"Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Debate

Last year I participated in an email debate, concerning the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels.
My opponent took the position that the documents in question are completely historically reliable. I took the contrary position, that this was not the case.

In chronological order, here are the exchanges, unedited:

Opening statement (for)
Opening statement (against)
First response (for)
First response (against)
Second response (for)
Second response (against)
Third response (for)
Third response (against)
Fourth response (for)
Fourth response (against)
Fifth response (for)
Fifth response (against)
Conclusion (for)
Conclusion (against)

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Conclusion (against)

My conclusion to the debate. I finally managed to stay within the word limit:

Prior to beginning this debate, my opponent and I agreed on the topic of debate "Do the canonical gospels represent historical fact". My opponent took the positive case and freely accepted that the burden of proof was his, and that it was up to him to demonstrate the truth of the statement, not my responsibility to demonstrate it's falsehood.

In his opening statement my opponent wrote “It is on these evidences I stake the claim that the Gospels are in fact completely historically reliable. And until valid evidence is made known that disputes this they shall remain such.” From this we see an attempt to shift the burden of proof from justifying his claim to me falsifying his bare assertion. This seemed to lay the foundation for the rest of my opponents debate, which consisted of an assumption of the truth of the case unless shown otherwise.

Starting from a position of scepticism of my opponents positive claim, what should have expected to have been demonstrated for him to have successfully justified his position as true or at least more likely to be so than not?

My opponent needed to have shown that the authors of these accounts were reliable as historians. That to think that they may have included fictional, fantastical or mythical elements would be unreasonable and irrational. My opponent was unable to establish who the authors were, relying on an appeal to a tradition which was shown to be fallible when it came to other documents of the NT, specifically the pastoral epistles. So, being unable to say with any certainty who the authors of the gospels were, we cannot speak of their character, motivations or intentions, nor whether they were likely to fabricate their stories.

My opponent should also have shown that the methods used by the authors to gather the information were reliable. John and Matthew are claimed to be eyewitness accounts, yet as noted above, we cannot say who wrote them. Simply the two gospels claimed to be written by eyewitnesses do not read as if written by eyewitnesses, nor is this stated within the works. As there are no indications of eyewitness evidence or testimony, and lacking a definite author, we should not accept these accounts as being those of an eyewitness.

The gospel called Mark is supposed to have been relayed to the author by Peter the disciple of Jesus, yet no where within the work is there a hint of this. The gospel does not say "All this was related to me Mark, by Peter the disciple of the Lord" or anything of the sort. All we have, again, is a reliance upon a faulty tradition.

Luke, claimed to be an historical document, still does not read like a historical account. Nowhere does Luke inform us of his methods and sources. Nowhere within Luke is there discussion of these methods, and the introduction, often used as supporting thorough investigation, only supports a relaying of the (implied oral) traditions which had come to the author. We have good reason to believe that the author of Luke used the works of Jospehus in his account, yet again there is no recognition of this, as we'd expect from an historian of the period, and my opponent gave no justification for it's absence. Again, no support for accurate history is found within Luke.

My opponent should also have shown that the gospels are separate accounts of the same events. Given the synoptic problem which my opponent did not resolve, we're left with 2 accounts (Mark & John, with Luke and Matthew being reliant upon Mark and the lost sayings gospel 'Q'), and knowing that John also relies upon the synoptics (and not so much on a shared knowledge of events) my opponent was left with a single account for the events described in the gospels. So there is no justification to claim that the gospels corroborate each other as separate testimony.

My opponent also needed to corroborate the events in the gospels with other sources, such as the works of Jospehus. While we both agreed that there are many points of agreement, it was the events which were the most fantastic, and which would require the most corroborative evidence, such as Jesus' miracles, which are uncorroborated in external works. Many of the corroborated events would have been public knowledge, such as the death of John the Baptist, or the callousness of Herod the Great. My opponent was unable to justify his acceptance of the uncorroborated events on the basis of the corroboration of other, mundane events.

My opponent needed to show that the details of each of the gospels was consistent with the others. He did not need to show that they were exactly the same, as we would not expect this from different accounts of the same events. A single example which I produced - the date of the nativity in Luke and Matthew, which my opponent was unable to resolve, is enough to show that the gospel accounts are indeed not consistent.

My opponent also needed to demonstrate that archaeological evidence supports the gospel accounts. He was unable to show that the town of Nazareth existed, nor was he able to refute the evidence presented which showed the town did not exist at the time of Jesus. Nor was he able to provide any other archaeological evidence to support the events of the gospel accounts.

My opponent should have demonstrated that the supposed "fulfilled prophecies" in the NT were just that. He was unable to do this, and I convincingly showed them as being allegorical references to the OT, to support the claims of the gospel author, as more likely scenario, as there are many other instances of this sort of writing from the period.

Looking back we find that, not only did my opponent in this debate not support his claim of complete historical accuracy of the canonical gospels was more likely than not, he was also unable to refute the various claims of inaccuracy put forward by myself.

Given that my opponent did not dispense his burden of proof, and more than that, attempted from the outset to shift it from him to myself, when it was he who was making the claim, I think it is safe to say that my opponent is not justified in asserting his claim that the canonical gospels are completely historical accurate. In fact, given the poor job which was done in support of his claim, as apposed to the work done to undermine my counter claims, I find it difficult that my opponent justifies calling the gospels historical documents at all.

In the end, my opponents claims of historical accuracy have not been supported by his arguments, and it seems they are based upon blind faith rather than evidence. Given the content of the debate, my opponent should accept that the gospels may not be completely accurate as he initially claimed, and at the very least become agnostic on the issue. That he does not is in spite of, not supported by the substance and evidence of this debate.

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Conclusion (for)

My opponents conclusion.

I’m afraid I’ll disappoint my opponent, as he wants me to present remarkable evidence to convince him of the Gospel’s accuracy in my closing statement, I simply won’t have time to do so. This is my conclusion, not a point-by-point response as we’ve been doing; and even were it a point-by-point response my opponent’s last response was over twice as long as what we both agreed our responses would be (though I won’t hold that against him; I simply ask he try to stick to the 1,200 word limit for the conclusion).

I’ll readily concede in the course of this debate I’ve not established an “air-tight” case. I’ve not presented all the evidence that can be presented, and I’m sure my opponent has not argued all the points he could argue. I have attempted to do two things: 1. Present certain evidences that do demonstrate reliability within the Gospels; and 2. Show that the Gospels can reasonably withstand harsh critical scrutiny. I’ll let the readers decide how well I’ve done this.

At the beginning of the debate I did not anticipate we’d spend so much time with the second goal, but that’s ok (though I would have liked to look at other evidences). Though we’ve left many topics unexplored, we’ve at least had some depth to what we have discussed. There’s a lot of questions we’ll probably be leaving unanswered, and it is my hope that our readers will investigate for themselves. Read the articles and authors both I and my opponent have cited, examine the Gospels for yourselves, investigate Josephus, Thallus, Tacitus, and others that we’ve cited.

My opponent and I don’t so much disagree on the evidence, rather we disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. My conclusion that the Gospels are historically reliable is based on the evidence I’ve presented here, much evidence I’ve not had the opportunity to present (the word limitations do require picking and choosing), and the ability of the Gospels to withstand reasonable historical scrutiny.

My opponent says I’ve made a very weak case in regard to these things. Once again, I admit I haven’t presented the whole case for the Gospels. In our entire discourse we’ve been focused on a relatively few, very specific passages. It should please the readers that these topics (authorship of the Gospels, time of Jesus birth, Testimonium Flavium, the Resurrection, etc…) are typically the most-disputed, especially on the blogosphere.

At any rate I do think I have presented at least a few specific examples of things the Gospels record accurately. Many of the towns and places for example; though we’ve debated Nazareth, most of the places in the Gospels merit no dispute. They are undeniably cities that existed in that time and that fit the description of the Gospels. My opponent asserts Luke simply “cut and pasted” these details from Josephus. However, to do so my opponent is agreeing Luke was in fact the author.

I feel I must answer some of my opponent’s questions regarding my own beliefs. Why don’t I believe the Koran? What about all other miracle stories, what about Poseidon as presented in “The Odyssey”? While I have stated the Koran does accurately record certain events and historical happenings, I don’t believe the Koran is infallible. I do believe the Gospels (and the entire Bible for that matter) are infallible. It is this belief that opened this debate. I’d be happy to have a similar debate regarding the Koran, if I believed it was infallible (historically, theologically, scientifically, etc…). However, I do not believe it is infallible, I can actually agree with an atheist here, in that the burden for proof is not on me but on the Muslim. The main difference between my opponent and I is he sees the Gospels as on the same level as the Koran in terms of historical authenticity (which isn’t the only aspect of infallibility, but it is the one we’re discussing); whereas I see the Gospels as historically superior to the Koran.

The issue of an absence of evidence has come up a great deal in this discussion. I’d like to remind everyone that an absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if something did in fact exist or happen we should reasonably expect more evidence then we have. For example, if I claimed there was a marble in my hand you, as one simply reading this, could not reasonably expect more evidence then my talking about it and perhaps a picture of the marble. Granted the issues we’ve discussed are much bigger then marbles, and would necessitate different types of evidence, but you get the idea; the principles are the same.

One of the cases I’ve tried to make is that we have more than enough evidence in terms of eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, archeological findings, verification by other sources, the entire historical context, etc… to reasonably believe the Gospels are historically factual. The main dispute has centered around questions about who actually wrote the Gospels, how well are they verified, and so on. Both myself and my opponent have proposed distinct arguments by which we draw our conclusions. Obviously we disagree on a great deal (though if I recall correctly we’ve been able to come to a few mutual agreements); for example my opponent proposes Israel, as a client kingdom of Rome at the time of Herod The Great would not have been subject to a Roman census. I argue a client kingdom is not as free as my opponent asserts, based facts such as their leaders had to be approved by Rome; and therefore could very easily have been subject to a census. There are two sides to the arguments we’re presenting, and as I’ve already stated, we’ve not examined every point, or every evidence, or every argument. Were it not for my opponent and I having agreed to set introductions, responses, and conclusions this debate could probably go on indefinitely (I do wish I was able to respond to my opponent’s most recent response point by point, but that is against the rules).

All of our readers now at least have a starting point, a foundation from which to further examine the issue. I greatly encourage them to do so. I started the debate, so my opponent will get the last word. That means I won’t have the opportunity to “cross-examine” so to speak, so the readers will have to do that on their own, by individual research or discoursing through comments and e-mails. I apologize that so much of what my opponent has asserted in the last response is going unanswered, just know that is not because there is no answer; it is because we agreed to a certain number of responses.

I thank my opponent, who has proved intellectually challenging and respectful. This does not mean in any way I agree with him; but I am grateful for his taking the time to have this debate and articulate his position. Hopefully I’ve not done as poorly as my opponent claims in articulating mine. I do hope this debate can stand as an example of civil, honest discourse between individuals of radically different views. God bless, and good luck!

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Fifth response (against)

My fifth and final response. After this my opponent's and then my closing arguments.

Papias describes the gospel of Matthew as a sayings gospel, similar to the coptic gospel of Thomas, written in Hebrew. Either Papias is trustworthy in this, and the gospel he attributes to Matthew is not the one we call Matthew, and we should therefore suspect his description of Mark, or he is untrustworthy, and we are left with Irenaeus' attribution of authorship in the late 2nd century. Either way, Papias' writings do not support my opponents assertions of authorship.

We have mostly complete manuscripts of the gospels from the 4th century onwards. Prior to that, we have various short fragments which support existence not contents. When there are centuries for changes to have taken place, the assertion that any modification must have happened more rapidly seems unjustified.

My opponent claims that it would be more of a miracle for the gospels to be false than for Jesus to have performed all of the miracles attributed to him. He asserts that events which go against our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology are more likely than them being literary fiction.

Would it be more of a miracle for non-Christian stories, such as those of Asclepius, to be false than for them to have occurred as written, including attribution to whichever deity was suspected of involvement? If falsehood is more likely for the stories of other miracle workers, why are the gospels treated differently? Allowing one set of miracle stories allows them all, though I doubt my opponent accepts the existence of Zeus as readily as he does Yahweh. My opponent has not put forward any argument to support the assertion that the gospels must be reliable in this regard, simply that he regards them as such, and therefore the miracle stories must be true. He has not shown that this is the case, simply that he believes it to be.

My opponent claims that a willingness to endure persecution or to die for a belief increases the truthfulness of this belief. Such a claim, should it be accepted, means that paganism was more truthful than Christianity during the direct and deliberate persecution by Christians after Christianity came to power in the Roman Empire. As my opponent does think the beliefs of the Pagan's are true, I assume he does not accept this argument any more than I do, yet he accepts it when applied to his own beliefs.

My opponent mistakenly claims that early Christians were willing to die for an actual resurrected god-man. We can say some early Christians died for belief in a resurrected god-man, to go further and say this god-man must have existed goes beyond the evidence which has been presented. The "Branch Davidians" were willing to die for David Koresh as the risen Messiah. Such a belief by the members of that cult are not evidence that David Koresh actually was the risen Messiah, just that his followers believed it to be the case. This argument might have some weight if he could show that those who claimed to have had direct experience of the physically resurrected Jesus being put to death for maintaining that Jesus had been physically resurrected. My opponent has failed to demonstrate this as ever having been the case.

Claiming there was a unified "orthodox" church which the gnostics were in opposition to, in the 2nd century, is also without evidential backup. During that time, there were many different Christ cults, some similar to later orthodoxy, and well preserved, and some considered quite heretical to the later orthodoxy, and subsequently destroyed. Many of these heretical sects would later be deemed gnostic due to the basic content of their beliefs, predominantly gleaned from the surviving writings of their opponents. That the writing of the gospel of John was at one stage attributed to Cerinthus, whose particular cult was mixed up with the other "gnostic" sects, speaks of the contents of this particular "gospel of John" being different to what we currently have, or of there being multiple gospels attributed to the apostle. To simply claim the gnostics were "misinterpreting" the gospel is a gross misunderstanding of the claims being made, and what is understood regarding the beliefs of the different Christ cults of the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The Robert M. Price quote regarding Matthew is indeed opinion, but one shared by many scholars. Matthew is widely held to be directly taken from Mark. To say that this is simply quoting like minded people, when no attribution is given in Matthew nor are there embellishments one would expect from a direct eyewitness, such as further detail of Matthew's first encounter with Jesus, implies that Matthew is a rewritting of Mark, with a slightly different theological view. The only gospel which hints at being an historical record is Luke, and we can see that not only is Luke based very heavily upon Mark and by extension Matthew, but the author of Luke is not an eyewitness to anything contained within the gospels. Nor does Luke quote any sources, nor detail his methods in sifting truth from falsehood. As such, we cannot accept the synoptics as separate attestations to the life and ministry of Jesus. My opponents assertions that Matthew's use of Mark is simply confirmation from an eyewitness is unjustified.

Under Herod the Great, Judea was a client kingdom of the Roman empire. My opponent has produced no evidence nor rational to support a census of a client kingdom. My opponent simply claims that client kingdoms were not as free as we might think and links to a separate article which addresses the issue. All of the points in this separate article seem to be addressed in a previous reference I gave[1]. My opponent makes no attempt to show a census was likely under Herod the Great.

The massacre of the infants is not attested to by any other source, exists in a body of haggiographical work, echoing Old Testament scripture as midrash, not fulfilled prophecy. It is not mentioned in the only gospel which attempts to be a history, that of Luke. The author of Luke claims to have made a thorough investigation of all of the details, and yet omits the massacre of the infants. My opponents only argument as to why there is no evidence outside of Matthew for the massacre is that it would be a small deal which would not have occasioned notice by anyone else. He has not argued as to why Matthew would record it and not Luke, or Jospehus, who covers Herod's many atrocities as well as many jewish uprisings against them. In light of my opponents lack of evidence to support the historicity of the massacre, the best explanation the massacre is a literary device, echoing Old Testament scripture, and not an istorical event.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul states the transformation of something. My opponent's assertion that it is the physical body which is transformed is a bare assertion, which he does not support with either quotation or argument. I've provided quotes from "Youngs Literal Translation" as well as direct translations from the original Greek, which state that there are separate bodies, one physical and one spiritual, and the subject of transformation would seem to be the "soul" or "spirit", not the physical body as my opponent asserts. My opponent has offered no argument for the physical body being the subject of transformation.

We agree that the early Christians were not persecuted for believing in Jesus as god, but for refusing to uphold the laws of the empire. This persecution was not due to the content of those beliefs in the least, nor was it due to the truth or falsehood of those beliefs. It shows the beliefs of early Christ cult movements, and is not evidence supporting those beliefs as the truth. My opponent is yet to provide any evidence to support his assertions that the so called disciples of Jesus, who are said to have experienced the physically resurrected Jesus, died for a belief in that physical resurrection of their Messiah.

I agree that spiritual resurrection is theologically challenging for Orthodoxy, claiming that it would have no effect on the historical accuracy of the gospels is plainly false. While Mark ends prior to any appearance of Jesus, the other 3 canonical gospels attest to an explicitly physical resurrection, with John going so far as to have Thomas place his hand within the wound in the side of the resurrected physical body of Jesus. My opponents assertions that a spiritual resurrection poses no problems to the historical accuracy of the gospels is unfounded, and he must therefore reconcile the explicitly spiritual resurrection from Paul's epistles, with the much later explicitly physical resurrection as presented in the gospels. He is yet to syncretically address these two divergent accounts of the resurrection.

Regarding the obvious parallels between the old and new testament, my opponent is disregarding the traditions of haggadic midrash of Old Testament which are known to have existed in Judaism of the period, when claiming these events must have actually occurred. My opponent would need to show that the gospels themselves are not haggadic midrash, to justify his case of them being historical records, and from there he needs to show they are completely historically accurate, as he has claimed. He has not done either of these things.

The archeaological evidence seems to support the existence of Nazareth in the 2nd century. My opponent has yet to provide evidence to support the existence of Nazareth in the early 1st century, merely stated that he doesn't find it improbable. Unfortunately for my opponent's argument, we're not talking about his personal opinion, but what is supported by the evidence. The evidence does show that the location of Nazareth was being used as a graveyard for the nearby town of Japha in the early first century. Jewish burial laws forbade anyone from living near the graveyard. My opponent has failed to show that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus.

The cliff which is outside of Nazareth is 4 kms from the outskirts of the supposed 1st century town of Nazareth, unlike the cliff which is 100 yards from my opponents house. The amount of time it takes to jog this distance is irrelevant to this debate. The evidence shows that Nazareth is not built on a hill with a cliff, as proclaimed in Luke's gospel. My opponent has provided no arguments to counter these, simply said that parts of his home town are located further than 4kms away from a cliffs, undermining his argument by stating that his own home is considerably closer. I'm happy to conceed the issue of the cliff, as my opponent has not shown the town of Nazareth to have existed in the early 1st century.

Regarding the reference to "Jesus who was called Christ" in Josephus' Antiquities. In reading the passage, James is referred to in an offhand manner, and it is this "Jesus" who appears to be the subject. That Jesus son of Damneus appears is the subject of the passage towards the end leads us to the conclusion that it is this Jesus (son of Damneus) who is the subject, and who is referred to earlier as "Anointed". High priests were "Anointed" (English), "Messiah" (Hebrew) or "Christ" (Greek) with holy oils. As Antiquities was written in Greek, "Christ" is the correct usage here. We should note that "James the brother of the Lord" referenced in Paul's writings and possibly connected with the James in the passage in Antiquities, is not spoken of as a literal brother of the lord, but as a religious title, of one who is full of righteousness for the "Christ Jesus" or, in english, the "Anointed Saviour". My opponent has given no rationale connecting the Jesus in this passage with Jesus son of Joseph in the gospels.

We know that epilepsy can cause effects like those described in Paul's conversion story. We have no indication in Paul's writing that his companions experienced anything, nor any detail of the experience. Paul suffered from visionary experiences which he assumed were of divine origin. These are consistent with temporal lobe epilepsy, so we do have evidence to support a conclusion of epilepsy. What we lack is sufficient evidence to attribute Paul's experience to a miraculous cause, much less to a physical encounter with a phsyically resurrected Jesus. We do not have any testamony of Paul nor his companions to verify the account as given in Acts. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, we must consider it more likely Paul suffered from a mental condition, possibly temporal lobe epilepsy, than being the receiver of revalatory visions.

Thallus records a darkness, but it is Africanus who links this with the passion narrative. Why does Africanus do this? We have no indication that Thallus linked it to the passion period, though there was a complete solar eclipse close (in years) to the supposed time of the passion. There is also no indication that Thallus finds the darkness unusual, which would presumably be the case should Thallus' darkness have occurred during the passion, when it would be a physical impossibility. Thallus' writings, or what remains of them as preserved by Africanus, do not support a darkness during the passion, we only have Africanus' assertion that this is the case.

For validation of the empty tomb, my opponent relies on the very documents whose reliability we are debating. We do not know that Jospeph of Arimathea put Jesus' body in a tomb. We know that the gospel accounts have this event occuring. We are discussing whether these accounts should be taken as being reliable.

The passage of Theophilus of Antioch does not make mention of an earthly incarnation of a physical man Jesus. It does mention the opening passage of John's gospel, but as discussed above in relation to the changing nature, or possible multiplicity, of John's gospel, and given the short nature of Theopilus' quote, we do not know if he is referencing what we call John today.

Theophilus mentions anointing as the reason for the term Christian, presumably meaning "Anointed one" to Theophilus. Had he known of an earthly Messiah ('Christ'), he would surely have made mention of this figure. That he doesn't do this gives us insight into a Christ cult which seemed to have no knowledge of an earthly Jesus, especially as Theophilus does not seem to be a member of what would be termed a gnostic sect.

My opponent claims that references to "Christ Jesus" are Paul speaking of an historical. "Christ Jesus" is can be interpreted as "Anointed Saviour", as apposed to a personal name. If taken as such we are left with little or no reference to an earthly incarnation in the writings of Paul. My opponent has not During his writings shown that Paul refers to a man Jesus and not a Saviour.

Paul, while instructing the churches of faith practice and doctrine, has many opportunities to mention teachings, acts or events of an historical Jesus to support his authority and the correctness of his teachings. Paul does not mention the acts of an historical Messiah figure and display no knowledge of his life, Paul actually relies upon his revelationary visions as authority that his teachings are correct, not upon the teachings of an earthly figure. It seems Paul didn't know the teachings of an historical figure.

Luke and Acts are given a late date because, although they do not "record the burning of Rome, the first imperial persecution of Christians, the second Roman imprisonment of Paul, the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple", they do rely upon and draw from the works of Jospehus, "Antiquities of the Jews" and "Jewish War", which were completed after 90CE. "Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus, and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd."[2] We are left with Luke & Acts post dating Josephus' major works, and therefore the fall of the temple. "This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose."[2] Luke's drawing upon the works of Josephus for the details of his history, without attribution of explanation of his methods, undermines the claims of historical reliability of the evangelist. This further damages my opponents case.

The statement that the end times began at the pentecost seems to be post-hoc rationalisation for the failure of the apocalypse as imagined by the authors of the New Testament by the later Christian church. The evolution of this can be seen by the changing views of the coming apocalypse by Christian apologists, as the time of the apocalypse as imagined by the early Christians faded into history.

Stating that we cannot apply out sense of time to Yahweh god because it is outside of our space and time, then asserting that Yahweh god, can then still act within that space and time, is completely unjustified. There is no known mechanism by which an entity external to our space time could interact within it. Statements to the contrary are unjustified. This debate is concerning the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts, and not the possible existence of a personal creator called Yahweh. I will not mention more on this topic unless my opponent feels the need to indulge further.

My opponent states that "There is no way in the world the Gospel authors would have known water and blood would flow from Jesus side when He was stabbed on the cross". It is my understanding that the practice of stabbing the crucified was a not unheard of method of checking for death. It is certainly presented as such in the gospel of John. Anyone viewing this practice would have seen the fluids which came out, and could have written of it or told others. Had the gospel authors written of the processes within the body which cause this "blood and water" (blood and a clear fluid) to form in the abdominal cavity, then my opponent may be justified in his assertion. My opponent has not shown that this knowledge was extraordinary, and therefore his point does not stand.

My opponent states that he'd rather see what was written and test how well it holds up to inquiry, rather than examine the motivation of the authors. Unfortunately, for vast portions of the events portrayed within the gospels, we have no way of scrutinizing the accounts. How does one test the reliability of a document which cannot be externally checked? My opponent seems to be willing to accept all such instances as unmitigated fact because the authors include a small number of events and people which were likely public record, and could be externally verified. We can see in the case of Luke, that he got much of his "public" information from the works of Jospehus. That there are correct details of public record does not mean that the private information was correct. How did the authors go about gathering this information? How did they judge for truthfullness? We cannot even say who these authors were with any degree of certainty, and none of them have mentioned their sources or methods. As such, I have to wonder why my opponent is so willing to throw scepticism out the window and accept these accounts as completelty historically accurate, as he is fond of asserting about them.

We can look at the Koran in a similar manner. The Koran also includes many historical facts such as battles, people and places which can and have been found to be historically accurate. Internally the Koran claims to be the direct word of god. To be consistent my opponent, should accept the Koran as being what it claims. In accepting the gospel accounts at face value, he has removed any justification for dismissing the Koran, the story of Apollonius of Tyana, and any number of other historical accounts. My opponent claimed that he accepts these event likely happened, but doubts the basis of the miracles, yet in accepting the gospels uncritically he has his basis for dismissing the theological basis of these other works. As such, he should accept Apollonius as an incarnation of Proteus, and the Koran as the explicit word of god alonside the gospels as being a record of the life of the sond of god. This position is obviously contradictory, yet my opponent has not presented an argument justifying his position.

My opponent rightly states that I suggest "Christ’s body may have been stolen, reburied, or the entire story fabricated." and then asserts "If that is the case my opponent needs to provide evidence for theft or reburial, because presently all the evidence regarding the resurrection confirms that it did indeed happen." The simple fact is, my opponent has not provided evidence that there was an empty tomb and missing body which would need explaining. In fact, my opponent hasn't shown the gospel of Mark to be an historical work and not a piece of first century apocalyptic literature derived from existing scripture, as well as other works including the works of Homer. As such the burden of proof is upon him to demonstrate an empty tomb and a missing body before an explanation of those events would be required.

My opponent goes on to claim that "The fabrication of such a story is highly unlikely, not only did the Gospel authors lack any type of reasonable motive to do so (especially in light of persecution); but there were plenty of people around who saw the same events and would have corrected the Gospel authors if they had fabricated the story." My opponent has not shown that the authors risked persecution, nor that the gospels were intended to be accurate histories as apposed to works of theology. Much like other apocalyptic writings of the same period, they draw upon existing sciprutre to re cast them in a contemporary light. I've shown that my opponent's claims of persecution had nothing to do with the truth or not of beliefs. My opponent has shown no evidence of this endurance of persecution having anything to do with an historical Jesus figure. In fact, as the gospels were anonymous, who would the authorities have persected, should they have wished to do so?

My opponent claims that errors and fabrications in the gospels would have been corrected. In contrast to this assertion, we see from the writings of the early Christians that no such investigation was encouraged or carried out. The first time the resurrection is preached, some 50 days after the supposed resurrection at pentecost, we are told that some 3,000 people are convinced by a speach, with no indication that any of them fact checked the story they were told (Acts 2:1-42). In Acts 3:1-4:4 we hear of another crowd "about 2000" who are convinced immediately uppon hearing a speach by Peter which appealed to nothing but scripture and Peter's word. Acts is replete with similar examples, of people being converted through lessons of scripture, speaches and miracles, with little appeal to evidence, and no indication of investigation on the part of the convert. The miracles are the same as those attributed to holy men of pagan beliefs, and as such do not count as evidence for Paul, in his letters, rests his authority, not on empirical evidence of the truth of his claims, but on the quality of his visions, and his exemplery morality. To accept my opponent's assertion concerning corrections he needs to provide evidence that investigation into the facts would have been and was conducted. He has not done this.

My opponent has consistently asserted his beliefs without justifying them. Although the burden of proof is his, he has simply claimed the gospels as completely accurate records history, and has, on the whole, not justified this position, seemingly content to argue the limited number of points I have brought up to the contrary. I fail to see how he can consider he is making his point when, not only has not refuted the historical inaccuracies I have mentioned, nor the different theologies presented in the different Christian writings, he has not provided evidence to support his case, simply resting on shaky tradition and statements that in comparison to other documents, the gospels come out quite well, even though the only Luke attempts to be an historical document, though it has none of the hallmarks of critical enquiry and seems to be parroting of the tradition which had been handed down (from Mark's gospel).

This seems remarkable to me, when the case my opponent accepted in this debate was the complete historical reliability of the gospel accounts. His main argument appears to have been that the gospels are accurate, seemingly thinking this proves his case, and I am therefore required to show him wrong. He has made very little attempt to actually justify that initial assertion, and has been unable to refute the points which I have brought up. As such he has in no way shown the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts.

He finishes his latest offering with the statement "In light of all of this, the Gospels hold as historically factual documents." I think this is sincerely believed, but has not been justified in any of the evidence he has presented. Unless there is some extraordinary evidence presented in his closing statement, my opponent's assertion will continue to be unjustified.

[1] Richard Carrier, "The Date of the Nativity in Luke": http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

[2] Richard Carrier, Luke and Josephus: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Fifth response (for)

The fifth and final response from my opponent. All that is left after this round is the conclusions.

Regarding Papias I find it odd my opponent asserts we can’t trust him, but than states Matthew was written in Hebrew based on what Papias states. Can we trust Papias or not? If we can than there should be little dispute about the Gospel authors, if we can’t my opponent cannot assert what he has about Matthew. However I won’t dodge the heart of the issue. I have no problem accepting Matthew was written in Hebrew, and I have no problem accepting that we don’t have the original copies of the Gospels. What I’ve already pointed out, and my opponent agreed, was that the sheer number of manuscripts, many of them very early, from various places in numerous languages all having recorded the same thing makes it very unlikely there was some distortion over time. If there was distortion it must have been incredibly quick, much more swift than we’ve really ever witnessed, and it must have been widespread. If that is my opponent’s assertion he must provide the evidence.

As far as asserting miracles I can more or less agree with my opponent. It seems where we disagree is what testimony is so trustworthy that for it to be false would be more of a miracle than for the miracle itself to be true. As I’m asserting the Gospels are totally historically accurate I think it would be quite a miracle for them all to be wrong, especially where all four Gospel writers include the same events; and especially where the early Church was so willing to suffer persecution (even if my opponent won’t concede all the Apostles were executed, it’s hard to deny the early Church suffered great persecution). I think somebody being willing to die for a dead man would be much more miraculous than someone being willing to die for a dead man, who was raised from the dead, and was the Son of God.

I don’t know in what manner the Gnostics were using the Gospel of John. However one doesn’t have to have a mastery of sophistry in order to distort something ever so slightly to make it say what one wants it to say. Plenty of people manipulate the Gospels today, and there were plenty of people doing it back then. Since the Gnostics were influencing the Church (hence several of the General Epistles, including a few written by John) it would make sense they were using texts accepted by the Church. All that had to be done by the Gnostics was put an interpretational spin on words like “became”.

The Robert M. Price quote regarding Matthew is an opinion, not a fact. If he is to assert Mark and Q are patchworks of well-worn fragments he’s going to need to produce some well-worn fragments to establish that these are indeed secondary sources. If they’re not secondary sources than the fact that Matthew relies on them simply demonstrates he was quoting like-minded people, relying on other “authorities” on the issue, much like my opponent and I have done in quoting Josephus, Tacitus, etc…

The biggest dispute about the census now seems to be regarding Herod’s kingdom being a client kingdom. Would they have had to take the census? I think so, all the Herods were subject to Roman approval, and being a “client kingdom” didn’t make them as free as we might think [1].

Well, the census was a Roman activity. The massacre of infants was done by Herod. There may have been an uprising, if the massacre was large, and if people actually came to know about it. But I’ve not asserted that the massacre was large, nor have I asserted it was well-known.

A plain reading of the I Corinthians 15 text reveals the physical body will be changed. There is a spiritual aspect to it, no doubt, but there is also a physical aspect. Paul talks about the dead in Christ being raised, and there is a transformation of the physical body that will make it spiritual (a physical body can’t be eternal, as a spiritual body must be). At any rate something is happening to the physical body, and it is no longer there. What we are left with is the physical made eternal, the perishable made imperishable. However the physical body is involved, and if one reads all of I Corinthians 15 it will become apparent Paul speaks of a resurrection involving the physical body.

The reason Christianity was perceived as a political organization was they would not worship the Emperor, I have no doubt about that. One must ask why, why would they not worship the emperor? Obviously it’s because of belief in Christ as God, and therefore worshipping the emperor would be idolatry. The Romans had no trouble with the beliefs of early Christians until those beliefs were lived out in such a way as to challenge accepted political customs. So we can’t separate the doctrines of early Christians from their persecution, even if the government was persecuting them because their beliefs influenced political/social behavior. It makes sense Pliny used Christ, as Jesus was called Christ, and Christian means “little Christ” (follower of Christ). Jesus Christ is the name of my God.

A spiritual resurrection doesn’t make the Gospels historically inaccurate, it would have profound theological implications, however. At any rate a spiritual resurrection creates numerous questions, but many of those are beyond the scope of this debate.

Regarding the prophecies I still disagree with my opponent. Hosea 11:1 is what’s known as a principle/application prophecy. An event in the Old Testament and an event in the New Testament are patterned the same and have great parallels. At any rate my opponent continues to ignore the obvious possibility that these were prophecies and that Jesus actually fulfilled them. If what my opponent asserts is true, he needs to provide a motive for the Gospel authors to have done this, and he needs to provide evidence. Simply guessing at an author’s motive and finding a way to make it look bad is not evidence.

My opponent suggests that Nazareth may very well have sprung-up quite suddenly due to Jews evacuating areas involved in the earlier mentioned conflicts. This is possible, I’m skeptical as to whether it is probable. It would seem to me if you’re fleeing you’re probably not taking a great deal of things with you, and you’d be ill-equipped to start a brand new town. Even so, we do know Nazareth did exist at latest by the 2nd Century, and it still seems probable that it existed before that time as a small village.

Once again addressing the cliff, 4kms is not that far away. I’ve jogged/walked about that same distance in less than ½ hour. Aside from this, it’s entirely possible to be “on” a cliff and not have the edge right beside you. My community is built “on” a cliff, less than 100 yards from my house, but a much larger distance from people in the Western half of my community. The point is, it’s entirely possible for a community to be “on” a cliff and have a gap in between it and the actual cliff.

I realize kings and priests were often anointed, but the question is was everyone who was anointed titled as Christ? Was it a common title? Anointing was a common practice among leaders, but were they frequently called Christ?

My opponent’s explanation of Paul’s conversion does not suffice, because Paul’s companions also had a part in the experience. Did all Paul’s companions have a convulsion simultaneously? Do we have any evidence that Paul had epilepsy?

Thallus does mention darkness and earthquakes; discussing that, Africanus says there’s no reason to attribute these happenings to an eclipse. The case is Thallus records something more general, but when taken in light of what we read in the Gospels we can narrow this darkness to a more specific event and time. Once again, my opponent must rest on a lack of evidence to make the case these events did not occur during the time of the crucifixion of Christ.

I think we should remember that Joseph of Arimethea took Jesus body and placed it in a tomb (see Mark 14-16). Paul does not refer to a solely spiritual/visionary resurrection, and the Gospels provide more details about many of the eyewitnesses Paul cites. According to the best evidence we have an empty tomb, Jewish leaders trying to squelch the idea Christ resurrected, disciples proclaiming the resurrection and gaining followers who we know were worshipping Christ as God. My opponent needs to explain how all these things came about under his hypothesis that Jesus was buried in a pauper’s grave.

I’ve made a mistake in citing Theophilus Book II Chapter XII, I should have typed Chapter XXII instead of XII, it makes quite a difference. I’d be interested in doing more study, however, to see if Theophilus’ reference to the anointing is possibly a reference to being filled with the Spirit. Either way, it still seems Theophilus does support the existence of Jesus.

I agree Paul doesn’t record a lot about Jesus life, as Paul’s primary purposes for writing are to instruct the early Church regarding faith and practice, doctrine, etc… However Paul does mention Jesus, quite a bit. And Paul’s doctrine is supportive of the Gospels. By my count Paul uses the phrase “Christ Jesus” some 54 times. Paul’s writings are also endorsed by Peter. Acts is a valid source, as it was written by Luke, Paul’s companion. 95 A.D. is a very late date for the writing. Most believe, because it ends abruptly with Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, that it was written near that time (59-63 A.D.). As Dr. Robert Gromacki points out Acts does not record the burning of Rome, the first imperial persecution of Christians, the second Roman imprisonment of Paul, the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Gromacki, New Testament Survey, 150). All of those events happened by 70 A.D., in light of everything else Luke records had Acts have been written 95 A.D. we would think he would have recorded these events.

I agree Paul believed in an imminent end times. With the start of the Church as recorded in Acts 2 we have the beginning of the end times. We need to be careful, however, about forcing our definition of what is imminent and applying that to God. God is not on our timetable (He’s not bound by any timetable). If Christ comes again today it wouldn’t surprise me, if He doesn’t come again for another 2,000 years I still would not be surprised (I won’t be around, but you get the idea).

The “tradition” my opponent refers to is, in light of all the evidence, remarkably well corroborated facts. While it would benefit my opponent to minimize the details that are not disputed, this is hard to do given the nature of them. There is no way in the world the Gospel authors would have known water and blood would flow from Jesus side when He was stabbed on the cross; something we know is the result of severe stress, both physical and mental. Facts such as this lead us to believe the Gospel authors recorded details remarkably well. The supposed contradictions my opponent asserts have in 2,000 years not been established sufficiently. The contradiction assertion falls apart under the least bit of scrutiny. My opponent enjoys attacking the motives of the Gospel authors, but I’d rather examine what they actually wrote and see how well it historically lines up. My opponent suggests Christ’s body may have been stolen, reburied, or the entire story fabricated. If that is the case my opponent needs to provide evidence for theft or reburial, because presently all the evidence regarding the resurrection confirms that it did indeed happen. The fabrication of such a story is highly unlikely, not only did the Gospel authors lack any type of reasonable motive to do so (especially in light of persecution); but there were plenty of people around who saw the same events and would have corrected the Gospel authors if they had fabricated the story. In light of all of this, the Gospels hold as historically factual documents.

[1]. Glen M. Miller. “On an objection about Luke, Quirinius, and Herods”. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Fourth response (against)

Second last rebuttal. Slightly over the word count, but much better than previously.

Papias states he received his knowledge concerning Mark & Matthew from John the Presbyter. We do not know how this John came by this information, nor whether the works referred to by Papias are what we call Mark & Matthew today. Given that all 4 of the canonical gospels are recognised as being written in Greek, and Papias states Matthew's Gospel was a collection of sayings (presumably like the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) written in Hebrew, gives us reason to doubt the gospels Papias refers to are the books we have today.

On the supernatural, Hume states "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish"[1]. On the raising of the dead Hume states "But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation." As such, we should be sceptical of such claims, unless the falsity of the claims would be a greater miracle than the miracle itself. My opponent has not shown this to be the case.

Gnosticiscm encompasses a large set of beliefs which shared some common roots. There were variants of Gnosticism which likely pre-dated Christianity which had nothing to do with Jesus. According to Bart Erhman, "Most Gnostics differentiated between 'matter' which was evil and 'spirit' which was good."[2](pp74) and "Some Gnostics maintained that Jesus only seemed to be a human, that is, that his body was a phantasm, physical in appearance only. This is the docetic view we've already seen. Others claimed that Christ was a divine aeon who temporarily inhabited the real body of the man Jesus, starting with his baptism, and who then left him at the end of his life, prior to his crucifixion."[2](pp75) Gnostics believed that flesh was evil, and that the divinity of Jesus was never flesh. What use, then, would the gospel of John which, as we have it now, proclaims "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." and is replete with such anti-Gnostic passages, be to such a group, unless the gospel of John they had was different to the orthodox version?

Bart Erham of the gospels says "Is this all we can say about these books, that they were written between 65CE and 95CE by anonymous authors who weren't eyewitnesses?"[2](pp45). Regarding Matthew, Robert M. Price observes "All scholars now admit that the author of this gospel simply cannot have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, since he employs secondary sources (Mark and Q), themselves patchworks of well-worn fragments. It is just inconceivable that an eyewitness apostle would not have depended upon his own recollections. This gospel was not penned by the disciple Matthew."[3]

Regarding the census, "the more famous Apamea on the Orontes is the only one in Syria, and it lost its freedom before the 20's B.C. for having sided with Pompey against Caesar"[4]. The reference to this census of Apamea, taken from the "Lapis Venetus" provides evidence for the same census in 6CE which is referenced by Josephus. The evidence only supports the view that the census must have occurred after Judea became a part of the consular province of Syria. "There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact (the date of the nativity). The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus."[4]

Josephus documents the Jews rioting and reacting violently to their oppressors. The census in Luke and Jospehus was cause for a violent uprising. Given the stiff necked behaviour of the Jews it is unlikely that there was no violence and rioting resulting from a massacre of infants in Bethlehem. Given the discrepancy between the nativity in the gospels, and the allusions to scripture in Matthew's account, the massacre is most likely not historical.

My opponent claims correct hermeneutics results in a view of resurrection as physical. A plain reading of Paul's letters, apart from the other separate books of the New Testament, give the impression of a resurrection in a separate "spiritual" body, as 1 Corinthians 15:44 makes clear "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body". This shows that the notion of the resurrection had changed between the time of Paul and the time of Matthew & Luke.

Pliny claims "I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent.", demonstrating that Christians were not a widespread cult at the time. Regarding Jesus as God, Pliny states "They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god,", which is reminiscent of praising the emperor as a god. Pliny again states "Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations." Christianity was perceived as a political organisation, likely because they did not praise the emperor. The persecution had nothing to do with the content of their belief. In his reply, Trajan states "They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshipping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance." Thus there is no evidence to support specific persecution of early Christians, and we should note that Pliny uses the title "Christ" and not a name to refer to the Christians "god".

My opponent goes on to claim that if we were to accept a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection, that then paints Jesus as being even greater, and performing more wonderous supernatural feats. Be that as it may, such a thing would invalidate the picture painted by the gospels, and my opponent's case. As I outlined above, a spiritual resurrection seems to be supported by the letters of Paul.

My opponent continues to claim that Micah 5:2 and Hosea 11:1 refer to prophecies which may have been fulfilled by actual historical events (birth in Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt). "But the more recent scrutiny of John Dominic Crossan, Randel Helms, Dale and Patricia Miller, and Thomas L. Brodie has made it inescapably clear that virtually the entirety of the gospel narratives and much of the Acts are wholly the product of haggadic midrash upon previous scripture."[5] "It has been customary to suppose that early Christians began with a set of remarkable facts (whether few or many) and sought after the fact for scriptural predictions for them, the goal being to show that even though the founding events of their religion defied contemporary messianic expectation, they were nonetheless in better accord with prophecy, that recent events clarified ancient prophecy in retrospect. Thus modern scholars might admit that Hosea 11:1 ('Out of Egypt I have called my son') had to be taken out of context to provide a pedigree for the fact of Jesus’ childhood sojourn in Egypt, but that it was the story of the flight into Egypt that made early Christians go searching for the Hosea text. Now it is apparent, just to take this example, that the flight into Egypt is midrashic all the way down. That is, the words in Hosea 11:1 'my son,' catching the early Christian eye, generated the whole story, since they assumed such a prophecy about the divine Son must have had its fulfillment. And the more apparent it becomes that most gospel narratives can be adequately accounted for by reference to scriptural prototypes, Doherty suggests, the more natural it is to picture early Christians beginning with a more or less vague savior myth and seeking to lend it color and detail by anchoring it in a particular historical period and clothing it in scriptural garb."[5] The gospel accounts are taken to be haggadic midrash of early Old Testament and Jewish scripture, and not historical recording. The historic events mentioned, such as the census, the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias etc, simply serve to anchor the saviour myth to a specific time and place.

While I agree that Nazareth existed in the second century, my opponent has not produced any evidence that Nazareth existed during Jesus' time. Given the 2 Jewish wars of 70CE and 135CE, especially the latter, which barred Jews from entering Jerusalem and lead to settlement in Galilee amongst other places, it is quite reasonable to think this town suddenly appeared.

Regarding the cliff. Luke 4 states "28All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff." This heavily implies that where the town was built, was a hill with a cliff. Having to trudge 4kms for the nearest cliff does not match up this description.

Regarding the title "Christ" it is the Greek translation for the Hebrew "Messiah" which literally means "anointed", typically someone anointed with holy anointing oil. As such, kings and high priests were often anointed.

Paul experiences of Jesus are not interactions with a physical Jesus. A bright light or noise is not evidence of a physical resurrection. "On the Damascus road Paul may have had an attack of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy perhaps ending in a convulsion, which was startling and dramatic. The blindness which followed may have been post-ictal. This event was the climax of a spiritual odyssey which Paul had embarked upon weeks or months earlier."[6] This provides a simple explanation for Saul's conversion event without need to invoke the supernatural.

On the darkness of Thallus "This leaves us with four options: Africanus meant Phlegon, not Thallus; or Eusebius quoted Thallus verbatim, revealing that Thallus did not mention Jesus; or Thallus mentioned Jesus, but wrote in the 2nd century, when we know the gospels were already in circulation; or Thallus mentioned Jesus and wrote in the 1st century, and is the earliest witness to the gospel tradition. Although all of these are possible, it is clear that any of the first three are more likely than the last one, since there are several facts which support each of them, but none which support the last one--in other words, it is a "mere" possibility, whereas the others actually have some arguments in their favor."[7]

I fail to see how a lack of empty tomb tradition can support my opponents case. If Jesus was put to death for blasphemy, he would have been put in a paupers grave in the "Valley of Hinnom" outside of Jerusalem, no tomb, empty or otherwise required. What we find is we have references to witnesses of a resurrected Jesus, the earliest of them, Paul's, lending them a spiritual or visionary and not physical quality, with no details provided, with the later references becoming more exaggerated over time, with the later references, the gospels, being written as midrash by unknown authors.

Regarding Theophilus' use of the term "Oil of God" he is likely refering to holy anointing oil, or similar, as detailed in Exodus 30:22-25. Within the works of Theophilius available online I was unable to find any reference to Jesus [8]. In fact, the chapter my opponent cites (Book II Chapter XII) discusses the glory of the 6 days of work (Genesis) and the Sabbath.

It isn't that Paul doesn't go into great detail regarding the life of Jesus, it is that he doesn't mention it at all. He doesn't mention any of the parables of the synoptics, nor the longer theological discussions of the gospel of John. Referencing Acts here is of no consequence, as the book of Acts was written around 95CE, about 30 years after Paul's death. For Paul, we must go by what he himself wrote. The Jesus Paul preached is not referenced as having been on earth recently, nor of being physically resurrected. Paul preached of a coming (possibly for the first time) "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus", literally "Anointed Saviour". The early Christians, including Paul, were Apocalyptists, and believed in an immanent end time. This did not occur, and the writings of the early Christians can be seen to evolve as this prophecy falls further and further into the past.

I've shown that tradition is not reliable concerning the authorship of the books of the New Testament, and that today it seems most scholars accept the anonymity of the gospels. That the gospels contain some historical details does not serve to make them historically accurate. That events which are only attested to within the gospels are found to be in error (the date of the nativity), or the result of midrash (the massacre of the infants) gives us pause in accepting these documents as historical fact. That there are also contraditions between the gospels and other documents (the death of John the Baptist in Josephus does not match his death in the gospels in date, method or cause) gives us further reason to doubt the gospels veracity. Lastly, due to the fantastic nature of many of the events, and the lack of evidence justifiying them (the resurrection, for example) coupled with plausible alternatives (theft or reburial of the body, or wholesale fabrication of the story to satify theological aims) leaves us rationaly justified in asserting that the gospel accounts, as they currently stand, with the paucity of corroboration, both internally and externally, are not historically accurate.

[1] David Hume, "An Enquiry Concerning human Understanding" (http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html)

[2] Bart Erhman, "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophect of the New Millenium"

[3] Robert M. Price, "Apocryphal Apparitions" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html)

[4] Richard Carrier, "The Date of the Nativity in Luke" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html)

[5] Robert M. Price, "New Testement Narrative as Old Testament Midrash" (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm)

[6] D Landsborough, "St Paul & Temporal Lobe Epilepsy" (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1032067)

[7] Richard Carrier, "Thallus: An Analysis" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html)

[8] "Theophilus of Antioch" (http://earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html)

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Fourth response (for)

My opponents fourth response:

Papias still lived during the time of the Gospel’s writings (or at least some of their writings). I realize he wasn’t standing over the author’s shoulder watching what was written. I think of the assassination of John F. Kennedy; my parents and their friends all say they “witnessed” that in their lifetime. That’s not to say they were standing on the very street, but to say they were alive when it happened. Only through television did I witness the fall of the World Trade Center towers, however I’ve been to the spot where they stood, and I can affirm they are no longer there. I’m also an eyewitness to the fear and concern that covered American in the days immediately following 9/11. So Papias was as close the writings of the Gospel (basically, we know he was probably born before 70 A.D.) as my parents were to JFK’s assassination, and as I am to 9/11. If that’s hearsay, than I guess you’re right, but it would seem very reliable hearsay to me.

I agree with what my opponent has pointed out about Alexander the Great’s biography (or biographies). However, it must be noticed that the entire historical accuracy of the first (and subsequent) biographies is not brought into question on the basis of a few details, interpolations, etc… And those things must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what may be true and what may not be true.

No historical evidence, be it a book or an archeological piece, is accepted at face value. What I’m attempting to demonstrate is that in the context of other historical texts, in this case especially in terms of the time of the writing, the Gospels compare quite favorably. I anticipate we’ll address the corroboration aspects in more detail shortly.

I don’t believe I ever did say I dismiss the accounts of Vespasian, Mohommad, or Sathya Sai Baba. Now I will say I’m not familiar enough with the claim about Mohommad to argue for it, but I tend to believe if the historical data points to an event happening that the event probably happened. I’d also like to point out I have strong disagreements with Islamic theology, though the events recorded about Mohmmad may well be historical. In the case of Vespasian, I think this helps my case more than my opponents; as he expects more evidence for the miracles of a carpenter from Nazarene than he does for the miracles of an emperor (or, as many would assert, the miracles of Vespasian didn’t happen, as Tacitus paints a fairly unflattering picture of Vespasian). Also, if Tacitus made these things up than why are we not questioning the historical accuracy of his works? If something like this doesn’t call into question the factuality of Tacitus’ works, why does it call into question the factuality of the Gospels? I’ll grant the circumstances are a lot different. Jesus never consulted political advisers about performing miracles, Jesus never doubted His ability to perform miracles, and the depth and variety of the miracles is definitely in Jesus favor; but if Vespasian did perform miracles that fact would not contradict Christianity or the Gospels. I don’t question miracles happen in other religions, but I do question their theologies, and in some cases the source of those miracles; but that is a theological debate, not a historical one.

Gnosticism was largely developing up to the 2nd Century. It could be it is the Gnostic’s beliefs that changed, and since there were likely members of the early Church becoming involved with Gnosticism this doesn’t seem improbable. It is not that Gnostics didn’t believe Jesus was a physical man, it is that they didn’t believe Him to be Divine in the sense of being God in the flesh. Rather they held that the Divine Spirit of Christ joined Jesus at His baptism, and left Him before His death (Adams Et. Al). If my opponent wants to believe the Gospel of John underwent extensive editing in a very brief time period (historically speaking) that is his choice, but there is not evidence for this. Epiphanius makes his arguments several hundred years after the authorship of the Gospels, and even a couple hundred years after the testimony of Papias, Eusebius, etc… I’d like to ask on what basis is my opponent accepting some of the “tradition” of the early Church, but disregarding the others?

I’ll grant there is dispute about the authorship of several Christian writings, including parts of the New Testament. However, the earliest testimony we have for the Gospel accounts points to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The only arguments I’ve seen against these are arguments of silence. A dispute about authorship does not necessarily bring into question the validity of the work itself.

Using other texts as a source generally confirms, rather than disputes, the accuracy of the texts. If Mark was the first Gospel, and widely read than it makes sense Luke and Matthew would use it as a source (especially if Mark recorded Peter’s account). I think we must keep in mind the Gospels were biographies, and biographies at that time are much different than today’s biographies. There wasn’t as much concern at that time about chronology, and equal weight wasn’t given to all periods of an individual’s life (Blomberg). The Gospels did have a theological agenda, which is somewhat beyond the scope of this debate, but the historical events recorded can be dealt with independently of that.

We come back to Quirinius again. I’d point out that there is some evidence of someone governing Syria on two different occasions, however the assertion this must be Quirinius is rather weak, though it is a possibility based on what we know about Quirinius.
The Greek word prote is not always translated “first”, nor does it exclusively mean “first”, but can also mean before, best, and other things along those lines. This participial phrase can occur in a genitive of comparison (Kiefer). So the translation is not as “straight forward” as my opponent claims.

Herod was a client king, but keep in mind that rulers in Judea were subject to Roman appointment/approval. He was not completely independent. We know that “Apamea in Syria, although officially described as autonomous, was subject to a census” (Kiefer). Herod was restricted by Rome in what coins he could mind himself. Herod’s kingdom was not as independent or free from the decrees of Rome as many have asserted.

My opponent claims that one would expect the massacre of infants would gather more attention, and I don’t know what else to say other than most people don’t expect it would. Josephus didn’t record every order given by Herod. I agree Bethlehem was and is an important place for the Jews, but it was also a small place; and Herod wouldn’t have taken kindly to Messianic prophecies or a competitor king (from the line of David). I don’t see the people of Bethlehem making a huge ruckus about this, primarily because of fear. As I’ve said, much worse atrocities go relatively unnoticed today, and we have 24/7 news coverage and access to areas around the globe. How did Matthew learn of it? Probably from traveling with Jesus and being in the area, or maybe investigating it, or both. Matthew was not written solely as a historical document, but it does stand as one.

Regarding the martyrdom, first things first, I’ve already addressed the spiritual versus physical resurrection, and I believe that according to proper hermeneutics, the physical resurrection is the one supported by the New Testament. This would be the primary reason the Apostles and the other witnesses cited by Paul believed in Jesus as the Son of God. As such things as Pliny the Younger’s writings indicate, the early Church was worshipping Christ as God. Therefore the physical resurrection of Christ had everything to do with the persecution of the Church.

Pliny’s writings also establish that in various cases Christian martyrs were warned if they admitted to being Christians they would be punished (executed). Inside of the New Testament we have multiple accounts of persecution in the early Church. I think one of the large differences in how we are looking at this is our opinions about the time periods. As I don’t think something in the 2nd or 3rd century is that far removed from most of the events recorded, and therefore I don’t think the oral traditions or the testimony of the early Church leaders can be legitimately questioned solely on the basis of distortion in the early accounts. This seems to me, at best, a poor argument from silence.

Even if the Apostles didn’t die for their faith, they still suffered a great deal of persecution. Now if my opponent is correct (and I don’t believe he is, but for the sake of argument) about a spiritual resurrection, than that paints Jesus as much more of a miracle worker, for then Jesus converts His greatest enemy (Saul) even though Saul believe Jesus is physically dead. In that case there are some spectacular supernatural events occurring, and my opponent has continually denied such things.

Micah 5, taken in context, reveals he is talking about two different times. At the end of Christ’s reign we are told there will be peace. But then we start hearing about Assyria and war. Keep in mind the division of verses was not there when it was originally written, rather it is something we’ve added in order to ease citing and looking up passages. Most scholars believe Assyria does not necessarily refer to the literal nation, but to any nation opposing Israel. Some suggest it is a reference to eschatological events.

Once again, oftentimes prophecies have both historical and futuristic fulfillments. Was Hosea 11:1 referring to the Israelites leaving Egypt? Certainly, but it would not be unreasonable to think of that event as foreshadowing Christ. After all, do not all the feasts and sacrifices foreshadow Christ? Is He not referred to as the Passover Lamb (I Corinthians 5:7)?

I do believe the Gospels have both a theological and historical foundation. Obviously Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, taught and spoke on theological issues. Certainly some do assert the Gospels were made to conform to prophecy, but this ignores the obvious solution of Jesus actually having fulfilled those prophecies.

At least we’re no longer debating whether Nazareth existed at this point, but we’ve moved on to when did Nazareth exist? Pieces of pottery dating back to the 2nd century is a very favorable thing for my argument, as Jesus lived in the 1st century, so that puts Nazareth into existence relatively close to the time of Christ. Unless the town suddenly sprung up out of nowhere in the 2nd century than it would seem it was in existence before that time period. It does not seem unlikely the town, small as we both agree it would have been, may have existed for some time before we first find pottery from it.

I do apologize for failing to address the cliff as of yet, honestly as I go through I sometimes miss things, and after sending the last two responses I thought: “I failed to address the cliff”. At any rate my opponent stated the nearest cliff is some 4kms away from Nazareth. Well, notice first that in Luke 4:29 we are told Jesus is thrust out of the city, and 4kms isn’t that far away, about 2.5 miles. Also, I’d like to ask how big of a cliff are we talking, as it wouldn’t have to be that big, only about a 10 foot minimum (or some type of drop or crevice), as throwing someone down a cliff was the first process in stoning them.

Regarding evidence for Jewish oral law calling Jesus a Nazarene, that is just one possibility proposed by scholars. As of yet I’m unable to find a written copy of the Jewish oral law (I can’t imagine why). We can also look at this as a question of the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. What I mean by that is, perhaps Jesus lived in Nazareth because doing so would allow Him to fulfill those things spoken by the prophets. For example Jesus being low, despised, etc… is fulfilled because He hails from Nazareth; which as we’ve discussed was rather insignificant. Even Nathaneal asks if anything good can come from Nazareth when Philip tells him about Jesus (John 1:46); surely this shows Jesus being despised, at least in part because of His rearing in Nazareth.

I fully agree that at least parts of the Testimonium Flavium were probably later interpolations. I think Origen might have left the comment about Josephus not believing alone were it not for the fact Josephus said something about Jesus Christ; as Josephus being a traditional Jew would have been obvious, and there would be no need to clarify the issue if Josephus made no comments about Jesus Christ.

In regards to the second passage, Origen cites it in reference to Jesus Christ. The passage itself refers to Jesus, called Christ; and Jesus, son of Damneus. I may be wrong, but it seems he would use these titles in referencing two different people sharing the same name. Are there other places where Christ is used as a common title for anybody anointed with oil?

The fact that the Talmud would include anything shows it did not dispute Jesus existence, His miracles, etc… Even if it was drawn from Christian sources, the Jewish historians must have had excellent reason for doing so. It counts as one more agreement on the same event.

Even taking Tacitus in the way my opponent has, we still have a crucifixion, and followers of a crucified man willing to undergo torture and death for their beliefs. So this does provide us with a historical Jesus; I’ll address a movement based on a crucified man shortly.

Pliny indicates that Christians worshipped Christ as God, as I’ve pointed out already. He also indicates a strong belief in this, even to the point of death. So once again we come to a movement based on a crucified man.

Well I certainly agree Jesus had received a new body, as some of His followers didn’t recognize Him upon His initial appearances. And while I agree Jesus new body was spiritual in a sense, I also believe it was physical. Jesus appeared to His disciples, and ate with them, was touched by Thomas, etc… It was not a solely “natural” body, but it was physical.

I continue to hold Paul did not believe in a spiritual resurrection as my opponent is proposing (I Corinthians 15, Romans 8:11). I’ve addressed this more in my previous response.

Moving on to Paul’s conversion, we do have Paul claiming several times to have seen Christ. My opponent writes this off as a spiritual vision, which in a way it was; but we still have Paul’s companions seeing a bright light and hearing something (though not understanding it). Paul was also blinded by the experience, so the physical aspect of it can not be denied.

I agree, as did Africanus, that an eclipse at the time of the Passover during Passion week would have been impossible. The fact that we do have darkness simply confirms the supernatural occurrences. Given my opponent’s proficiency for crediting things to visions he should have no trouble accepting this (that was a joke, I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist).

My opponent points out there is no evidence for an empty tomb prior to the Gospels, and I agree. Given the proximity of the writing of the Gospels to the time of the Resurrection I have no trouble accepting this. At any rate we still have a crucified Christ, but no tomb for Him. If Christ was crucified, and His resurrection was spiritual as my opponent asserts, than my opponent needs a tomb with Christ in it. When we take the crucifixion and a spiritual resurrection, that would result in tomb with physical remains, not an empty tomb. Given we have no tomb, and we have numerous witnesses of a resurrected Christ, this does not lend itself to what my opponent is asserting.

There are several things that can be asked of the Theophilus quote, perhaps the most pressing being what is the oil of God referring to? I don’t have a copy of Theophilus’ surviving writings, as such I can’t very well put it in any type of context. However Theophilus does talk about Christ in Book II, Chapter XII; and he quotes the Gospel of John if I’m not mistaken.

Why wouldn’t Paul mention Christ’s ministry in his letters? Honestly he probably didn’t need to. Paul often addresses things which people are confusing and misunderstanding. If the early Church didn’t have much misunderstanding about Christ’s ministry it follows Paul wouldn’t have brought it up that often. However, just because Paul doesn’t talk at great length about Jesus ministry in his letters, that doesn’t mean Paul doubted it or didn’t know about it. Look at Acts 19:13, where certain Jews try to cast out demons by the Jesus Paul preaches. Certainly they wouldn’t do that if Paul weren’t preaching and demonstrating a powerful Jesus. Paul would have quoted Scripture from the Hebrew Bible, as that is the only Scripture they had at that point (with the exception of the book of James, Paul may have seen that). When Paul talks about Christ’s coming He is referring to the 2nd coming. The early Church did believe it would be soon, but as we can see it was not in their lifetimes.

The end times or last days began, according to Joel and Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost when the Church is believed to have started (though some argue the Church started at the Crucifixion, that is another issue entirely). From an eschatological viewpoint, the last 2,000 years have been the end times. In comparison to the rest of history 2,000 years is a relatively short time. Jesus states no man knows the day nor the hour when He will return, and nearly every generation of the Church has attempted to be faithfully on watch, anticipating it at any time.

I may rely on tradition, but it is not a tradition of some crazy ritual. It is a tradition of the attestation of early Church fathers, undisputed among those who actually lived during the time of the writings of the Gospels. It is a tradition based on the manuscripts and histories and writings of those most qualified to address these issues; much more qualified than we are today.

My opponent claims the Gospels have no historical accuracy, having pointed out easily dealt with secondary details. Ignoring the numerous details recorded in the Gospels that are not disputed. Details such as Herodias marrying Herod Antipas, while Philip was still alive (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 5; Mark 6:17, Luke 3:19). In a historical context, even if (and I don’t believe this is the case) I had to cede points about Nazareth, and the date of the Nativity, in light of everything else that is correct, these are not enough to make the Gospels historically unreliable. Even though my opponent and I agree the works of Josephus may have been edited, we still don’t question its historical accuracy in light of everything we know, and how often Josephus was correct.

The Gospels far excel every other historical document in terms of accuracy, in terms of preservation, in terms of circumstantial and archeological evidence; the list goes on and on. My opponent is right to demand evidence, however my opponent must believe humankind has a very short and vague history based on his demands for satisfactory evidence.

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Third response (against)

My third response. Well over the word limit, but I wanted to keep all of it in this time:

I am not contesting the probable dates for Papias’ writings. In the fragments remaining, Papias states he got his information from John the Presbyter. Therefore Papias admits to having no firsthand knowledge of the gospel writings, and my opponent’s assertion that Papias was an eyewitness to the gospels being written is without grounds. Papias’ statements regarding the gospel authorship is hearsay.

My opponent has mentioned Alexander the Great’s biographies previously. He stated that these are accepted as historically accurate; therefore the gospels should also be accepted as accurate. However the biographies of Alexander are not the major sources of information regarding his existence and life, at least that which is accepted historically. Alexander left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. There are buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone and dated to 332BCE. Other historical persons, such as Augustus Caesar, for whom we have his own account of his works and deeds, a letter to his son, Virgil’s eyewitness accounts and much more, are similarly attested.

We can establish some historicity to these people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times. However, even with contemporary evidence, historians are wary of after-the-fact stories of many of these people, for example, some of the stories of Alexander’s conquests, or Nero starting the fire in Rome always get questioned or doubted because they contain inconsistencies or come from authors who wrote years after the alleged facts. Qualifying the history of Alexander, Pierre Briant writes, “Although more than twenty of his contemporaries chronicled Alexander’s life and campaigns, none of these texts survive in original form. Many letters and speeches attributed to Alexander are ancient forgeries or reconstructions inspired by imagination or political motives. The little solid documentation we possess from Alexander’s own time is mainly to be found in stone inscriptions from the Greek cities of Europe and Asia.” [Briant].

So, in contrast to my opponent’s assertions, we find that the biographies of Alexander are not accepted at face value. They contain various accounts which are dismissed precisely because they are uncorroborated. These biographies provide evidence similar to that which is provided by the gospels, though the gospels were written closer to the time they purport to describe.

Thus contrasting the documentary evidence for the life of Jesus with the evidence of the life of Alexander makes my case, not my opponents. The gospel writings are exactly the type of evidence which is viewed with suspicion. My opponent seemingly has no problems with the treatment of other historical documentation, such as the biographies of Alexander above, yet would like a special case to be made for the gospel accounts, even though there is no corroborative evidence for them from the supposed time of Jesus' life.

I’m curious whether my opponent, in accepting the gospel accounts, also accepts other eyewitness accounts from historical sources. Accounts such as the healings of Emperor Vespasian, reported by Tacitus and Suetonius, the splitting of the moon and the calling of rain, performed by Mohammed and the healings and raising of the dead attributed to modern day Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba. I’d be interested to know on what grounds my opponent can dismiss these accounts as they are given, and yet can accept the gospel accounts seemingly without argument.

Regarding the gospel of John, my opponent feels that use by Gnostic sects would not imply a different text than what survives today. First, the early manuscript mentioned, P52, which does indeed date from the early 1st century, contains short fragmentary text, with no references to Jesus. It can't be used to “fix” the Gospel of John’s wording to this date. Randal Helms states “we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that ‘Jesus Christ came in the flesh’ citing a gospel that declares ‘the Word became flesh,’ and ‘whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.’ [Randal Helms ‘Who wrote the gospels?’]. This would mean that the gospel as we have it today must have been modified sometime after it's initial use by gnostic sects. How my opponent reconciles the contradictory beliefs of these gnostics with the theology espoused in John’s Gospel I'd be curious to know.

Regarding the authorship of John, Helms states “So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream.”It would appear that the early authorship of the Gospel of John was far from universal, and in fact points towards a large rework of the contents.

There are many early Christian writings whose traditional authorship is disputed or dismissed view critical scholarship. Of the letters of Paul in the New Testament, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are viewed as inauthentic. Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians are widely disputed, though they do not share quite the same consensus as the previous letters. The authorship of all of the Johannine works has been debated since the 3rd century, and is generally accepted to be by an author or authors other than the apostle. We can see that traditional attribution, which is the only evidence my opponent seems to have offered, cannot be relied upon as a source of authorship of the gospels.

As for the gospels being written as historical records, the Gospel of Mark, for example, has no attempts at chronology, doesn’t indicate internally who the author was, or when he was writing, and contains no indication of any sources. It contains none of the markers which ancient historians generally used to indicate they were attempting to record history. The Gospels of Luke & Matthew both use Mark as a source, though they never indicate this. The Gospel of John, whose connection with Mark is less obvious though still present, is much more a theological treatise than an historical document, which scholars almost uniformly reject as being the work of the apostle as mentioned above. Given the amount of duplication between the synoptics, along with the complete lack of attribution, naming of sources and chronology, the synoptics only stand as as a single source, with the Gospel of John a possible secondary source, though even less concerned with history.

On to Roman census, my opponent asserts an earlier date, without evidence. He claims the passage in Luke could mean “before” Quirinius was governor of Syria, and therefore place this census during the life of Herod the Great. The passage in Luke, in the original Greek, says ‘hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou’, or with interlinear translation, ‘hautê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). In English, the correct word order is ‘this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria.’ This is very straight forward, and all translations render it in this manner. My opponents assertion of “before” is not supported by the passage.

Even accepting the "before" argument and assuming Quirinius had been in Syria in another official capacity at an earlier time, during the reign of Herod the Great, the census could not have included Judea as it was not under direct Roman control, and was not being directly taxed. There is no example of, nor rationale for, a census of an independent kingdom ever being conducted in Roman history. The census Luke describes could only have taken place after the death of Herod, when Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria, just as Josephus and a plain reading of Luke describe. Therefore the census in Luke, and the date of the nativity in Luke must be around 6CE, whereas due to the death of Herod the Great, the date of the nativity in Matthew must be at or before 4BCE.

I must apologise for referencing an incorrect book of Josephus’ relating to the life of Herod the Great. My opponent is correct in stating that Herod the Great is not to be found in book 18.

Concerning the massacre of the infants, Josephus documents many deeds done by Herod, yet does not mention the massacre. My opponent is correct in stating that most of the acts documented by Jospehus are concerning important people and Herod’s family. There are cases of the Jews standing up to Herod for his treatment of them, such as the Pharisee's refusing to swear unto Caesar and being fined, or the multitude destroying the golden eagle which Herod gave as tribute to Yahweh, and even assassination attempts. Given this, one would expect that the massacre of hundreds of infants in Bethlehem, a town which was very important to the Jewish people, being the birthplace of David, would elicit a response, especially as it was done to remove the 'King of the Jews' who was to depose Herod. The only source for this event is the Gospel of Matthew, which as explained above, is not written as an historical record.

If this massacre occurred, yet was never documented as my opponent seems to claim, I wonder how the writer of Matthew learned of it to document it some 80+ years after the event? Perhaps if he had documented his sources we would have more confidence in this.

My opponent cites the Martyrdom of the apostles as evidence that they were witness to miracles, or at least were not party to a lie. These martyrdoms come down to us through tradition. There is no evidence that belief in a physically risen Jesus was a factor in their sufferings, nor whether recanting of this would have changed the outcome. Given this we should view the martyrdoms with suspicion, as tradition has been shown to be unreliable. The tale of Peter being crucified upside down in Rome comes to us from the Acts of Peter, a mid 2nd century work, which features a magic/miracle contest between Peter and Simon Magus, with no corroboration. 1 Clement, written in the early second century only lists Peter and Paul as Martyrs, and does not mention the means or method or causes of these martyrdoms, nor whether renunciation of the miracles of Christ would have spared their lives. Peter, being the only possible eyewitness to the risen Jesus of the two, would be the only candidate for martyrdom here. Given Paul implies the risen Jesus was spiritual rather than physical, even this is in doubt. The assertion that the martyrdom of the apostles supports the miracles and physical resurrection of Jesus is unsupported by the evidence.

I accept that Micah 5:2 may be referring to the town of Bethlehem and not the tribe. The passage concerns the coming of a king from the line of David. It then goes on to state that that this King will conquer Assyria (Micah 5:5-6). Taken in context, this prophecy would have Jesus conquering Assyria, which did not exist in his time, nor in ours. Hosea 11:1, which speaks of the nation of Israel, and not of an individual child, is not concerned with Jesus returning from Egypt. In context, were it a prophecy, it would still be speaking of the nation of Israel.

My opponent states that even conceding these prophecies as unsound, it speaks of theological and not historical issues. I would agree, and add that as the gospels are written more as theological tracts rather than historical records, the events in the gospel are largely drawn from existing scripture and theology, and not events which took place in 1st century Palestine.

Regarding the wine presses and vineyards of Ross Voss and Stephan Pfann. Of this archaeological site, 2 surveys were done. One, officially sponsored by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), found that the pottery shards from the site are dated from the 2nd-4th century. There is no mention of anything from Jesus’ time. The report was authored by Mordechai Haiman, a respected PhD in Archaeology. The second survey, unsigned but copyright the University of the Holy Land (UHL) (whose president is Stephan Pfann) claims that the shards date from the time of Jesus and from Hellenistic times. As noted, the IAA report does not mention these eras. The conclusion of the UHL report is the amazingly imprecise statement “Potsherds were found on the surface of the terraces dating to various periods beginning with the early to late Roman period.” This imprecision is found throughout the report, and no indication is given to clarify this. My opponent’s assertion of findings from the area dating to early 1st century is unsupported by the scholarly investigation.

My opponent has still not addressed the absence of any cliff near the site of Nazareth, which is a feature of the gospels.

My opponent states that the reference to a “Nazarene” is part of rabbinical oral prophecy. Is there any evidence for this oral prophecy? The oral tradition seems to have been predominantly concerned with the interpretation of the law, and not with prophetic announcements, a function filled by the Tanakh.

The “Testimonium Flavium” is not quoted by early Christian writers until Eusebius in 325CE. Origen (~240CE) quotes the less significant reference to Jesus as brother of James, and other passages concerning John the Baptist, yet does not mention the Testimonium, even though it would have supported his case. He mentions that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, which is likely due to Jospehus being traditional Jew. That Origen makes no mention of the passage in question, whether it existed as we find it today, in a modified form excluding messianic claims, or a negative form which some scholars put forward, adds weight to the idea that the version of Antiquities which Origen had did not mention Jesus where the Testimonium is now found.

On the lesser reference to Jesus in Jospehus, the subject of the passage is obviously ‘Jesus son of Damneus’, whose brother named James was killed, and who subsequently received the office of high priest possibly as some form of reparation. The term ‘Anointed’ or ‘Christ’ or ‘Messiah’ was a title, used for those who were anointed with sacred oils such as the king or, as in this case, the high priest. The simplest explanation remains that either the reference to 'the christ' is either a title as given to Jesus as the high priest or a later interpolation as the text itself gives no indication that there are 2 Jesus’ being discussed.

The sources of information for Jesus in the Talmud likely being Christian, while not making them inaccurate, does remove any claims that the Talmud is independant evidence. The Talmud therefore shouldn't be used as evidence for the accuracy of the gospels.

Likewise Tacitus’ sources were also likely Christian. Using this we can only surmise that Christian’s believed in a crucified Jesus. Again, this is not independent testimony, only testimony as to what was believed by or about the Christians.

Pliny simply indicates that there were Christians in Pontus. There is no indication of some vast spread. In fact there is no indication of anything apart from the Christians seemingly being a constant source of unrest, such that Pliny provides advice to a fellow official concerning their treatment.

In his letters, Paul continual reinforces a spiritual, not physical, resurrection - 1 Corinthians 15:44 ‘it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.’ The converts at Corinth accepted Jesus was alive, but seemed to reject the idea of a corpse rising. This made them doubt the resurrection, as they were not gods like Jesus and could not survive the death of the body. Paul explains to them that their concept of resurrection is wrong, they would be resurrected just like Jesus, as ‘life giving spirits’. Paul’s argument is that the converts at Corinth were fools to deny an afterlife because they could not understand how a corpse would rise. Paul tells them that resurrected beings would not be made from the dust that corpses become.

Regarding Paul’s conversion story, we have no specific details from him, and rely upon Acts. Acts 9:7 ‘The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.’ Acts 22:9 ‘My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me’ Acts 26:13-14 ‘About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic’. The accounts seem to indicate quite different experiences to me. Even accepting these differing accounts as referring to the same event, they support a spiritual encounter, not physical. Given the appearances after the resurrection are treated by Paul as being of same type, this supports a spiritual, not Physical resurrection, contrary to my opponents claims.

Thallus most likely recorded a normal eclipse, which was mentioned by Africanus as occurring during the passion of Jesus, and as such is doubted as being a normal eclipse. There is no information as to whether Thallus mentioned that the eclipse was during the passion, all we have is the conclusion by Africanus, and given Thallus is claimed to have asserted a solar eclipse, which would have been impossible at the time of the passion due to the phase of the moon, we are left with Thallus mentioning a normal eclipse, and nothing but assertions to support the darkness during the passion.

My opponent claims I need to deal with the matter of a movement based upon the crucifixion and resurrection. In answer there doesn't seem to be evidence for the tradition of the empty tomb prior to the gospels. Paul mentions crucifixion and burial. Given his belief in a spiritual resurrection, he would not have expected an empty tomb at all. An empty tomb would need to be demonstrated before an explanation was required.

As for the crucifixion, we need look at the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, an early Christian bishop (180CE), who shows no knowledge of an historical Jesus, and states the following ‘Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.’ - Theophilus To Autolycus (Book 1, 180CE). This demonstrates that knowledge of a historical Jesus, and acceptance of this man as the Christ was not universal amongst the early church, and was not a requirement for being Christian.

I’m curious as to what explanation can be offered concerning Paul never mentioning details of Jesus’ life and ministry. He States that he received his gospel (good news) from revelation and not from any man. when he quotes from scripture it is of the Hebrew Bible. He does not write as if Jesus was only recently departed, but more that he was expecting his arrival (for the first time). Paul also wrote as if the arrival (or second coming) of Jesus was immanent within his lifetime.

My opponent has appealed to tradition regarding the authors of these works, and yet I’ve shown that tradition is a poor yard stick. My opponent has appealed to their historical accuracy, yet I’ve shown that this is also not the case. My opponent has claimed special treatment for the gospels, yet I've demonstrated that they are being treated in the same manner as other historical documents. My opponent has claimed the spread of the religion as support for its claims, yet as I’ve shown the claims of the early church were varied, even to those who had no notion of a Jesus figure. I’ve also shown that the earliest accepted Christian writings, those of Paul, do not support physical appearances post resurrection, nor a physical resurrection at all. Also that Paul does not show knowledge of Jesus' life, which would be expected

While my opponent continues to claim that the gospels are completely accurate, we can see that his assertion is neither justified nor supported. My opponent fails to reconcile the dates of the nativity, has not shown that Nazareth existed in the early 1st century, nor addressed the absence of a cliff in the area.

My opponent is happy to accept the miracle stories in the gospels as fact. He needs to clarify his position regarding other well attested miracle stories, and why thy are also not acceptable as fact to him.

It seems my opponent still has his work cut out for him.