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

My second response. I had to cut some information to manage the word limit. Perhaps it will make it into the next response:

What the fragments of Papias' work remain tell us of the gospels of Mark & Matthew is information which Papias himself traces to John the Presbyter. Papias himself tells us he preferred the "living voice" to what was found in books. This tells us that oral tradition was alive and well, and preferred by some Christians, well into the 2nd century CE.

My opponent claims that due to the date of a fragment of the gospel of John (P52) at ~120CE, we can conclude that the gospels were written within a generation of Jesus' supposed ministry. The earliest use of the this gospel are by Gnostic sects. As the the gospel of John which we have in the earliest complete form has quite anti-gnostic content, the original, as used by the Gnostic sects must have differed markedly from the one we have today. This shows that the gospels were undergoing redaction and rewriting at least into the second century, and perhaps much later. This does not support my opponents case, at least in the case of John.

In the case of Mark, Matthew & Luke being independent accounts, my opponent has failed to make his case. That the gospels contain some differences is not disputed. What my opponent is failing to acknowledge is that the shared information is so similar, that it constitutes a single source. Luke uses content from Matthew which is not in Mark. Again this information is so similar that it counts as a single source. We are left with a single source for the events in Mark, shared by Matthew & Luke, a single source for the events in Matthew, shared by Luke, and single source for the accounts found in one but not the other synoptics.

My opponent, while acknowledging his error citing Vardaman's coins, continues to assert that Qurinius may have held another official position in Syria at the time, and that this would resolve the discrepancy between Luke & Matthew regarding the date of the nativity. Even should we accept this assertion, without evidence to back it up, my opponent would still have failed to explain the discrepancy. In Luke's account, it is the Roman census which provides the impetus for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem. Judea was a client kingdom and not a protectorate of Rome during the reign of Herod the Great, and a client kingdom was generally independent, being required to pay a yearly tribute to Rome. It was not until 6CE, when Judea came under direct Roman control that a Roman census, as described in Luke, and corroborated in Josephus' works, could have occurred. Thus, even if we were to concede that Qurinius may have had some official capacity in Syria during the reign of Herod the Great, the census detailed in Luke could not have occurred at this time. My opponent still needs to account for this discrepancy.

For the massacre of infants, as found only in the gospel of Matthew, my opponent has claimed that we should not expect to find additional evidence, something I disagree with. The massacre took place in the birthplace of David, which was a very special place to the Israelites. In book 18 of Antiquities, Josephus chronicles the life of Herod the Great, but fails to mention this terrible atrocity, though he mentions quite a few others. In fact the only evidence we have for the event is Matthew. It is much more likely that Matthew inserted a common mythical theme in his story, that of the jealous king who fears a child and tries to kill him at birth, similar in fact, to the tale of Moses. Matthew explicitly references Jeremiah (31:15) concerning the wailing over the children, lending more support to a fictional insertion. Jesus birth in Bethlehem is supposedly fulfillment of a prophecy in Micah (5:2), though is a misinterpretation and refers to the tribe of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's 2nd wife Ephrathah, and not the town. The flight to Egypt to avoid Herod's wrath seems to have been inspired by Hosea (11:1), which speaks of "His children" meaning the nation of Israel and not a coming messiah. These references indicate that Matthew shaped his nativity story according to Jewish scripture, with the errors showing it is not fulfillment of prophecy. The simplest explanation is therefore that the massacre of the infants, if not Matthew's entire nativity story is fictional, which makes my case concerning this debate.

The scenario I sketched out regarding Nazareth was a best case scenario for my opponent extrapolated from such a small amount of evidence as to make this far from the most likely scenario. The archaeological evidence is better explained by a lack of habitation, and use of the site as a graveyard. Though my opponent has claimed the "synagogue" mentioned is explained as a gathering of men, the gospel account still implies a building in which Jesus preached and within which he was assaulted by the multitudes. There is no evidence of the existence of this building. The gospel account also states that the town/city was built on a cliff, off of which the multitude wanted to throw Jesus. The nearest cliff is some 4kms away, and does not support the claims of the story. My opponent still has work to do in regards to Nazareth. It should be noted that the prophecy which is claimed to have been fulfilled by Jesus being from Nazareth (Matt 2:22-23), is actually mistranslation or misunderstanding. The only reference to something like 'Nazareth' in the old testament is in Judges (13:5), which states 'the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb'. A nazarite is one who has taken the vows from Numbers 6:1-21. Not only does the evidence support a lack of habitation at the site of Nazareth, with no synagogue structure and no cliff as related in the gospels, the gospels show evidence of being shaped to fit a Jewish scripture. This shaping of the story to fit with scripture and perceived prophecy does not lend credence to the historical accuracy of the gospels, especially in light of the problems being noted.

Regarding the translation of the "Testimonium Flavium" I provided, it was an arabic translation from the 10th century, which is thought to contain fewer Christian interpolations than those versions which come through Eusebius. I will note that it has been a majority position that the entire passage was an insertion, possibly a transcribed by mistake from a margin note, until recently. Only after the historicity of Jesus came under assault has the "Testimonium" been rigourously defended as at least partially authentic. The interpolation and original work hypothesis fail to explain why the passage is not quoted by Christian apologists, such as Origen, prior to Eusebius, though the Josephus was widely quoted, and the passage would have supported their arguments. The idea that the entire passage is a later addition does not suffer from the same problems as the other hypothesis, and explains the silence of early authors. At best, the testimonium is very suspect evidence for the existence of a Jesus figure.
My opponent references another passage in Antiquities, presumably the reference to the death of a James at the hands of the high priest Ananus, 'and brought them before the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others'. The subject of the passage is one Jesus son of Damneus, referenced in full at the conclusion of the passage, who became high priest, possibly as reparation for the death of his brother James. It is obvious that this is the Jesus referred to in the passage, and 'who was called the christ' is either due to this Jesus being anointed with oil, or a later addition or interpolation. This passage does not provide support for the existence of Jesus of the gospels.

The Talmud was first written in 200CE (Mishnah) and 400CE (Gemera). Any references to the Jesus of the gospels are likely to be gathered from Christian sources. That the Talmud mentions a number of Jesus', none of whom match well with the Jesus of the gospels, does not attest to the accuracy of the gospels.

Tacitus' mentions Jesus and the crucifixion, and the simplest explanation for this is Tacitus that his information was from Christian sources. There is no indication of research into the issue, as it is unimportant to the passage. Pliny the Younger's writing attests to the existence of Christians. He claims to have heard that Christians will not curse Christ, but does not state that he found any of these. Neither Pliny nor Tacitus can be used to assert independent testimony for the accuracy of the gospels.

My opponent runs through a list of passages in which Paul mentions the resurrection of Jesus. It should be noted that Paul consistently portrays the resurrection as spiritual, in contrast the the bodily resurrection of the gospels. Paul states the Jesus appears to many witnesses, though given the wording, Paul likely means a vision and not a physical appearance. Paul's conversion, according to Acts has nothing to do with the eyewitness testimony, and everything to do with the vision he received on the road to Damascus. Acts even provides 2 contradictory accounts of this event (9:3-9 & 26:13-17). One account has his associates experiencing the sound but not the light, the other the reverse. Paul's own account of his conversion in Galatians (1:11-24) is lacking in detail and cannot be used to confirm either account in Acts. Paul in Galatians (1:11-12) states he received the gospel (good news) through revelation, and not through any man nor being taught. Paul was therefore not convinced by the supposed witness' testimony to Jesus' resurrection, but by visions he had. Perhaps the only mention of Jesus' ministry in Paul's writing is the Eucharist, though this is more likely to have come from an existing ritual such as mentioned in the Didache, as opposed to actual knowledge of a physical Jesus.

The only information we have concerning the darkness and earthquakes coinciding with the passion come from Christian apologists such as Julius Africanus and Eusebius. We cannot say quite when Thallus and Phlegon attribute their events, though as Africanus states that Thallus claims the darkness as an eclipse, when an eclipse was not possible at Passover, implies Thallus was not speaking of the time of the passion. Apart from the assertions from the apologists, there is no further evidence to place these events simultaneously to the passion. There is no corroborating evidence to support the rending of the Temple curtain, nor the appearance of Saints outside the gospels. Without further corroboration we should conclude that the post death events of the rending of the Temple curtain and the appearance of the saints to many, to be fictional elements added by the authors, especially in light of previous fictional elements of the story.

I do not, as my opponent implies, ignore the historical details of the gospels. I simply note those which are incorrect, as that supports my case. My opponent accepts even the most fantastic story elements, and yet is unable to dismiss simply errors within the mundane aspects which can actually be verified. When such mundane aspects are found wanting, what reason do we have to accept the fantastic elements?

Above I have dismissed my opponents arguments claiming the accuracy of the nativity accounts, as well as the use of the non-existent town of Nazareth. The massacre of the infants has been shown to be a reference to Jewish scripture, and not an historical event. The earthquake and darkness of the passion narrative are without supporting evidence, and therefore unlikely to be accurate, especially in light of the previously highlighted scriptural references. My opponent still has to account for all of these before he can be said to have made his case.

Due to the word limit I have not addressed my opponents accusation of treating the gospels differently to other historical documentation. I hope to address this in my next response.