit, or a magic mirror, depending on the tale. Note that in calling the story a fairy-tale, we are not disparaging it. It is intended to appeal to our imaginations, to our sense of awe and wonder, to the perpetual child in every one of us. Its very atmosphere breathes enchantment. The three kings riding on their camels loom up before us in the starlight, and we surrender once again to the magic of a story that never grows old. And what is wrong with that? Is HAMLET any less a great play because it is not historically accurate? Cannot a story convey a great spiritual message without being the least bit factual?

To which he responded;

Yes, we can make out an excellent case for classifying the Bethlehem story as a fairy-tale, one of the noblest of its kind, and letting it go at that. But we must not be too hasty. That a story appeals to the imagination is not enough by itself to prove that it is solely a product of the teller's imagination and has no basis in fact. We might start out by noticing that much of the fairy tale atmosphere is an effect of distance. To us, a camel is exotic. To Matthew and his readers, it was just a smelly but useful animal.

and;

On the specific subject of the Infancy Narratives, the best single source of information and background on the above list is THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH, by Raymond Brown. He is a Roman Catholic priest, and a top-notch scholar, and his book is loaded with footnotes... I should remark that Brown is in general less confident than I am that the Infancy Narratives are historical... The reader of my work who goes on to read Brown (a decision that I encourage) may be disposed to say, "Well, these arguments seemed fairly plausible when Kiefer stated them, but Brown doesn't seem quite as enthusiastic about them, and he ought to be the better judge of their worth, since he is obviously the greater scholar."

Towards the end of this article he writes; (emphasis is mine)

A few persons have written to say: Where's the bibliography? I regret to say that there isn't one, or at least not a full-scale one. I originally wrote this up as a lecture series for my Sunday-school class, and believe me, those kids do not head for the library after class to check out bibliographical references!... Part Three of this opus (at the moment no Part Four is projected) will appear in due course.

How much more obvious could it get that Kiefer is not being the slightest bit objective with his wild speculations and special pleading?

It should be blindingly obvious to any fair minded individual that he is writing this stuff with a pre-existing agenda, which is, a defence of the veracity of Bible miracles.

This is not an objective analysis of some ancient documents Bryan, it's a Sunday-school lesson. You have referred us to a Sunday-school lesson in your defence of the historical authenticity of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.

Kiefer's arguments might sound convincing to a group of Sunday-school children, but I'm afraid they don't impress me, nor the multitude of Bible scholars and ancient historians who rightly point out that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are almost certainly concoctions of the authors mixed up with pre-existing legends and folklore already circulating amongst the gullible and impressionable fledgling Christian communities of the day.

[Guest Tom from Oregon]

Bryan wrote:

Special pleading was only one of the sins I accused Kiefer of committing in his article. The others were that the article was full of outlandish speculations and 'how it could have been' scenarios. For some reason you have chosen to latch onto the 'special pleading' section of my comments.

Did you happen to also read part two of his defence of the birth narratives, in which Kiefer speculates about the legend of Herod's slaughter of the Bethlehem babies? If not, you can read it here. Just click on the link.

'Part two - The Massacre of the Innocents'

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/ol...y/infancy2.html

In which he writes;

To which he responded;

and;

Towards the end of this article he writes; (emphasis is mine)

How much more obvious could it get that Kiefer is not being the slightest bit objective with his wild speculations and special pleading?

It should be blindingly obvious to any fair minded individual that he is writing this stuff with a pre-existing agenda, which is, a defence of the veracity of Bible miracles.

This is not an objective analysis of some ancient documents Bryan, it's a Sunday-school lesson. You have referred us to a Sunday-school lesson in your defence of the historical authenticity of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.   

Kiefer's arguments might sound convincing to a group of Sunday-school children, but I'm afraid they don't impress me, nor the multitude of Bible scholars and ancient historians who rightly point out that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are almost certainly concoctions of the authors mixed up with pre-existing legends and folklore already circulating amongst the gullible and impressionable fledgling Christian communities of the day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would someone please tell me what a Dingodave is ?? Thanks.

[Bryan]

Special pleading was only one of the sins I accused Kiefer of committing in his article. The others were that the article was full of outlandish speculations and 'how it could have been' scenarios. For some reason you have chosen to latch onto the 'special pleading' section of my comments.

On the contrary, I treated that misconception of yours very early on, when I pointed out to you that maybes and speculations were a normal part of doing history (corresponding to scientific theorizing).

See post #49

You have yet to specify any "outlandish" speculations, AFAICS, so you seem to be making stuff up again.

Not to mention the fact that you introduced your post #53 with the followiing:

"I will now attempt to show you why I accuse this apologist of ‘special pleading’ if it will make you happy."

Apparently you're no longer concerned over my happiness.

Did you happen to also read part two of his defence of the birth narratives, in which Kiefer speculates about the legend of Herod's slaughter of the Bethlehem babies?

Why? Did you want to change the topic to a different essay?

If not, you can read it here. Just click on the link.

'Part two - The Massacre of the Innocents'

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/ol...y/infancy2.html

In which he writes;

To which he responded;

and;

Towards the end of this article he writes; (emphasis is mine)

How much more obvious could it get that Kiefer is not being the slightest bit objective with his wild speculations and special pleading?

How much more obvious could it get that you have yet to provide any legitimate examples of Kiefer's alleged "wild speculations" or "special pleading"?

It should be blindingly obvious to any fair minded individual that he is writing this stuff with a pre-existing agenda, which is, a defence of the veracity of Bible miracles.

You're trying to sidestep the obvious, again.

The essay I cited argues for the historicity of the narrative, and remains entirely focused on non-miraculous claims of the text.

This is not an objective analysis of some ancient documents Bryan, it's a Sunday-school lesson.

Ah. And a Sunday-school lesson cannot consist of an objective analysis of ancient documents?

Are you listening to yourself? All you've got is an ad hominem attack on Kiefer (not a fallacious ad hom, but certainly a weak argument as such things go).

You have referred us to a Sunday-school lesson in your defence of the historical authenticity of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.   

... and now the appeal to ridicule (another fallacy).

Did you take a look at the sources he used? It's a solid list.

Kiefer's arguments might sound convincing to a group of Sunday-school children, but I'm afraid they don't impress me, nor the multitude of Bible scholars and ancient historians who rightly point out that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are almost certainly concoctions of the authors mixed up with pre-existing legends and folklore already circulating amongst the gullible and impressionable fledgling Christian communities of the day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you didn't bother looking at the bibliographic materials, apparently.

So, to recap, Dingo Dave still has not met his promised goal of providing an example of special pleading.

He has, on the other hand, succeeded in changing the subject again (introducing voluminous portions of another Kiefer essay) and continuing his ad hom attacks on Kiefer.

Perhaps a drinking binge could improve your performance.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

You have yet to specify any "outlandish" speculations, AFAICS, so you seem to be making stuff up again.

How about;

"Perhaps the Magi, because they were clever, or because they were lucky, or because God was with them, managed to give Herod's spies the slip and come to Bethlehem untailed. They may not have told anyone the details, and indeed may not have known anything about it themselves. There were many Jews who hated Herod and who were hoping for the Messiah. There was an active guerrilla movement, called the Zealots, and it surely had spies at Herod's court. Perhaps when the Magi left Jerusalem, followed at a discreet distance by a few of Herod's spies, a small band of horsemen rode out of the hills, slit the spies' throats, and rode away without the Magi's ever knowing about it."

or;

"However, if he were going to Bethlehem to save the family estate from confiscation, and if Mary had inherited some Bethlehem property in her own right (a possibility we shall come back to later), then she would come along for the same reason."

How much more obvious could it get that you have yet to provide any legitimate examples of Kiefer's alleged "wild speculations" or "special pleading"?

You're trying to sidestep the obvious, again.

I have provided them. It's just that you refuse to acknowledge them.

The essay I cited argues for the historicity of the narrative, and remains entirely focused on non-miraculous claims of the text.

Rubbish!

"The Magi, being warned in a dream, did not report back to Herod, but returned home by a different way (or "by different ways"). They may have been influenced by the fact that Mars was due to join Jupiter and Saturn in February, and Mars is the planet of war and bloodshed. This, plus what they had learned of Herod, by meeting him and in other ways, may have made them suspect trouble ahead. Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, took the child and his mother and fled to Egypt."

and

"Remember that the shepherds were abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night."

Remember that according to the story, the shepherds who were 'abiding in the fields' were tipped off about the magic baby by a choir of angels singing in the sky.

Ah.  And a Sunday-school lesson cannot consist of an objective analysis of ancient documents?

No it can't. You forget that I've sat though hundreds of the things as a child, and taught them myself. Sunday-school lessons are all about indoctrination, not education.

Are you listening to yourself?  All you've got is an ad hominem attack on Kiefer (not a fallacious ad hom, but certainly a weak argument as such things go).

... and now the appeal to ridicule (another fallacy).

What ad hominem? Is pointing out that he approaches the whole issue of the birth narritives with pro-supernatural biases an ad hominem? I have amply demonstrated that Kiefer is a fanatical Bible believer. In which case he is certainly not objective about Bible stories.

Did you take a look at the sources he used?  It's a solid list.

So you didn't bother looking at the bibliographic materials, apparently.

It's mostly a solid list of other apologetics materials.

So, to recap, Dingo Dave still has not met his promised goal of providing an example of special pleading.

He has, on the other hand, succeeded in changing the subject again (introducing voluminous portions of another Kiefer essay) and continuing his ad hom attacks on Kiefer.

In the subsequent article in the series (which I quoted from), Kiefer knowingly and enthusiastically rejects the naturalistic explanation for the origen of the birth narratives in favour of the 'woo woo' explanation.

So in this case, why is calling a spade a spade an ad hominem? He deserves it.

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

How about;

"Perhaps the Magi, because they were clever, or because they were lucky, or because God was with them, managed to give Herod's spies the slip and come to Bethlehem untailed.

How is that outlandish? Plus it's only one of three options. Are "clever" and "lucky" outlandish also?

You left out the preceding sentences, which help make clear that speculation is part of history. Can't bear the taste of crow, eh? ("This remark has been ridiculed on the grounds that Herod was too clever and too suspicious to have depended on the Magi. Surely he would have had them followed. But how do we know that he did not? Perhaps the Magi, because they were clever ...")

They may not have told anyone the details, and indeed may not have known anything about it themselves. There were many Jews who hated Herod and who were hoping for the Messiah. There was an active guerrilla movement, called the Zealots, and it surely had spies at Herod's court. Perhaps when the Magi left Jerusalem, followed at a discreet distance by a few of Herod's spies, a small band of horsemen rode out of the hills, slit the spies' throats, and rode away without the Magi's ever knowing about it."

This is part of the same scenario, you realize?

Where you're going awry, Dingo Dave, is in calling a broad sketch of possibilities "outlandish" when they are not being offered as particular solutions to textual difficulties. History is made up of an infinitude of unlikely events. The historian cannot dismiss any explanation out-of-hand.

or;

"However, if he were going to Bethlehem to save the family estate from confiscation, and if Mary had inherited some Bethlehem property in her own right (a possibility we shall come back to later), then she would come along for the same reason."

You skipped the part about the Egyptian census, and you're ignoring the context of the statement.

He is not providing explanations, he is specifying the conditions under which Mary would have accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem even if the Egyptian rules didn't apply.

Would a good historian completely ignore those possibilities?

I have provided them. It's just that you refuse to acknowledge them.

Hah! Before now?

Rubbish!

"The Magi, being warned in a dream, did not report back to Herod, but returned home by a different way (or "by different ways"). They may have been influenced by the fact that Mars was due to join Jupiter and Saturn in February, and Mars is the planet of war and bloodshed. This, plus what they had learned of Herod, by meeting him and in other ways, may have made them suspect trouble ahead. Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, took the child and his mother and fled to Egypt."

and

"Remember that the shepherds were abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night."

The dream warning was most certainly not a focus of the paper, your bold emphasis notwithstanding.

The role of Mars in astrology is not a supernatural element. It emphasizes the factual role that such a belief may have had on the behavior of astrologers.

Both dream references simply recap the gospel narrative. It is not a focus of the paper.

Remember that according to the story, the shepherds who were 'abiding in the fields' were tipped off about the magic baby by a choir of angels singing in the sky.

And do you remember how the angels are not mentioned at all at the page I cited?

Yet you bring it up anyway, pretending that it's relevant.

What ad hominem? Is pointing out that he approaches the whole issue of the birth narritives with pro-supernatural biases an ad hominem?

Yes, it is. Do you need for me to provide you with another educational link?

I have amply demonstrated that Kiefer is a fanatical Bible believer. In which case he is certainly not objective about Bible stories.

Congratulations! But you said you were going to show how he utilized the fallacy of special pleading.

How did you get so severely sidetracked?

It's mostly a solid list of other apologetics materials.

How did you get your mind so solidly closed?

In the subsequent article in the series (which I quoted from), Kiefer knowingly and enthusiastically rejects the naturalistic explanation for the origen of the birth narratives in favour of the 'woo woo' explanation.

What is his reasoning?

Oh, you don't want to talk about that. It's apologetics, therefore bunk.

So in this case, why is calling a spade a spade an ad hominem? He deserves it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it perfectly fits the definition of ad hominem. That's why.

It's a weak argument in this case, not a fallacy.

It's too much of a project to educate you, Dingo Dave.

You don't know what you're talking about, you routinely argue fallaciously, and you won't admit you're wrong even after it's become obvious.

Send me a PM whenever you're interested in either supporting your assertion about the alleged special pleading fallacy or when you're willing to admit your failure in establishing the same.

Seeya.