“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!