“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.