Refuting arguments (by e'Bed Doulos) on Bill and Karen Bishop's book: "The Biblical Calendar Then and Now"

Let's examine The Scriptural Calendar Then and Now on a chapter-by-chapter basis to identify logical fallacies, keeping the analysis accessible and balanced. Each chapter outlines the key fallacies encountered and provides a concise explanation to avoid diving too deeply into abstract reasoning.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Zadokite Calendar

Potential Fallacies:

  1. Begging the Question: The authors assume that the Zadokite calendar is inherently "Scriptural" and proceed to argue from this premise without establishing why other calendrical interpretations fail the test of Scriptural legitimacy.

    • Example: Statements like "the true Scriptural calendar must be this one" imply the conclusion is already settled.

  2. Appeal to Authority: Heavy reliance on the Dead Sea Scrolls as a definitive source of truth without critically addressing their sectarian nature.

    • Example: Suggesting that the practices of the Qumran community directly reflect the practices mandated by Yahweh ignores the broader Scriptural narrative.

Chapter 2: Historical Shifts in the Calendar

Potential Fallacies:

  1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The authors link the adoption of lunar elements in the calendar to pagan influences without concrete evidence of causation.

    • Example: "The lunar calendar was introduced due to Babylonian captivity" simplifies a complex historical evolution and assumes a purely pagan origin.

  2. Cherry-Picking: Only highlighting historical shifts that support their argument while ignoring evidence of lunar-solar calendar use in Scriptural texts.

    • Example: Ignoring Scriptural accounts like 1 Samuel 20, which explicitly reference the New Moon.

Chapter 3: Scriptural Basis for the Zadokite Calendar

Potential Fallacies:

  1. Strawman Argument: Misrepresenting proponents of lunar-solar calendars as relying solely on oral traditions or paganism.

    • Example: Claiming that opponents have no Scriptural basis for their views overlooks texts like Psalm 104:19 and Isaiah 66:23.

  2. False Dichotomy: Presenting the Zadokite calendar as the only possible Scriptural option, disregarding the possibility of harmonising lunar and solar elements as many scholars suggest.

    • Example: "Either you follow the Zadokite calendar, or you follow man-made traditions."

Chapter 4: The Role of the Sun and Moon

Potential Fallacies:

  1. Cherry-Picking: The authors focus on Genesis 1:14's mention of the sun without adequately addressing how the moon is equally mentioned for mo’edim.

    • Example: "The sun is the primary marker" disregards the dual role explicitly outlined in the text.

  2. Appeal to Novelty: Treating their interpretation of Genesis 1:14 as revolutionary while dismissing centuries of traditional understanding without due examination.

Chapter 5: Implications for Worship and Observance

Potential Fallacies:

  1. Slippery Slope: Suggesting that following a lunar-solar calendar inevitably leads to pagan practices or unfaithfulness to Yahweh.

    • Example: "Using the lunar calendar aligns you with Babylon" is an unfounded exaggeration.

  2. Hasty Generalisation: Concluding that because the Zadokite calendar is mentioned in a niche sectarian text, it must be the "pure" calendar for worship.

Chapter 6: Practical Application for Today

Potential Fallacies:

  1. False Authority: Presenting themselves as authoritative interpreters of a complex issue without engaging thoroughly with opposing views or established scholarship.

    • Example: Ignoring prominent theologians and historians who offer balanced insights on calendrical issues.

  2. Bandwagon Fallacy: Implying that the rediscovery of the Zadokite calendar by modern groups proves its divine authenticity because others are adopting it.

Key Takeaways:

  • Strength of Argument: The book often assumes conclusions instead of building a robust case from Scriptural and historical evidence.

  • Missed Opportunities: The authors could engage more openly with texts that challenge their views, creating a balanced dialogue rather than a polarised argument.

  • Impact of Fallacies: Logical fallacies undermine the persuasiveness of their case and could mislead readers untrained in critical thinking.


e’Bed Doulos N.D.P.
2024.11.26