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

My opponent's third response:

Even so, Papias’ testimony provides early attestation to the authors of the Gospels. Honestly with as close as he was to the writing of the Gospels I don’t have any problem accepting what he referred to as the “living word”. As I’ve already mentioned, Alexander the Great’s first biography wasn’t even penned until 600 years after his death; so in a historical context I’d say the Gospels match up to that pretty well. There is no reason to question the authenticity of the Gospels on the grounds of when they were written and by whom they were written.

Gnostics often took different texts they thought might be manipulated in their favor. Jesus, as a great teacher, would have been of special interest to the Gnostics. While as a Christian I certainly don’t agree with most Gnostic beliefs, there are some themes in John that over-lap with Gnosticism. As Gnostics were all about enlightenment and believed in an emanation from God being sent to bring light to man, it is quite understandable why the Gnostics would be interested in John. So, based on John’s use by Gnostics, it does not follow that John was edited in between the original edition and what we have today.

Regarding the Synoptics, I agree much of Jesus teaching is recorded verbatim in all three. Assuming this does make them a “single source” I still don’t think that threatens them historically. What it shows is there was consensus among the Gospel authors about what Jesus actually taught. The fact that they potentially quoted “Q”, and that they did quote each other simply shows they agreed with what had earlier been written. However, with the differences we know about what we have is multiple attestations to the same events/teachings. That is, three individuals all saying “this is what was taught”.

This brings us back to our good friend Quirinius. As was already stated, Josephus reports that Quirinius did hold several offices (not necessarily as a proconsul) before becoming proconsul of Syria. It is quite possible he had been in the region in some official capacity. However, even if he was not there is still the assertion that Luke should be translated “before” the first census of Quirinius. Judea was a Roman client kingdom, but they still would have been subject to Rome’s decrees. Given the 14-year cycle of the census, it makes since that “before Quirinius was governor of Syria” refers to the only census before that time which would bring us back to 6-4B.C.

My opponent cites Book 18 of Antiquities as detailing the life of Herod, however Book 18 of Antiquities details the life of Herod the Tetrarch, not Herod the Great. I believe it is Book 17 that details Herod the Great. It is true several things he does are recorded by Josephus, however most of these are in regards to members of the royal family or people of political importance. The difference between the way I’m looking at it and the way my opponent is looking at it comes down to my opponent refers to it as “a terrible atrocity”, which by today’s standards it would be considered such. However I still don’t think it would have been considered such at that time. As I’ve pointed out, even today with our 24/7 media coverage hardly a word is mentioned about the Darfur Genocide; which is a much more massive event than the massacre of the infants. While we would hope people would care, it doesn’t seem they do.

At this point my opponent begins to question Matthew’s motives and character. This assumes Matthew would have benefited by knowingly adding/shaping events of Christ’s life, even though he may have known they were false. This is not the case, however. Every single Apostle with the exception of John the son of Zebedee died a martyr. Surely they would have recanted had they known what they had written and taught was false. Thus, my opponent is left having to explain why they were so dedicated to what he proposes are lies that the Apostles would have known about.

I also do believe my opponent’s hermeneutics are a little bit off. Regarding Ephratah, the term is used 5 times in the Bible, once referring to Caleb’s wife; three times referring to a place (Bethlehem); and once referring to Hur, Ephratah’s son, the father of Bethlehem (I Chronicles 2:50, 4:4, Ruth 4:11, Psalm 132:6, and Micah 5:2). Hosea 11:1 does refer to Israel, but a historical fulfillment does not eliminate prophetic possibility. Even if all of this were conceded, it deals with the theological question of which prophecies point to the Messiah, and did Christ fulfill them. I will concede the simplest explanation for any historical event is to say it didn’t happen; it’s much simpler to say the United States has had no presidents than to memorize all of them, but just because something is simplest doesn’t make it right.

Ross Voss and Stephen Pfann have researched Nazareth and found 1st century winepresses, vineyards, and so forth. All that is needed for a synagogue is ten men, and in this case a building, and Nazareth seems to have met those requirements. Matthew 2:23, according to most scholars, references a rabbinical oral, and not Biblical, prophecy. Once again, the main question here is of a theological, not historical, nature. There is no justification for the claim that the Gospels were shaped to fulfill prophecy, it could be that Jesus legitimately did fulfill those prophecies.

I agree that part of the Testimonium is an interpolation, but I don’t think most scholars agree that the entire thing is. The argument of silence is not a very strong one. Josephus was used some, but not overwhelmingly, in early Christian writings.

In regards to the next passage in Josephus, it is the same passage, but my opponent and I come to radically different conclusions. If Jesus called Christ, and Jesus son of Damneus are the same, and my opponent’s assertion that he’s called “Christ” because he was anointed with oil is correct than it begs the question was Christ a common title? Would being anointed with oil be unique to the son of Damneus as he rose to the high priesthood? I don’t think this is the case.

The Talmud does reference Jesus Christ, though obviously it does not hold Him in high esteem. At any rate it does have Christ doing great works (though it contests the source of power) and teaching some things the Jewish leaders found very offensive. So there are theological differences between the Talmud (a Jewish writing) and the Gospels (Christian writings), but from a historical perspective they agree on many of the same events. If the Talmud did draw on Christian sources, there needs to be more legitimate reasons to question those sources than the sole fact that they are Christian; just because they are Christian does not make them historically inaccurate.

Tacitus gives us a crucified Christ, once again, we can’t question his sources on the sole basis they were Christian. Pliny indicates that Christianity spread, and that Christians were quite convinced of the Resurrection, so once again we need an explanation for this movement based on a crucified man. As I’ve already asserted, I’d propose the Resurrection.

As far as the wording Paul uses referring to spiritual visions, I’m unable to see from where my opponent is taking this argument. Based on the I Corinthians 15 passage I do not see why these appearances should be interpreted as physical rather than spiritual, the Greek word “seen” being optanomai.

I also fail to see how Acts 9:3-9 and Acts 26:13-17 are in contradiction. The first is told about Paul, and the second told by Paul, but I see no contradiction there. As one tells what happened to Paul, and the other is Paul explaining both what happened to himself and his group there is no contradiction, but supplementary details. It is quite possible for Paul’s companions to have seen the light (but no man) and heard the voice. I’ll grant Paul’s conversion is based on a vision, but the fact that he witnessed Jesus was accepted by the Church, and what Paul taught was endorsed by Peter (II Peter 3:15-16).

As far as the earthquake and darkness, we can not discount what is written just because these men were Christian apologists. Africanus is quite accurate in what he writes so there needs to be some direct evidence against what he records that is at least as trustworthy as his. I agree an eclipse could not have happened at Passover, I’d propose than the event wasn’t an eclipse and solely natural.

In regards to the appearance of the saints and rending of the Temple curtain, all my opponent has is an argument of silence and attacks on the motives of the authors (which, once again, we lack their motives to exaggerate these events). How did these saints appear, what were the circumstances, we don’t know. My opponent assumes it would have been an extraordinary event getting the entire city in an uproar, but we don’t have enough information to say that is the logical conclusion. Based on the theological implications, it is understandable the priests would have wanted to keep the rending of the Temple curtain somewhat hushed (though as some priests were converted Matthew would have discovered this).

Thus, yes I do accept fantastic elements of the Gospel accounts as the historical evidence supports these elements. Historically, every challenge my opponent has brought up is in the secondary details. And, while I still hold even these secondary details are accurate, even if they weren’t we still have very accurate Gospels in many other aspects. The worst case scenario for me is there are a few minor problems that truly don’t challenge the entire historical factuality of the Gospels. Arguments of silence are the easier ones to make, and it’s always convenient to attack motives (such as those of the Gospel authors), but being easy and convenient does not make an argument right.

We still have a large movement, based on a crucified man who was able to convince His movement’s greatest persecutor. We have Apostles who defended to the death their belief in Jesus Christ; which they surely would not have done had they known what they proclaimed was false. We still have a missing body. We have events recorded in the Gospels (Jesus sweating drops of blood, blood and water flowing from His side when stabbed) that are now confirmed psychological conditions caused by stress that the Gospel authors would have known nothing about. The fact that they recorded events like these so accurately gives great weight to the care they took in recording details.

Once again, no other historical documents are placed under this kind of scrutiny, much less would many of them stand up to it. The mass archeological evidence supporting the Gospels is almost embarrassing when compared to that of other documents. The numerous manuscripts that confirm what is recorded is what was written can’t be found for other documents; even documents like Antiquities which my opponent and I have both cited. Even were supposed contradictions blatant and irreconcilable that would bring into question the Gospels theological, and not historical reliability (given the nature of most of the supposed contradictions).