“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.

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

I've received the second response from my opponent:

Once again, I think we need to take all of this in context of other historical documents. It’s true we don’t have all of Papias’ works; nor do we have all of Tacitus’ Annals, but that is not sufficient reason to doubt what we do have and know about Papias’ writings. Papias may have had no contact with the Apostles and authors of the Gospels, but that doesn’t change the fact he was alive when the Gospels were written. I didn’t witness the World Trade Center Towers fall, but I was alive when they did fall and I’ll never forget what happened. So from the time of Papias to Irenaeus and Eusebius there is no dispute among anybody in regards to who wrote the Gospels. Now we could assume that Eusebius and company just made up authors, but if that’s the case why would they have used Mark over Peter? Why use Luke over a disciple? Why use Matthew, a tax collector (who specifically wrote to the Jew)?

There are no competitors for authorship, even if there were we both agree the Gospels were written within one generation of Christ (in fact the later dates proposed by my opponent would make Iranaeus’ testimony more valid) and there would have been plenty of eyewitnesses to dispute any distortion in the Gospels.

What the number of manuscripts and their dates do for us is more than just ensure we’ve got an accurate copy of what was written. The early date I demonstrated shows the latest possible date for that Gospel’s authorship. Since we’ve both agreed this is not an original copy we can say the Gospel was written before this parchment was made, therefore (since this parchment is from the Gospel both my opponent and I agree was written last) we can assert the Gospels were written within one generation of Christ, when eyewitnesses would still have been around to correct any error in recording.

On to “Q”, it is entirely possible as a hypothesis. Assuming “Q” I still believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke are unique enough to constitute separate accounts. What I’ve asserted is the Synoptics have a great deal of similar content, but enough unique content to make them individual accounts. Perhaps the Synoptics are so similar because they all draw on the teachings of Christ. If there was a composition of Christ’s sayings before the Gospel accounts I’d say it lends credibility to their accuracy. I’d also like to point out that my opponent has disagreed with this in principle, but agreed with it in practice; as even my opponent has pointed out instances only recorded in Matthew, or only in Luke, etc… in which case we are both in agreement the Synoptics are very similar but with enough uniqueness to be separate accounts.

At this point I do owe my opponent an apology, as he is quite right regarding Vardaman’s coins that I cited. I was quite wrong in citing them as they in all probability don’t exist. However, in researching them and the issue of Quirinius I was more convinced of the Gospel’s historical accuracy, though I’d used poor evidence at first. We only have a true discrepancy or contradiction when two statements absolutely can’t both be true. However there are at least two arguments that would render both Luke and Matthew factual. The first would be the word translated “first” in Luke should be translated “before”; and there is much debate regarding that, honestly I don’t know enough about Greek to make a definitive statement. Or it could be that Quirinius was not proconsul, but rather some other type of official, as the word translated “governor” has a wide meaning in Greek; much less narrow than we would think of a governor today. And since we do know Quirinius was a military official, Roman senator and had held other offices prior to the proconsulship of Syria, it is quite possible he was in Syria on other occasions in some authoritative capacity (The Complete Works of Josephus, 376). I’ll leave it to my opponent to establish the Matthew passage and the Luke passage must be interpreted to be contradictory.

An absence of evidence is only evidence of an absence when if something did happen we should reasonably expect more evidence for its occurrence than we already have. The question about the massacre at Bethlehem comes down to should we reasonably expect more evidence than we already have? I honestly don’t think so. Bethlehem was a small town, and if a tyrant king just killed all the babies in my village I’d probably shut up about it for fear of what he’d do to me. This event involved, at most, a couple hundred babies. Today that would seem huge, but honestly look at the Darfur crises. One would think 450,000+ deaths would get more attention than they do at present, but it’s getting hardly any attention at all. If in our day of 24/7 news coverage that can happen (and that is one of many African genocides) with the world not noticing, than surely 2,000 years ago an event much smaller could happen with little notice. As far as Herod not finding Jesus in the Temple, Herod’s lineage was, at best, converted to Judaism, not Hebrew. Thus even as a convert to Judaism Herod could not have got past the outer court without breaking Jewish law (at least according to some, depending on how well Herod has essentially bought them off). The question is would Herod have looked for Jesus in the Temple, and if so would he have been able to recognize Him? Based on what we know about Herod I don’t think so.

I don’t see any point in continuing debate on the Caesarean inscription, as we both agree that Nazareth existed and was a small place. As far as the synagogue goes though, my opponent is referring to a synagogue as a building; which some archeologists do argue there is evidence for. However, we don’t need a building to have a synagogue. Some argue that it refers to a gathering of worshippers, not a specific building, as synagogue (sunagoge in Greek) refers to an assemblage of persons, it can refer to either the meeting itself or the place of the meeting. So while a building for a synagogue may be possible in Nazareth, it is not necessary.

Regarding the Testimonium Flavium I would like to know what my opponent’s basis is for eliminating the line about Jesus having done wonderful works. As I agree the other lines were interpolations. At any rate it provides collaboration for Christ’s teachings and trail before Pilate. Also we do have Josephus at least acknowledge that some considered Jesus to be the Christ (The Complete Works of Josephus, 423), though Josephus himself did not. This would indicate that at least some people believed Jesus had performed miracles. Also the Talmud refers to Christ’s miracles, though it disputes the source; so we are not left without corroborating evidence for Christ’s ministry.

Tacitus’ record provides evidence for the crucifixion; Pliny the Younger’s writing demonstrates the rapid spread of Christianity and attestation to the fact that the early Christian church was convinced of Christ’s deity and was not swayed from this under the most extreme persecution. In light of this I would like to ask my opponent for an explanation of a movement based on a crucified man. As I’ve already asserted, the explanation is the Resurrection.

Paul does in fact mention the Resurrection, several times; Romans 6:4-9, 7:4, 8:11; I Corinthians 15:15-16; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; and II Timothy 2:8. Paul cites witnesses in the I Corinthians 15 passage. In I Corinthians 15:17 Paul even says if Christ was not raised from the dead than our faith is in vain. So Paul establishes eyewitnesses did see Christ, even if my opponent will not accept Paul himself as an eyewitness in a literal sense; these eyewitnesses were apparently credible enough to have a former persecutor of the Church become their chief missionary. So my opponent must somehow explain the sightings of Jesus by the Apostles, by the 500, by James, etc…

I must disagree with my opponent in regards to being left without corroboration for the darkness and earthquake. Aside from what I’ve already mentioned, Thallus and Julius Africanus also refer to the darkness. Most scholars believe the darkness and earthquake were widespread if not global. Thus it would make sense Bithynia, which as my opponent pointed out is some distance from Jerusalem, saw these events as well. The renting of the Temple Curtain would have resulted from the earthquake. My opponent can make an argument out of silence, but what we do have regarding these events confirm they happened.

As far as the appearance of many risen saints in Jerusalem, I’ll admit we don’t know a lot about it. It could be many of the people who encountered these people didn’t know who they were encountering (e.g.- entertaining angels unaware so to speak). I honestly don’t know the circumstances and neither does my opponent, if he wants to interpret it as he does and assert this would garner much more evidence that is his choice. It could be there’s evidence we haven’t found. At any rate the question is more theological than historical, especially if it is a result of misinterpretation.

So I still believe the Gospels are historically reliable, especially in regards to the Resurrection of Christ. As my opponent rightly points out, Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. However that still leaves us with an empty tomb, and the women seeing a man telling them that Jesus will soon appear to them. We than have numerous eyewitness experiences with the Apostles, the women, disciples on the road to Emmaus, the 500 Paul cited, and so forth. I think the evidence speaks for itself. As I’ve already said, my opponent is the one who must deal with an empty tomb, a movement based on a crucified man who was seen numerous times after His death, and who inspired the greatest persecutor of the Church to be His chief missionary.

As I’ve already admitted there was one example of poor scholarship on my part, but the factuality of the Gospels is still not threatened. There is a plethora of corroborating historical documents and archeological finds that verify the Gospels. No secular historical document is held to such scrutiny, much less would they survive if they were. My opponent asserts I have a conclusion in mind and search for the evidence, well I believe my beliefs and I doubt my doubts. I could argue my opponent is searching for very specific ways and using very narrow interpretations (throwing weighted dice) to poke holes in the Gospels; but either way I hope the readers will look at the evidence, not at the flawed individuals presenting it.

It seems to me what my opponent has asserted poses no serious threats to the factuality of the Gospels. He has virtually ignored the numerous places where the Gospels are accurate; I have at least engaged his claims of the Gospel’s inaccuracies. In the light of all other accepted historical documents the Gospels are incredibly accurate and factual. My opponent has the right to demand evidence, however it’s beginning to seem that if the evidence my opponent demands for the Gospels were demanded of everything else my opponent would have a very short world history. Even the texts of Josephus we have both cited are not preserved originally, yet my opponent holds no qualms about their factuality. The Gospels cannot be called second-hand hearsay in the context of all other historical documents.

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

My first response in the ongoing debate over the historical value of the canonical gospels:

On the matter of Papias, whose writings my opponent says support his point. The works of Papias are lost to us, and are only known through external references by later writers such as Eusebius (300CE) and Irenaeus (180CE), both of which are found in Eusebius' Church History.
Irenaeus writes of Papias that "in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them". So we cannot say Papias had any contact with the apostles. Papias also writes that he heard of the writing of Mark from "John the Presbyter". We have no way of knowing if the gospel of Mark mentioned by Papias is the document we name Mark.
Irenaeus attests to the authorship of the gospels in a form similar to what we have not. He does so very late in the second century (180CE), nearly a century after all of the gospels were written. Note that this is the first claim of authorship we have of the gospels with associated quotations from them. The manuscripts we have date from the 3rd century for papyrus fragments, and around the 4th century for a mostly complete work.

Citing the number and early date of the manuscripts which exist, my opponent make the erroneous claim that this supports their historical accuracy. The number and early date only serve to increase confidence in that we can reconstruct something close to what the said. It does not have any impact on the confidence we have of the accuracy of the historical events presented.

My opponent cites the "Q" document being a hypothesis. It is theorised in the main proposed solution to the synoptic problem. Even if my opponent does not subscribe to the "two source" hypothesis which postulates the "Q", he is still left with the synoptic problem, and all of the current hypothesis to resolve this problem leave my opponent with the synoptic gospels not comprising separate accounts.

As to claims of the proconsulship of Syria being filled by a 'Qurinius' during the reign of Herod the Great, my opponent makes mention of coins which he says support his claim. This theory, which entails microscopic writing, proposed by Dr. Jerry Vardaman. Despite the fact that any such writing would have worn off due to age and handling, the coins themselves, on which Vardaman claims to have found this writing, seen in a peer review setting. No examples or even photographs of these coins have been produced. All that has been seen are some sketches by Vardaman, and his assertions. The implements required to make these marks, a magnifying glass and some kind of diamond tipped inscriber, were unknown and unheard of at the time. This is uncritically cited by Biblical apologist John McRay (in Strobel) and does not speak well of McRay's, Strobel's or my opponent's scholarship. With no evidence to back up these claims, they can be dismissed. My opponent still must reconcile the discrepancy between dates of the Nativity.

My opponent states that infanticide carried out in a small village would not cause much of a fuss. I do not agree with him on this matter. Herod was indeed reported to be a cruel tyrant. In fact, we have evidence of his cruelty from historians of the day, including as my opponent points out, murder of family member. It is unusual that the infanticide is reported in Matthew, yet has no corroboration, either from the other gospels, or any other historical writing of the time. In trying to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the Temple visits, my opponent states "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". In actual fact, Herod was actually Jewish, being of Idumean descent. During the time of the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (reigned 134 BCE - 104 BCE), Judea conquered Edom (which the Romans called Idumea) and forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism. The Edomites were integrated into the Jewish people. Herod is also known for rebuilding and expanding the second Temple in Jerusalem, which is often referred to as "Herod's Temple". Though it is not related to the question at hand, I'd like to point out that my opponent's scholarship seems to be lacking.

I note that my opponent does agree that Nazareth was at best a very small place, and certainly not a city as attested to in the gospels. My opponent's claims for a priestly relocation to Nazareth after the Jewish revolt and/or the Bar Kochba uprising seems to be based upon fragments of marble found at the site of ancient Caesarea in 1962^[1]. The synagogue in which the fragments were found seems to date from the late 3rd or early 4th century. It is doubtful that the inscription actually mentions Nazareth, The related fragments of the inscription were interpreted by means of Hebrew liturgical poems dating from the 6th and 7th centuries, when Nazareth was already a thriving tourist site and the name was well known. The letters n-ts-r-t are bounded by the broken edges of the stone, with the 'n' being only partially present. It is not certain what letter may have preceeded the 'n'. It would appear more likely that the inscription read Gennesaret, not Nazareth. Gennesaret was founded in Hellenistic times and was well known. My opponent's claim of relocation priests to Nazareth is a claim not supported by the evidence.

I would also like to note that while my opponent states that it would have been possible for a synagogue to exist in the tiny farming community which may have existed on the site of Nazareth, there is no archaeological evidence for such a building. My opponent still needs to deal with the missing synagogue, and did not address the lack of a nearby cliff from which the multitudes threatened to throw Jesus off.

My opponent goes on to claim that the “Testimonium Flavium” supports Jesus being a worker of miracles. However if we remove the text which is almost universally agreed to be Christian interpolation from the text, we are left with:
"At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man. . .he was a teacher of such people as accept the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. . . When Pilate, upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him. And the tribe of the Christians, so-called after him, has to this day still not disappeared."
The above is what the uninterpolated passage may have read. Before this is taken to support my opponents view, there is much discussion over whether the entire passage is not simply a Christian addition. At best the passage supports a man named Jesus being a teacher and being crucified by Pilate. At worst there is no mention of the Jesus whose ministry the gospels narrate, in the works of Josephus. My opponent is left without external corroborative evidence for the supernatural claims of the gospels.

My opponent goes on to cite Tacitus and Pliny the Younger as providing corroborative evidence of the gospels. Tacitus states that Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome on to the Christians. He does mention a "Christus" whom suffered at the hands of Pilate. Tacitus's mention of Christus could easily be explained as obtained from Christian sources, or through knowledge of the sect. Even if we accept it as legitimate, it attests to the existence of a "Christus" who was crucified. Pliny the Younger only mentions the existence of Christians. Neither account provides corroborative evidence for the events of Jesus's life and ministry, with the possible exception of the crucification.

My opponent mentions the writing of Paul as supporting the gospel accounts. Paul, in all of the texts thought to be authored by him, fails to mention details concerning the Life of Jesus. Paul does not attest to a bodily resurrection, in fact, Paul barely refers to an historical person "Jesus" at all. Paul cannot be taken as an eyewitness, as his accounts of experiences of Jesus are always referred to as "visions" as apposed to "physical visitations". He never claims to have been present during the events portrayed in the gospels. Paul's writings, therefore, do not support the events in the gospels.

As my opponent notes, Phlegon does indeed mention an eclipse, and an earthquake at Bithynia. He does not however mention Jesus at all. That this occurred during Jesus's passion is asserted by Eusebius. The year of the occurrences possibly match, but there is no indication that Phlegon credits the darkness to have occurred during a full moon, as the gospels and later Christian writers assert (the crucification having occurred at passover). This lack is noted by the early Christian write Origen. The earthquake is said to have occurred in Bithynia, which is quite a distance from Jerusalem. My opponent therefore is left without corroboration for the darkness and earthquakes as presented in the gospels. He also has not explained the rending of the Temple curtain (the stone wall) being completely absent from every other work of the time.

That a number of dead saints came back to life and were seen by many, does not rate a mention in any other contemporary text casts doubt upon it's historical accuracy. My opponent notes that the saints may not have appeared to historians, priests etc. This could be true, but is an assumption on his part. That no other Christian writings attest to this event . Given the fantastic nature of the event, and the lack of corroboration, I think we can dismiss it, as most biblical historians do.

Now my opponent comes to the resurrection and the empty tomb. As I've been demonstrating, the gospels are not as reliable as my opponent would like to believe. He is still willing to trust them in regards to this incredibly miraculous event, regardless of their previous fallibility. In the earliest manuscripts, the earliest gospel, that of 'Mark', ceases at Mark 16:8, with the women keeping silent concerning the tomb, with no post resurrection appearances and no assumption. Even if we accept that this fantastic event actually occurred, my opponent still has not shown the gospels to be reliable due to the factual errors and inconsistencies which have been pointed out above.

Given my opponents lack of discrediting my opposition to the accuracy of events portrayed within the gospels, as well as the examples of poor scholarship my opponent has provided, seem to show that he has a conclusion and is searching for supporting evidence. The historical method involves gathering all of the evidence available and then coming to a conclusion on the most likely series of events.

As demonstrated above, the evidence does not support my opponent's belief. He claims that even without the gospels, Jesus would still be a miracle worker, yet the evidence does not support that claim. The evidence concerning Nazareth does not support the gospel description. The internal contradiction regarding the date of the nativity does not support gospel accuracy. At best, the gospels are secondary sources of the events of Jesus' ministry, though they are often regarded as hearsay. Without external corroboration, we cannot rely on the gospels as being completely historically accurate.

“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.

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Opening statement (against)

This is my opening statement to the debate:

The canonical gospels, as found within the Christian bible contain the only stories of the life of Jesus. They give details of Jesus' conception and his ministry. There are details of both the miraculous and mundane. These stories are also claimed by my opponent to be a completely accurate recording of events. I aim to show that the evidence does not support this conclusion.

The story of Jesus as told within the canonical gospels of the Christian bible are extraordinary. They contain amazing feats performed by a man, feats which defy understanding. Christian tradition maintains that these stories are historical accounts of the life and works of a Jesus, and they provide evidence for the manifest deity of this Jesus. As the late Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The gospels, flawed as I will show them to be, do not provide this extraordinary evidence.

So, who wrote the gospels? The names that are born by each gospel is simply the "author" with whom tradition has associated with the work. In fact, all of the works are anonymous. While one can claim that the traditional authors are the actual authors, there is no link between them.

Each of the gospels claims to be an eyewitness account, or in the case of Luke, a thoroughly researched piece of history. Given the anonymous nature of all of the works, one cannot state that any of them are eyewitness accounts. None of them claims to be eyewitness accounts. None of them is written in the first person, as you would expect from an eyewitness. None of them document the sources used to gather the information, nor the methods used to sift reality from falsity. How can we trust anonymous sources whose authorship is a tradition, whose methods are unknown.

The gospels were written some time after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus, with the earliest being Mark (65-80CE), then Matthew (80-100CE), Luke (80-130CE) and finally the Gospel of John (90-120CE). At the earliest, the first of these anonymous texts was written ~30 years after the events it purports to describe. Not only can we not say that these documents are eyewitness accounts, but the earliest dates have the writing of the gospels separated from the events by decades.

No original copies of these manuscripts exist. The closest copies we have were written/transcribed centuries after the gospels were written and are damaged and incomplete. Neither the date the works were written, nor the date of our earliest copies increase our confidence in the contents of these documents.

The gospel of Mark, along with an unknown "Q" document of sayings were used in the creation of Matthew and Luke. This leaves us with the problem of having only 2 independent attestations for the acts and ministry of Jesus, Mark+Matthew+Luke and John.

Ignoring the claims of the supernatural and miraculous for the moment, lets look at some of the more mundane claims found within the gospels. Luke (2:1-2) says "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)". We know this census took place in 6CE from Josephus's work. Matthew 2:1 says that "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod,". We also know King Herod died in 4BCE. This gives us at least a 10 year discrepancy between the two accounts. Matthew 2:16 states "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi." Such an atrocity which would have constituted some several hundred children, is curiously (omit "curiously") not reported in any other document, including the other gospel accounts. In fact Luke ( 2:25-38 ) has Jesus being presented at the Temple in Jerusalem, where his status is proclaimed by others. Surely this would not have escaped Herod's supposedly murderous eye. Matthew (2:21) has Joseph & Mary flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath.Luke (2:41) has the family visiting the Temple in Jerusalem every year.

The gospels claim that Jesus was raised in a city called Nazareth. It is claimed that Jesus returned to the city of Nazareth where he preached at a synagogue, and where the "multitude" attempted to throw him off a cliff. This city of Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the entire Old Testament. The Talmud mentions 63 Galilean towns, but does not mention Nazareth. Neither does older Rabbinic literature. Paul/Saul of Tarsus does not mention Nazareth. No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth until the 4th century CE. Archaeological evidence points to the site of Nazareth being a graveyard during much of the 4th century. The only evidence for human habitation at the time supports a possible small farming community. There is no evidence for a synagogue, and the nearest cliff is 4kms away. Documents which contain such a large error cannot be taken seriously as an accurate recording of history completely accurate history.

On to the extraordinary or supernatural events described in the bible. There is no record of these events external to the gospels and other Christian literature. Surely, if the gospel accounts are correct and Jesus was performing these wonderous feats, we'd expect Jesus to stand out from the multitude of other "miracle workers" who existed in 1st century Palestine. When we look at the evidence however, we find external documentation to provide as much or more evidence for these others. The ancient historian Tacitus records eyewitness testimony for miraculous healings performed by Emperor Vespasian, yet no accounts of works of Jesus. Jesus, according to the gospel accounts, caused a large disturbance in Palestine and Jerusalem, yet he barely gets a footnote in the works of the historians of the time.

Matthew on the death of Jesus (27:51-53) says "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." These events are so amazing, should they have occurred, that they would have been remarked upon by every historian, merchant, priest and scribe. Yet we find no other attestation to these events outside Matthew's gospel. Not even the canonical gospels record these extraordinary events.

The gospels are flawed accounts of history written for the obvious purpose of proselytizing the cult of Jesus. Acknowledging their anonymous authorship, late date of writing, lack of contemporary corroborating evidence for events described and the historical errors, some of which are pointed out above, it is clear that the gospels of the Christian New Testament cannot be taken as completely historically accurate.

“Do the cannonical Gospels represent historical fact?” Opening statement (for)

I've gotten myself into a debate with "sweetswede" from the In His Steps blog.
I've reproduced his opening statement below:

"Are the events recorded in the Gospels of Jesus Christ (as found in the New Testament) representative of historical fact? It is in intriguing question, the answer to which could have a profound impact on the world. It is my belief that the New Testament Gospels are completely historically factual.

To start I must propose some evidence to verify my position. The Gospels record Christ’s birth during the time of Herod (Matthew 2:1, Luke 3:1). Upon reading Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews” we find that Herod was indeed in power at this time. Not only that, but Josephus says Herod was a man “of great barbarity towards all men” (The Complete Works of Josephus, 366). We would expect this as Herod is recorded as attempting to eliminate Jesus by murdering all the babies under 2 years of age in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). I think this provides one solid example of the Gospels writers recording events accurately.

The Gospel writers also record Jesus being delivered to Pontius Pilate for His trial (Matthew 27:2, Mark 15:1, Luke 23:1, John 18:29). This aligns with Josephus’ recording of this event:
“Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (The Complete Works of Josephus, 379).

Here I’ve marked the disputed lines in this passage (they are believed to have possibly been added after Josephus wrote this). But in any case we still have Jesus as a great teacher, condemned to the Cross, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies (Josephus had been a Pharisee, remember), and His followers proclaiming Him up to the time of Josephus writing this (A.D. 93). All of this aligns with the events recorded in the Gospels. These are just a few examples of the corroboration we have for the Gospel accounts.

While it would be possible to continue along this line, I think I’ve made the point that the people, events, and details recorded in the Gospels are rather well established and verified by other sources.

Now I think it will be beneficial to examine the reliability of the Gospels themselves in comparison to other established and trusted historical texts. As I’m sure we all agree the Gospels are meant to record the life, works, and teachings of Jesus Christ. The question arises then, who wrote the Gospels and when did they write them?

The traditional authors of the Gospels are believed to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, the Gospels aren’t “hand signed” so to speak. Regarding Matthew, Mark, and Luke there was no dispute among the early Church who the writers were. There is essentially uniform testimony that Matthew (called Levi, the tax collector) wrote the Gospel bearing his name; John Mark, a companion of Peter, wrote the Gospel bearing his name; and Luke, the physician companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel bearing his name (Blomberg qtd. In Strobel, 23). The only dispute regards the Gospel of John, it is believed John wrote it, but there is one passage by Papias that refers to John the Apostle and John the Elder. Whether they are two different John’s or one John in two roles is the disputed topic. However, all other evidence indicates it is John the son of Zebedee (Blomberg qtd. In Strobel, 23).

Thus all the authors of the Gospels were in some way authorities on Christ. John Mark probably based his account on Peter’s testimony, Matthew and John saw the events for themselves, and Luke the companion of Paul who spent a few years in Jerusalem investigating the life of Jesus. Thus, in terms of eyewitness testimony there is not any significant reason to question the authorship of the Gospels and their authority on what they wrote. All the Gospels are believed to have been written between 60-95 A.D., thus placing them 30-65 years after Christ’s death. When one considers Alexander the Great’s first biography wasn’t written until some 600 years after his death, and is still accepted as historically accurate, we have no reason to question the time of the Gospels writings or to assume there was some type of distortion caused by time.

Therefore the eyewitness testimony and the corroborating evidence speak for themselves. To say the Gospels aren’t historically factual, in light of the various evidences (only a few of which I’ve discussed so far) requires valid historical contradictions of the Gospels. There must be some evidence, better and more reliable then the Gospels, which disprove them in order for them to fail in regards to historical merit.

One example that has recently been used for this purpose is the so called lost tomb of Jesus. If we found Jesus in a tomb he couldn’t very well have resurrected (physically anyway) and that would be a big dispute of the Gospels claims. However the lost tomb of Jesus has numerous loop holes. Jesus family was relatively poor and from Nazareth, how could they have afforded such a tomb and why would it be in Jerusalem? If the members of the tomb are from one family, and thus died around the same time why are there three different languages on the various tombs? While we are talking about that why is it they translated Mariamene e Mara as Aramaic when the lettering was Greek (this phrase was translated “Mary the master”)? I could go on and on about the problems with the lost tomb of Jesus, but as my opponent hasn’t proposed it and it’s just an example of some of the poor attempts to discredit the Gospels I’ll let that rest.

The evidence supporting and verifying the Gospels is overwhelming. Such stringent demands for the acceptance of a document as historically factual are never applied to other documents. If one is to deny the historically factuality of the Gospels one must reasonably deny the majority of what is presently accepted as historical fact. In terms of manuscripts the Gospels are unrivaled. In terms of the time of their writing they are all within one generation of Christ, leaving no time for distortion. In terms of corroborating evidence I’ve proposed some very specific examples that demonstrate, in part, the Gospel writers’ great care in detailing events. The only thing the Gospels lack is valid historical evidence that disputes their factuality.

It is on these evidences I stake the claim that the Gospels are in fact completely historically reliable. And until valid evidence is made known that disputes this they shall remain such."