![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/01\/WiseMen5.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce\u2019s\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I am replying to Jonathan\u2019s article, \u201cMental Contortions Required of Christians to Believe the Nativity Accounts\u201d<\/a> (12-23-19). Although he likely has made each argument in his book on the Nativity and elsewhere, nevertheless, this particular article is in the form of a \u201cgish gallop\u201d<\/a>: an unsavory argumentative technique or strategy often decried by atheists. Wikipedia<\/a> explains:<\/p>\n The\u00a0Gish gallop<\/b>\u00a0is a term for an\u00a0eristic<\/a>\u00a0technique in which a\u00a0debater\u00a0attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. The term was coined by\u00a0Eugenie Scott<\/a>; . . . It is similar to a methodology used in formal debate called\u00a0spreading<\/a>. . . .<\/p>\n During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the \u201cGish galloper\u201d takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is not a formal debate, with timing and structure, etc., so I can take all the time I like to refute each point, but the technique itself remains dubious. It was disparaged on Jonathan\u2019s blog by fellow blogger there, Aaron Adair (3-8-13)<\/a>:<\/p>\n . . . putting out a large number of statements in quick succession that his opponent almost certainly could not refute in the time allotted. This has become known as the\u00a0Gish Gallop<\/a>, and it has been noted as a technique used by others in a debate: throw out many arguments, your opponents will be able to deal with only so many and not\u00a0adequately, and you can claim one of your un-refuted arguments stands and that means you are right.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So \u2014 again \u2014 this is not a formal debate, and Jonathan has written about this stuff elsewhere and can theoretically defend any of those arguments against criticism (I\u2019m not denying that he has done<\/em> so or that he would be willing<\/em> to do so). But this<\/em> paper of his uses the technique. If a Christian did this in any major atheist forum we would be laughed to scorn and mocked (we always are anyway<\/em> in those places).<\/p>\n I should note, however, that the delightful, informative\u00a0RationalWiki<\/i>\u00a0page, \u201cGish Gallop\u201d<\/a> by no means confines<\/em> the tactic to oral, formal debate. It refers to readers and written exchanges several times, and even includes an entire section called \u201cin written debate\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n Jonathan throws out no less than 28 objections to the biblical Nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke: most only one-sentence long. I\u2019ll play along and make (mostly) short replies (as my time is not unlimited) or provide a relevant link: as I have written quite a bit about Christmas controversies with atheists as well.<\/p>\n As I write, there are still three of my recent papers in reply to Jonathan that he has chosen thus far not to reply to:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Jesus the \u201cNazarene\u201d Redux (vs. Jonathan M. S. Pearce)<\/a>\u00a0[12-19-20]<\/p>\n I think there are several older critiques of mine from 2017 that he has not replied to, either. I have offered ten critiques of his material altogether, not including this one.\u00a0I hope<\/em> he has not now decided to take the \u201cflee for the hills\u201d \/ \u201chear no evil\u201d approach of his fellow anti-theist atheists Dr. David Madison<\/a> (whom I\u2019ve refuted 44 times with no reply), Bob Seidensticker<\/a> (69 times without any peep back), and John Loftus<\/a> (10 critiques of his \u201cmagnum opus\u201d book, which he has utterly ignored). If he decides to go this route, I will continue critiquing his material, as I desire. No skin off my back. His choice . . .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n In my book,<\/span>The Nativity: A Critical Examination<\/a>, I think I give ample evidence that allows one to conclude that the historicity of the nativity accounts is sorely and surely challenged.\u00a0All<\/strong>\u00a0of the aspects and claims, that is. There are problems, for sure, if one accepts that some claims are false but others are true. But the simple fact of the matter is that all of the claims are highly questionable.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems.<\/span><\/p>\n [in my replies below, I have added numbers<\/em> to his gish gallop claims. His original words didn\u2019t have the numbers; it had bullet points]<\/p>\n In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must:<\/span><\/p>\n 1)\u00a0Special plead that the virgin birth motif is actually true for Christianity but is false for all other religions and myths that claim similarly.<\/span><\/p>\n This is true, but it is neither special pleading nor, I contend, controversial at all<\/em>. Exclusive claims that logically rule out other competing contradictory claims are made in all<\/em> belief-systems. It\u2019s foolish and irrelevant to single out Christianity for doing this, as if it is objectionable in and of itself. For example, the current consensus in scientific cosmology \/ astronomy is that the universe had a beginning and that it is not eternal or without a beginning. There were scientists who resisted this for decades (even Einstein did for a time), until the Big Bang Theory became consensus in the 1960s (or 70s at the latest).<\/p>\n There are atheists who resist it today, and argue for a cyclical universe or \u201cmultiverse\u201d (minus any compelling evidence). And there are various religious beliefs as to how the universe began. Of course, the Christian<\/em> view is completely harmonious with the Big Bang. The universe began out of nothing, or ex nihilo<\/em>, as the old theological phrase had it. Current science and Christianity teach this (though we add God in there as the cause of the Big Bang and science precludes that in its current methodological naturalism). So much the worse for those who disagree (as far as the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe). They\u2019re wrong.<\/p>\n 2) Deny that \u201cvirgin\u201d is a mistranslation.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not. I have dealt with this issue twice: both in response to Jonathan. He hasn\u2019t replied to the second paper yet:<\/p>\n Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: \u201cMistranslation\u201d of \u201cVirgin\u201d? (Isaiah 7:14)<\/a>\u00a0(with Glenn Miller) [7-26-17]<\/p>\n Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce)<\/a>\u00a0[12-18-20]<\/p>\n 3) Give a plausible explanation of from whence the male genome of Jesus came from and how this allowed him to be \u201cfully man\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n It was (obviously, in Christian belief) a miraculous intervention of God. It can\u2019t be explained naturally, by the nature of the case. Now, of course, for an atheist who denies that both God and miracles exist, it\u2019ll be implausible (what else is new?). But that doesn\u2019t prove that it\u2019s untrue. If one offers rational evidences for God\u2019s existence and also of miracles, then it\u2019s entirely possible and able to be believed in by rational thinkers, as an actual event, as God\u2019s revelation claims.<\/p>\n 4) Be able to render the two genealogies fully coherent without the explanation being contrived or ad hoc.<\/span><\/p>\n I did that, 3 1\/2 years ago:<\/p>\n Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: \u201cContradictory\u201d Genealogies of Christ?<\/a>\u00a0[7-27-17]<\/p>\n Atheists are fond of saying that everything we offer by way of evidence is \u201cridiculous\u201d (on a kind day), or \u201cad hoc\u201d or \u201cimplausible\u201d or \u201cspecial pleading.\u201d And they do because of what I mentioned above: they deny the necessary presuppositions of God\u2019s existence and (flowing from that) therefore the possibility and\/or factuality of miracles and the supernatural. Once having denied the possibility or actuality of those two things, then of course they will immediately dismiss all<\/em> Christian explanations as ad hoc or \u201cimplausible\u201d etc.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a way of trying to look impressive without offering any further arguments. But they have to deny such things, according to their atheist dogmas that literally disallow them from believing in anything that is inconsistent with atheism, or even to entertain a theoretical possibility.<\/p>\n 5) Believe that the genealogies are bona fide and not just tools to try to prove Jesus\u2019 Davidic and Messianic prophecy-fulfilling heritage.<\/span><\/p>\n This cynical sentiment simply flows from atheist hostility and bigotry against the Bible, Bible-writers, and Christians. Christians aren\u2019t obliged to factor that into any of our apologetics or beliefs. We take the Bible at face value, just as we would any other such literature, rather than starting out inveterately hostile to it. That\u2019s not an objective, scholarly approach. Besides, the Bible has had a mountain of evidence from history and archaeology that shows again and again that it is trustworthy in the details that it provides; therefore, can be trusted as a source. Those sots of independent verifications bolster our faith that the Bible is God\u2019s revelation to humankind.<\/p>\n 6) Be able to explain the inconsistency of the two accounts in contradicting each other as to where Joseph lived before the birth (without the explanation being contrived or ad hoc).<\/span><\/p>\n See:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth \u201cContradictions\u201d (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2)<\/a>\u00a0[7-28-17]<\/p>\n 7) Believe that a client kingdom under Herod could and would order a census under Roman diktat. This would be the only time in history this would have happened.<\/span><\/p>\n 8) Find it plausible that people would return, and find precedent for other occurrences of people returning, to their ancestral homes for a census (at an arbitrary number of generations before: 41).<\/span><\/p>\n 9) Give a probable explanation as to how a Galilean man was needed at a census in another judicial area.<\/span><\/p>\n 10) Give a plausible reason as to why Mary was required at the census (by the censors or by Joseph).<\/span><\/p>\n 11) Give a plausible explanation as to why Mary would make that 80 mile journey on donkey or on foot whilst heavily pregnant, and why Joseph would be happy to let her do that.<\/span><\/p>\n See:<\/span><\/p>\n The Census, Jesus\u2019 Birth in Bethlehem, & History\u00a0<\/a>[2-3-11]<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Herod\u2019s Death & Alleged \u201cContradictions\u201d\u00a0<\/a>(with Jimmy Akin) [7-25-17]<\/p>\n 12) Believe that Joseph could afford to take anywhere from a month to two years off work.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a foolish query. If necessary, he could save up for \u201coff\u201d months just as virtually all farmers and teachers do. Is that so inconceivable? Or, as a carpenter and likely stone mason as well, he had a skill that was \u201cportable\u201d: so that he could pick up odd jobs while traveling. This is the kind of stuff which vanishes as a supposed \u201cdifficulty\u201d with just a moment or two of unbiased, objective thought.<\/p>\n 13) Believe that, despite archaeological evidence, Nazareth existed as a proper settlement at the time of Jesus\u2019 birth.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know what \u201carchaeological evidence\u201d Jonathan is referring to, but there is more than enough to establish the existence of Nazareth as a town during the time of Jesus\u2019 birth and infancy. I already recounted it in a recent reply to Jonathan:<\/p>\n [T]he archaeological investigation revealed that in Nazareth itself, in the middle of the first century AD, anti-Roman rebels created a sizeable network of underground hiding places and tunnels underneath the town \u2013 big enough to shelter at least 100 people. . . .<\/p>\n The new archaeological investigation \u2013 the largest ever carried out into Roman period Nazareth \u2013 has revealed that Jesus\u2019s hometown is likely to have been considerably bigger than previously thought. It probably had a population of up to 1,000 (rather than just being a small-to-medium sized village of 100-500, as previously thought).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cOur new investigation has transformed archaeological knowledge of Roman Nazareth,\u201d said Dr Dark, who has just published the results of his research in a new book\u00a0Roman-Period and Byzantine Nazareth and its Hinterland<\/em>. . . .<\/p>\n The newly emerging picture of Roman-period Nazareth as a place of substantial religiosity does, however, resonate not only with the emergence of its most famous son, Jesus, but also with the fact that, in the mid-first or second century, it was chosen as the official residence of one of the high priests of the by-then-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, when all 24 of those Jewish religious leaders were driven into exile in Galilee. (\u201cNew archaeological evidence from Nazareth reveals religious and political environment in era of Jesus\u201d<\/a>, David Keys,\u00a0Independent<\/em>, 4-17-20)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n See also:\u00a0\u201cDid First-Century Nazareth Exist?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Bryan Windle,\u00a0Bible Archaeology Report<\/em>, 8-9-18; cf.\u00a0several related articles from a Google search<\/a>). Did it exist before Jesus\u2019 time? It looks like it\u00a0did<\/em>:<\/p>\n The Franciscan priest\u00a0Bellarmino Bagatti<\/a>,\u00a0\u201cDirector of Christian Archaeology\u201d, carried out extensive excavation of this \u201cVenerated Area\u201d from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the\u00a0Middle Bronze Age<\/a>\u00a0(2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the\u00a0Iron Age<\/a>\u00a0(1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time.\u00a0(Wikipedia,\u00a0\u201cNazareth\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s science. Jonathan has to grapple with the actual findings<\/em> and not just sit back and deny that there are<\/em> any such. As it is, that was from one of my reply-papers<\/a> that he has not found time to reply to these past 19 days (while replying to many others). Maybe he will<\/em> in due course, since it was during the holidays.<\/p>\n 14) Believe that the prophecies referred to Nazareth and not something else.<\/span><\/p>\n They do, but they were not from the Old Testament. See:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 15) Believe that the magi were not simply a theological tool derived from the Book of Daniel.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a variation of the undue cynicism which I skewered in my reply to #5 above. As such, it can be dismissed as a non sequitur<\/em>. That said (in principled protest), the factuality of these accounts is completely plausible based on what we know from secular historiography: that there was a group called the\u00a0Magi, who were were originally a Median (northwest Persian) tribe (Herodotus [Hist<\/i>.] i.101). They performed priestly functions, perhaps due to Zoroaster\u00a0possibly<\/i>\u00a0having belonged to the tribe (or belief that he did), and studied astronomy and astrology: in part likely learned from Babylon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Historians note that in Yemen, for example, there were kings who adhered to Judaism from about 120 B.C. to the sixth century A.D. Possibly, then, the wise men were Jewish or at least were strongly influenced by Jews.<\/p>\n If Jonathan or those who think like he does don\u2019t want to take my word for it, then perhaps they will be persuaded by the Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/em>:<\/p>\n Magus<\/strong>, plural\u00a0Magi<\/strong>, member of an ancient Persian clan specializing in cultic activities. The name is the Latinized form of\u00a0magoi<\/em>\u00a0(e.g.,<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0Herodotus<\/a>\u00a01:101), the ancient Greek transliteration of the Iranian original. From it the word magic is derived.<\/p>\n It is disputed whether the magi were from the beginning followers of\u00a0Zoroaster<\/a>\u00a0and his first propagandists. They do not appear as such in the trilingual inscription of\u00a0<\/span>B\u012bsit\u016bn<\/a>, in which\u00a0Darius the Great<\/a>\u00a0describes his speedy and final triumph over the magi who had revolted against his rule (522\u00a0BC<\/span>). Rather it appears that they\u00a0constituted\u00a0a\u00a0priesthood\u00a0serving several religions. The magi were a priestly caste during the Seleucid [312-63 BC<\/a>], Parthian [247 BC-224 AD<\/a>], and S\u0101s\u0101nian [224-651 AD<\/a>] periods; later parts of the\u00a0Avesta<\/a>, such as the ritualistic sections of the\u00a0Vid\u0113vd\u0101t<\/em>\u00a0(<\/span>Vendidad<\/a><\/em>), probably derive from them. From the 1st century\u00a0AD<\/span>\u00a0onward the word in its Syriac form (magusai) was applied to magicians and soothsayers, chiefly from\u00a0<\/span>Babylonia, with a reputation for the most varied forms of wisdom. As long as the Persian empire lasted there was always a distinction between the Persian magi, who were credited with profound and extraordinary religious knowledge, and the Babylonian magi, who were often considered to be outright imposters. (\u201cMagus: Persian priesthood\u201d<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A visit by such men to the west, based on astrological-type beliefs and star-gazing, using the route through the Fertile Crescent<\/a> around the Arabian and Syrian deserts that has been taken for many centuries by the Royal Road<\/a> and the King\u2019s Highway<\/a> and the Silk Road<\/a> (as I have recently written about<\/a>, not in reply to Jonathan) is completely plausible. There is no good reason to doubt the biblical account. Nothing in it (rightly understood in light of the many biblical genres) rings immediately untrue or questionable. Jonathan mentions the book of Daniel. Yeah: that\u2019s accurate, too, as we know that the Magi were in Babylonia at that time as well, as the cited encyclopedia entry above alludes to.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 16) Believe that Herod (and his scribes and priests) was not acting entirely out of character and implausibly in not knowing the prophecies predicting Jesus, and not accompanying the magi three hours down the road.<\/span><\/p>\n The second thing we can only speculate about, but if the Bible shows itself trustworthy again and again in a host of ways: confirmed by secular archaeology and historiography, then we can trust it regarding such an obscure item that it casually refers to. As to the first question: is it impossible that Herod might not know the prophecy of Micah 5:2? Not at all<\/em>. He was a very secularized Jew, as a Jewish scholarly article noted:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In his recent book The Herodian Dynasty<\/em>, Nikos Kokkinos portrayed Herod as\u00a0 Hellenized Phoenician whose Jewishness was superficial, resulting from the conversion of Idumaea by John Hyrcanus . . . Herod\u2019s departure form the Jewish ethos is manifested by his own deeds contrary to Jewish laws and customs as well as his strong cultural inclination toward Rome. . . .<\/p>\n This impression is nurtured mainly by Josephus\u2019s accounts. (\u201cHerod\u2019s Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths, and Speeches\u201d<\/a>, Eyal Regev, The Jewish Quarterly Review<\/em>, Vol. 100, No. 2, Spring 2010) 19)\u00a0Believe that a star could lead some magi from the East to Jerusalem and then to Bethlehem where it rested over an individual house and not be noted by anyone else in the world.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n I delved into all this in great detail in the last three weeks:<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus\u00a0<\/a>(Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men\u00a0 & Jesus\u2019 Birth & Infancy)\u00a0[12-14-20]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Timeline: Star of Bethlehem, Herod\u2019s Death, & Jesus\u2019 Birth (Chronology of Harmonious Data from History, Archaeology, the Bible, and Astronomy)<\/a>\u00a0[12-15-20]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Refuting Silly Atheist Objections<\/a>\u00a0[12-26-20]<\/p>\n Route Taken by the Magi: Educated Guess<\/a>\u00a0[12-28-20]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: More Silly Atheist \u201cObjections\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-20]<\/p>\n How Do We Understand the Star of Bethlehem Coming to \u201cRest Over the Place Where the Child Was\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[Facebook, 12-29-20]<\/p>\n 20)\u00a0Believe that the shepherds were not merely midrashic and theological tools used by Luke.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet more higher critical hogwash. See\u00a0my replies to #5, #15, and #18 above. There is no solid reason to doubt this story, either. I recently wrote about one related question: the time of the year with regard to shepherding sheep near Bethlehem:<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 December Birth & Grazing Sheep in Bethlehem (Is a December 25th Birthdate of Jesus Impossible or Unlikely Because Sheep Can\u2019t Take the Cold?)<\/a>\u00a0[12-26-20]<\/p>\n 21)\u00a0Believe that there is (and provide it) a reasonable explanation as to why each Gospel provides different first witnesses (shepherds and magi) without any mention of the other witnesses.<\/span><\/p>\n Because I know of no such literary requirement (let alone logical or moral obligation) for each narrator of roughly the same story to include every and all details that the other narrators may have included. The fact that they emphasize different things and omit details that the others include is strong confirmation of authenticity from all four sources.<\/p>\n But there is a factual error here, too: Jesus was a toddler when the wise men visited (based on the Greek word used to describe Him). This didn\u2019t occur at the same time as the birth and the visit of the shepherds. This is what Christians believe, based on the biblical text (which is one reason why our feast of epiphany is on a different day from Christmas: usually on or around January 6th).<\/p>\n Therefore, the wise men are not possible \u201cfirst witnesses\u201d and there is no conflict in the first<\/em> place. The text doesn\u2019t claim<\/em> they were the first to visit Jesus. It\u2019s simply another manufactured pseudo-\u201ccontradiction\u201d from our friends, the atheists, who seem to make it their life\u2019s goal to violate (or not comprehend?) elementary-level logic as often as they can.<\/p>\n 22) Believe that, despite an absence of evidence and the realisation that it is clearly a remodelling of an Old Testament narrative, the Massacre of the Innocents actually happened.<\/span><\/p>\n See my replies to\u00a0#5, #15, #18, and #20 above.<\/p>\n 23) Believe that Herod would care enough about his rule long after his death to chase after a baby and murder many other innocent babies, a notion that runs contrary to evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s perfectly in character for a tyrant who murdered two possible royal rivals (see the citation below). Herod was no choirboy. According to one secular source:<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n