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

I've received the second response from my opponent:

Once again, I think we need to take all of this in context of other historical documents. It’s true we don’t have all of Papias’ works; nor do we have all of Tacitus’ Annals, but that is not sufficient reason to doubt what we do have and know about Papias’ writings. Papias may have had no contact with the Apostles and authors of the Gospels, but that doesn’t change the fact he was alive when the Gospels were written. I didn’t witness the World Trade Center Towers fall, but I was alive when they did fall and I’ll never forget what happened. So from the time of Papias to Irenaeus and Eusebius there is no dispute among anybody in regards to who wrote the Gospels. Now we could assume that Eusebius and company just made up authors, but if that’s the case why would they have used Mark over Peter? Why use Luke over a disciple? Why use Matthew, a tax collector (who specifically wrote to the Jew)?

There are no competitors for authorship, even if there were we both agree the Gospels were written within one generation of Christ (in fact the later dates proposed by my opponent would make Iranaeus’ testimony more valid) and there would have been plenty of eyewitnesses to dispute any distortion in the Gospels.

What the number of manuscripts and their dates do for us is more than just ensure we’ve got an accurate copy of what was written. The early date I demonstrated shows the latest possible date for that Gospel’s authorship. Since we’ve both agreed this is not an original copy we can say the Gospel was written before this parchment was made, therefore (since this parchment is from the Gospel both my opponent and I agree was written last) we can assert the Gospels were written within one generation of Christ, when eyewitnesses would still have been around to correct any error in recording.

On to “Q”, it is entirely possible as a hypothesis. Assuming “Q” I still believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke are unique enough to constitute separate accounts. What I’ve asserted is the Synoptics have a great deal of similar content, but enough unique content to make them individual accounts. Perhaps the Synoptics are so similar because they all draw on the teachings of Christ. If there was a composition of Christ’s sayings before the Gospel accounts I’d say it lends credibility to their accuracy. I’d also like to point out that my opponent has disagreed with this in principle, but agreed with it in practice; as even my opponent has pointed out instances only recorded in Matthew, or only in Luke, etc… in which case we are both in agreement the Synoptics are very similar but with enough uniqueness to be separate accounts.

At this point I do owe my opponent an apology, as he is quite right regarding Vardaman’s coins that I cited. I was quite wrong in citing them as they in all probability don’t exist. However, in researching them and the issue of Quirinius I was more convinced of the Gospel’s historical accuracy, though I’d used poor evidence at first. We only have a true discrepancy or contradiction when two statements absolutely can’t both be true. However there are at least two arguments that would render both Luke and Matthew factual. The first would be the word translated “first” in Luke should be translated “before”; and there is much debate regarding that, honestly I don’t know enough about Greek to make a definitive statement. Or it could be that Quirinius was not proconsul, but rather some other type of official, as the word translated “governor” has a wide meaning in Greek; much less narrow than we would think of a governor today. And since we do know Quirinius was a military official, Roman senator and had held other offices prior to the proconsulship of Syria, it is quite possible he was in Syria on other occasions in some authoritative capacity (The Complete Works of Josephus, 376). I’ll leave it to my opponent to establish the Matthew passage and the Luke passage must be interpreted to be contradictory.

An absence of evidence is only evidence of an absence when if something did happen we should reasonably expect more evidence for its occurrence than we already have. The question about the massacre at Bethlehem comes down to should we reasonably expect more evidence than we already have? I honestly don’t think so. Bethlehem was a small town, and if a tyrant king just killed all the babies in my village I’d probably shut up about it for fear of what he’d do to me. This event involved, at most, a couple hundred babies. Today that would seem huge, but honestly look at the Darfur crises. One would think 450,000+ deaths would get more attention than they do at present, but it’s getting hardly any attention at all. If in our day of 24/7 news coverage that can happen (and that is one of many African genocides) with the world not noticing, than surely 2,000 years ago an event much smaller could happen with little notice. As far as Herod not finding Jesus in the Temple, Herod’s lineage was, at best, converted to Judaism, not Hebrew. Thus even as a convert to Judaism Herod could not have got past the outer court without breaking Jewish law (at least according to some, depending on how well Herod has essentially bought them off). The question is would Herod have looked for Jesus in the Temple, and if so would he have been able to recognize Him? Based on what we know about Herod I don’t think so.

I don’t see any point in continuing debate on the Caesarean inscription, as we both agree that Nazareth existed and was a small place. As far as the synagogue goes though, my opponent is referring to a synagogue as a building; which some archeologists do argue there is evidence for. However, we don’t need a building to have a synagogue. Some argue that it refers to a gathering of worshippers, not a specific building, as synagogue (sunagoge in Greek) refers to an assemblage of persons, it can refer to either the meeting itself or the place of the meeting. So while a building for a synagogue may be possible in Nazareth, it is not necessary.

Regarding the Testimonium Flavium I would like to know what my opponent’s basis is for eliminating the line about Jesus having done wonderful works. As I agree the other lines were interpolations. At any rate it provides collaboration for Christ’s teachings and trail before Pilate. Also we do have Josephus at least acknowledge that some considered Jesus to be the Christ (The Complete Works of Josephus, 423), though Josephus himself did not. This would indicate that at least some people believed Jesus had performed miracles. Also the Talmud refers to Christ’s miracles, though it disputes the source; so we are not left without corroborating evidence for Christ’s ministry.

Tacitus’ record provides evidence for the crucifixion; Pliny the Younger’s writing demonstrates the rapid spread of Christianity and attestation to the fact that the early Christian church was convinced of Christ’s deity and was not swayed from this under the most extreme persecution. In light of this I would like to ask my opponent for an explanation of a movement based on a crucified man. As I’ve already asserted, the explanation is the Resurrection.

Paul does in fact mention the Resurrection, several times; Romans 6:4-9, 7:4, 8:11; I Corinthians 15:15-16; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; and II Timothy 2:8. Paul cites witnesses in the I Corinthians 15 passage. In I Corinthians 15:17 Paul even says if Christ was not raised from the dead than our faith is in vain. So Paul establishes eyewitnesses did see Christ, even if my opponent will not accept Paul himself as an eyewitness in a literal sense; these eyewitnesses were apparently credible enough to have a former persecutor of the Church become their chief missionary. So my opponent must somehow explain the sightings of Jesus by the Apostles, by the 500, by James, etc…

I must disagree with my opponent in regards to being left without corroboration for the darkness and earthquake. Aside from what I’ve already mentioned, Thallus and Julius Africanus also refer to the darkness. Most scholars believe the darkness and earthquake were widespread if not global. Thus it would make sense Bithynia, which as my opponent pointed out is some distance from Jerusalem, saw these events as well. The renting of the Temple Curtain would have resulted from the earthquake. My opponent can make an argument out of silence, but what we do have regarding these events confirm they happened.

As far as the appearance of many risen saints in Jerusalem, I’ll admit we don’t know a lot about it. It could be many of the people who encountered these people didn’t know who they were encountering (e.g.- entertaining angels unaware so to speak). I honestly don’t know the circumstances and neither does my opponent, if he wants to interpret it as he does and assert this would garner much more evidence that is his choice. It could be there’s evidence we haven’t found. At any rate the question is more theological than historical, especially if it is a result of misinterpretation.

So I still believe the Gospels are historically reliable, especially in regards to the Resurrection of Christ. As my opponent rightly points out, Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. However that still leaves us with an empty tomb, and the women seeing a man telling them that Jesus will soon appear to them. We than have numerous eyewitness experiences with the Apostles, the women, disciples on the road to Emmaus, the 500 Paul cited, and so forth. I think the evidence speaks for itself. As I’ve already said, my opponent is the one who must deal with an empty tomb, a movement based on a crucified man who was seen numerous times after His death, and who inspired the greatest persecutor of the Church to be His chief missionary.

As I’ve already admitted there was one example of poor scholarship on my part, but the factuality of the Gospels is still not threatened. There is a plethora of corroborating historical documents and archeological finds that verify the Gospels. No secular historical document is held to such scrutiny, much less would they survive if they were. My opponent asserts I have a conclusion in mind and search for the evidence, well I believe my beliefs and I doubt my doubts. I could argue my opponent is searching for very specific ways and using very narrow interpretations (throwing weighted dice) to poke holes in the Gospels; but either way I hope the readers will look at the evidence, not at the flawed individuals presenting it.

It seems to me what my opponent has asserted poses no serious threats to the factuality of the Gospels. He has virtually ignored the numerous places where the Gospels are accurate; I have at least engaged his claims of the Gospel’s inaccuracies. In the light of all other accepted historical documents the Gospels are incredibly accurate and factual. My opponent has the right to demand evidence, however it’s beginning to seem that if the evidence my opponent demands for the Gospels were demanded of everything else my opponent would have a very short world history. Even the texts of Josephus we have both cited are not preserved originally, yet my opponent holds no qualms about their factuality. The Gospels cannot be called second-hand hearsay in the context of all other historical documents.