“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” First Reponse (for)

My opponent's first response:

Well my opponent and I are in agreement regarding the extraordinariness regarding the events described in the Gospels.

I cannot agree, however, with my opponent’s claims regarding the authorship of the Gospels. As we are discussing the historical factuality of the Gospels I think it’s only fair we keep the Gospels in the context of other accepted historical documents. I do believe there is positive evidence, beyond just “tradition” that the Gospels were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Perhaps the best evidence is the writings of Papias, who lived during the time the Gospels would have been written. While I believe the Gospels were probably written a few years earlier than my opponent is proposing, in either case we have Papias being an eyewitness to the writing of the Gospels (possibly with the exception of Mark, which may have been written slightly before Papias). We also have attestation to their authorship from Ireneus. I’d also point out that while in the text the Gospels may be “anonymous” one must examine the titles, which are there in the earliest manuscripts and copies. Tacitus’ Annals never have Tacitus’ claim to authorship in them, but there is no reason to doubt he is in fact the author (J.P. Holding, “The New Testament”). All the historical evidence, from the titles of the works themselves to other writings regarding the Gospels confirms Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors. If one questions the authenticity of their authorship one must question the authorship of numerous secular texts that have far less evidence then has been presented here.

Also, there is one Gospel that does have an internal claim to the author having been an eyewitness, and that is found in John 21:24. At any rate, even if we didn’t know who the authors were, I still think the Gospels would stand as incredibly accurate historical documents. The examples I’ve listed were a few of many that demonstrate the authors paid incredible attention to details, and their works have been confirmed by discovery after discovery.

To deal more with the dates of authorship, I think my opponent has confirmed their historical authenticity better than I have. For even if the Gospels were written 120 A.D. (at latest) that still would not diminish their historical value. Alexander the Great’s first biography was not written until 600 years after his death, and its historical factuality has never been called into question. Mohammed’s first biography wasn’t written until some 200 years after his death, and it has certainly not been scrutinized on that basis in the same way the Gospels of Christ have. Whereas Jesus died around 30 A.D., the latest dates for the writings of the Gospels are within 90 years of His death and Resurrection, so that is a very short time period when it comes to historical texts.

Now regarding the copies and manuscripts we have, this is once again in the Gospels favor. There is a piece of a manuscript of John’s Gospel that dates to 100-150 A.D., now depending on the date of John’s Gospel being authored this is within 5-65 years of the original text, 65 assuming the most generous estimates (Metzger qtd. In Strobel, 62). Aside from the mountain of manuscripts from various locations, not just for the Gospels but for the entire New Testament, one must keep these in context of other historical documents. When we look at Tacitus’ Annals we see “His first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about A.D. 850” (Metzger in Strobel, 60). Whereas we’ve already seen manuscripts of the Gospels in a range much closer to their writing there is no reason to call the historical factuality of the Gospels into question over this.

As far as Q (from the German “Quelle” or “source”), it is only a hypothesis. And Matthew, Mark and Luke, while very similar in several ways, are three separate Gospels. They emphasize different themes; Matthew quotes the Old Testament in 9 places where the other Gospel writers did not; and Luke has 45 teachings and events unique to his Gospel (Adams et. al). The Gospels are similar enough to confirm each other and stand together, but different enough to be independent sources.

Now what my opponent calls mundane are the nitty-gritty details that I find exciting. Regarding the first, there were two Quiriniuses. One was “proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod”, this is supported by the find of a coin from that time period bearing Quirinius’ name in micrographic letters (McRay in Strobel 101). So we see Luke is correct in his recording, as is Matthew. There is no discrepancy in the times. The only thing most people would find shocking is Jesus was actually born a few years B.C. (we have a messed up calendar).

As far as the slaughter at Bethlehem, while we would consider it a big deal today, it would not have been at that time. Bethlehem was very small, there were probably not even 100 babies there (McRay in Strobel, 104). As my opponent and I agree, Herod was vicious; I already cited Josephus’ recording his barbarity. The man killed family members for goodness sake, what’s a few babies in a small village located in Nowhereville, Judea? We live in different times, and today that would be, as my opponent said, an atrocity; but back then without CNN, BBC, and FOX it just wouldn’t have been a big deal (Strobel, 105). I don’t honestly see how Herod would have heard of Jesus visits to the Temple, as a Gentile Herod couldn’t have got very far in (without military force, which doesn’t happen until 70 A.D.). There is simply no reason Joseph, Mary, and Jesus couldn’t have gone to the Temple for the circumcision, headed to Egypt, and visited once a year (as every Jew would have).

I’m so glad my opponent has noted the insignificance of Nazareth, as did Nathanael in John 1:46. The fact is when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 several priestly families were relocated, and “Archeologists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty-four ‘courses,’ or families of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth” (McRay in Strobel, 103). It was a tiny town, but would have been big enough for a synagogue (which only requires 10 males).

At this point it is asserted that if Jesus did in fact perform the wondrous works the Gospels record, and if there was an earthquake at His death, and the Temple curtain did split, etc… than there should be more evidence than we already have. I think it’s important to note that I’ve already provided one good example with the work of Josephus. He records Jesus as a wise man, doer of wonderful works, and fulfilling Old Testament prophecy (The Complete Works of Josephus, 379). Tacitus and Pliny the Younger also make important references to Christ and the Church at large; however in those references we see they hold Christianity in very low esteem. In light of the persecution facing the Church, people being killed for their faith in Christ, etc… it would not be popular to write about Christ and the resurrection. However, the fact that we have Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc… all attesting to Jesus resurrection based on seeing Him resurrected and dying for that belief is very good circumstantial evidence.

Regarding the Matthew 27:51-53 passage, the Earth going dark, earthquakes, and the Temple curtain splitting Paul Maier says this in Pontius Pilate:
“This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian… it was a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 A.D., reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.” (Maier in Strobel, 85).

As far as Matthew’s account of various saints appearing to many in Jerusalem, that is a fine point of Christian theology that is rather debated. There are several interpretations and explanations of that passage. However, the resurrection of the dead (in general) is a very distinctive point of Christian theology. At any rate, with the accuracy of all the other details I see no reason to doubt this one, as I do believe in the resurrection. There is, however, one interpretation that I think might help shed light on this. As I’ve tried to demonstrate above we do have an earthquake, and honestly we’ve had more than one instance where an earthquake breaks some bodies out of tombs. After Christ’s resurrection these saints go into Jerusalem and appear to many. How many? Who? We don’t know, it is possible Matthew was the only Gospel writer to encounter such an appearance. The question though, is ultimately, can God raise people from the dead? If the answer is yes there is no reason to doubt this may have happened. We might not have any more historical recordings of this event because maybe these saints didn’t appear to historians, priests, and so forth. Aside from that, in light of everything else going on Jesus was taking center stage; it’s hard to grasp, but they didn’t have the 24/7 news coverage we have today. Jesus was causing a much bigger stir than these saints and therefore getting much more attention.

There is also the suggestion that this may have been a more figurative occurrence. There is a possibility the word translated “body” is meant to have a broader application (as it does in the Greek) than our English word gives it. Honestly I don’t know exactly how to interpret that passage, but as historically reliable as the Gospels are the only questions about this occurrence are theological and not historical.

Since we are talking about the resurrection, which is the central tenant of the Christian faith and the major claim of the Gospels, it seems to me some attention ought to be given to Christ’s resurrection. In light of the four Gospel accounts, Paul’s writings, the numerous eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, and the empty tomb I think the resurrection is well-established. In fact, no historical event with this much evidence has ever been questioned. There is a necessity for some explanation of the empty tomb, and the resurrection is the most historically factual explanation.

Therefore, the Gospels are still historically factual. Indeed, the criticisms regarding them tend to prove rather than contradict them. For years people believed the Quiranius problem was a serious threat to the Gospels, but in light of archeological discoveries we can conclude the Gospel authors were correct and the skeptics jumped on a bandwagon out of convenience to their skepticism, rather than solid evidence. The Gospels stand on their own merit on the question of historical factuality. The canonical Gospels stand against criticisms that, if equally applied to other historical texts, would re-write our history. Not truly re-write, but erase a good deal of it in that the Gospels have much more corroboration both from other texts and archaeology than the majority of accepted historical documents.

We see that even if we didn’t have the Gospels, and had to rely solely on extra-biblical sources we’d still have a Jesus Christ performing miracles, teaching wondrous things, being crucified under Pontius Pilate, and numerous followers claiming to have seen him after the crucifixion and willing to die for that belief. The most serious questions about the Gospels are not “what happened?” but “how do we interpret it?”. Thus there is no historical basis for questioning the historical factuality of the Gospels, a great deal of the skepticism is agenda-driven, not merited by evidence.