“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.