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

My first response in the ongoing debate over the historical value of the canonical gospels:

On the matter of Papias, whose writings my opponent says support his point. The works of Papias are lost to us, and are only known through external references by later writers such as Eusebius (300CE) and Irenaeus (180CE), both of which are found in Eusebius' Church History.
Irenaeus writes of Papias that "in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them". So we cannot say Papias had any contact with the apostles. Papias also writes that he heard of the writing of Mark from "John the Presbyter". We have no way of knowing if the gospel of Mark mentioned by Papias is the document we name Mark.
Irenaeus attests to the authorship of the gospels in a form similar to what we have not. He does so very late in the second century (180CE), nearly a century after all of the gospels were written. Note that this is the first claim of authorship we have of the gospels with associated quotations from them. The manuscripts we have date from the 3rd century for papyrus fragments, and around the 4th century for a mostly complete work.

Citing the number and early date of the manuscripts which exist, my opponent make the erroneous claim that this supports their historical accuracy. The number and early date only serve to increase confidence in that we can reconstruct something close to what the said. It does not have any impact on the confidence we have of the accuracy of the historical events presented.

My opponent cites the "Q" document being a hypothesis. It is theorised in the main proposed solution to the synoptic problem. Even if my opponent does not subscribe to the "two source" hypothesis which postulates the "Q", he is still left with the synoptic problem, and all of the current hypothesis to resolve this problem leave my opponent with the synoptic gospels not comprising separate accounts.

As to claims of the proconsulship of Syria being filled by a 'Qurinius' during the reign of Herod the Great, my opponent makes mention of coins which he says support his claim. This theory, which entails microscopic writing, proposed by Dr. Jerry Vardaman. Despite the fact that any such writing would have worn off due to age and handling, the coins themselves, on which Vardaman claims to have found this writing, seen in a peer review setting. No examples or even photographs of these coins have been produced. All that has been seen are some sketches by Vardaman, and his assertions. The implements required to make these marks, a magnifying glass and some kind of diamond tipped inscriber, were unknown and unheard of at the time. This is uncritically cited by Biblical apologist John McRay (in Strobel) and does not speak well of McRay's, Strobel's or my opponent's scholarship. With no evidence to back up these claims, they can be dismissed. My opponent still must reconcile the discrepancy between dates of the Nativity.

My opponent states that infanticide carried out in a small village would not cause much of a fuss. I do not agree with him on this matter. Herod was indeed reported to be a cruel tyrant. In fact, we have evidence of his cruelty from historians of the day, including as my opponent points out, murder of family member. It is unusual that the infanticide is reported in Matthew, yet has no corroboration, either from the other gospels, or any other historical writing of the time. In trying to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the Temple visits, my opponent states "I don’t honestly see how Herod would have heard of Jesus visits to the Temple, as a Gentile Herod couldn’t have got very far in". In actual fact, Herod was actually Jewish, being of Idumean descent. During the time of the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (reigned 134 BCE - 104 BCE), Judea conquered Edom (which the Romans called Idumea) and forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism. The Edomites were integrated into the Jewish people. Herod is also known for rebuilding and expanding the second Temple in Jerusalem, which is often referred to as "Herod's Temple". Though it is not related to the question at hand, I'd like to point out that my opponent's scholarship seems to be lacking.

I note that my opponent does agree that Nazareth was at best a very small place, and certainly not a city as attested to in the gospels. My opponent's claims for a priestly relocation to Nazareth after the Jewish revolt and/or the Bar Kochba uprising seems to be based upon fragments of marble found at the site of ancient Caesarea in 1962^[1]. The synagogue in which the fragments were found seems to date from the late 3rd or early 4th century. It is doubtful that the inscription actually mentions Nazareth, The related fragments of the inscription were interpreted by means of Hebrew liturgical poems dating from the 6th and 7th centuries, when Nazareth was already a thriving tourist site and the name was well known. The letters n-ts-r-t are bounded by the broken edges of the stone, with the 'n' being only partially present. It is not certain what letter may have preceeded the 'n'. It would appear more likely that the inscription read Gennesaret, not Nazareth. Gennesaret was founded in Hellenistic times and was well known. My opponent's claim of relocation priests to Nazareth is a claim not supported by the evidence.

I would also like to note that while my opponent states that it would have been possible for a synagogue to exist in the tiny farming community which may have existed on the site of Nazareth, there is no archaeological evidence for such a building. My opponent still needs to deal with the missing synagogue, and did not address the lack of a nearby cliff from which the multitudes threatened to throw Jesus off.

My opponent goes on to claim that the “Testimonium Flavium” supports Jesus being a worker of miracles. However if we remove the text which is almost universally agreed to be Christian interpolation from the text, we are left with:
"At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man. . .he was a teacher of such people as accept the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. . . When Pilate, upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him. And the tribe of the Christians, so-called after him, has to this day still not disappeared."
The above is what the uninterpolated passage may have read. Before this is taken to support my opponents view, there is much discussion over whether the entire passage is not simply a Christian addition. At best the passage supports a man named Jesus being a teacher and being crucified by Pilate. At worst there is no mention of the Jesus whose ministry the gospels narrate, in the works of Josephus. My opponent is left without external corroborative evidence for the supernatural claims of the gospels.

My opponent goes on to cite Tacitus and Pliny the Younger as providing corroborative evidence of the gospels. Tacitus states that Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome on to the Christians. He does mention a "Christus" whom suffered at the hands of Pilate. Tacitus's mention of Christus could easily be explained as obtained from Christian sources, or through knowledge of the sect. Even if we accept it as legitimate, it attests to the existence of a "Christus" who was crucified. Pliny the Younger only mentions the existence of Christians. Neither account provides corroborative evidence for the events of Jesus's life and ministry, with the possible exception of the crucification.

My opponent mentions the writing of Paul as supporting the gospel accounts. Paul, in all of the texts thought to be authored by him, fails to mention details concerning the Life of Jesus. Paul does not attest to a bodily resurrection, in fact, Paul barely refers to an historical person "Jesus" at all. Paul cannot be taken as an eyewitness, as his accounts of experiences of Jesus are always referred to as "visions" as apposed to "physical visitations". He never claims to have been present during the events portrayed in the gospels. Paul's writings, therefore, do not support the events in the gospels.

As my opponent notes, Phlegon does indeed mention an eclipse, and an earthquake at Bithynia. He does not however mention Jesus at all. That this occurred during Jesus's passion is asserted by Eusebius. The year of the occurrences possibly match, but there is no indication that Phlegon credits the darkness to have occurred during a full moon, as the gospels and later Christian writers assert (the crucification having occurred at passover). This lack is noted by the early Christian write Origen. The earthquake is said to have occurred in Bithynia, which is quite a distance from Jerusalem. My opponent therefore is left without corroboration for the darkness and earthquakes as presented in the gospels. He also has not explained the rending of the Temple curtain (the stone wall) being completely absent from every other work of the time.

That a number of dead saints came back to life and were seen by many, does not rate a mention in any other contemporary text casts doubt upon it's historical accuracy. My opponent notes that the saints may not have appeared to historians, priests etc. This could be true, but is an assumption on his part. That no other Christian writings attest to this event . Given the fantastic nature of the event, and the lack of corroboration, I think we can dismiss it, as most biblical historians do.

Now my opponent comes to the resurrection and the empty tomb. As I've been demonstrating, the gospels are not as reliable as my opponent would like to believe. He is still willing to trust them in regards to this incredibly miraculous event, regardless of their previous fallibility. In the earliest manuscripts, the earliest gospel, that of 'Mark', ceases at Mark 16:8, with the women keeping silent concerning the tomb, with no post resurrection appearances and no assumption. Even if we accept that this fantastic event actually occurred, my opponent still has not shown the gospels to be reliable due to the factual errors and inconsistencies which have been pointed out above.

Given my opponents lack of discrediting my opposition to the accuracy of events portrayed within the gospels, as well as the examples of poor scholarship my opponent has provided, seem to show that he has a conclusion and is searching for supporting evidence. The historical method involves gathering all of the evidence available and then coming to a conclusion on the most likely series of events.

As demonstrated above, the evidence does not support my opponent's belief. He claims that even without the gospels, Jesus would still be a miracle worker, yet the evidence does not support that claim. The evidence concerning Nazareth does not support the gospel description. The internal contradiction regarding the date of the nativity does not support gospel accuracy. At best, the gospels are secondary sources of the events of Jesus' ministry, though they are often regarded as hearsay. Without external corroboration, we cannot rely on the gospels as being completely historically accurate.