The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

Introduction: My opponent opens his 2nd round with an unsubstantiated and wholly incorrect assertion. First he claims that the only two "shreds" of evidence are Tacitus and Josephus (which, even if true, is more than we can say for many historical figures whose veracity is unquestioned). He goes on to claim that the Gospels are either wholly irrelevant or false. Does he expect us to take his tenuous assertion as fact? Let's hope his next round will provide some substance. It seems he would have taken my prior point with more consideration. Typically when one provides a fatally damning point to an argument, it needs to be addressed before the argument can be reasserted. So, in response to his disregard to the Gospels as historical records, I'll ask the question again: According to what historical model are you using that allows you to disregard the history in the Gospels and not any other ancient sources that contain inherently less evidence, fewer and younger manuscripts, and rely on secondary sources (e.g. Alexander the Great, to name just one)? Tacitus: Unfortunately, Richard Carrier's opinion on the matter is especially pertinent, given the fact that he is a qualified Historian in the field. What we know: (1) All historical manuscripts contain error – this does not discount their reliability. (2) "And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here." (http://www.tektonics.org...) So not only was Tacitus both a procurator and a prefect, but we have good stylistic reasons for believing he would use the former. "that many Christian scholars" If by many my opponent means a very slim minority – I have no qualms (could my opponent name a few more please). Unfortunately for my opponent however, those very same scholars accept the historical veracity of Jesus. Josephus: My opponent disregards my real point in regards to his grammatical assertion. Judging by ALL of Josephus' writings, we have no good reasons, based on style and textual criticism, for believing it was a later addition. So the fact that my opponent THINKS it reads better without it, can be responded to as I already have – who cares? If you want to claim it is stylistically out of character, give me a source to the detailed study that appropriately utilizes historical and textual criticism. (1) The latter Jesus was not anointed yet, so he wouldn't be CALLED the anointed. (2) He was distinguished using a different means of identification. (3) Christ was used as a title, which is different from being anointed, it is being called "the anointed." This had huge political implications as it marked the Messiah. My opponent did not address my other points. The Bible: First, the Bible IS historical evidence. Need I repeat myself: the gospels are rife with verifiably accurate archeological facts, and many archeological facts that were first known through the Gospels. The remaining extant manuscripts and their age render the Gospels (according to any unbiased historical model) inherently more reliable than any other ancient source whose veracity is not questioned. My opponents reasons for thinking that Jesus should have been more notable in the secular histories are irrelevant. As it was precisely because of what Jesus was alleged to have done that made him so personally offensive to the powers that were. Believing that a person existed is quite different than believing the things they had allegedly done. Why report about Jesus if they did not believe in any of the things he supposedly did? As for the source, a reading would show that they are both interdependent and independent (At least my mistakes were made after reading the source I criticized). If the Gospels (save for John) were not written by the persons said to have written them, why in the world do we not have any other surviving tradition that asserts a different author? Second-century testimony clearly attributes the authorship of the Gospels to those persons whose names the books now bear. It would be very likely that, if the Gospels had circulated unanimously for 60 years without an ascribed author, that, like many other apocryphal writings, a smorgasbord of differing titles would have arisen – this is not the case. Moreover, if the authors were arbitrarily chosen, they certainly would have done well to choose more respected authors, not a tax collector (Matthew), a virtual enigma who is mentioned twice (Luke), and a kid who left Paul high and dry (Mark). There is no available text that is without title. My opponent would do well in showing some extant manuscripts that do not have a title attributing the authorship to its supposed author, or, better yet, that attribute it to some other person. On Parsimony: My opponent does not understand that denying the existence of an entity can amount to numerous assumptions (any theory with the least amount of assumptions and the same explanatory power is to be preferred, per Occam). Here are the assumptions: 1. Matthew was not written by an eyewitness. 2. Luke and acts were not written by an eyewitness. 3. John was lying and was not indeed an eyewitness. 4. The author of Peter's epistles was lying and was indeed not the apostle Peter. 5. The author of Jude was lying and it was not written by the brother of Jesus. 6. The author of James was lying and not written by the brother of Jesus. 7. Paul was lying and he did not actually meet and talk with numerous eye witnesses. Since all these assumptions are poised against contradicting evidence, and are based on little or no evidence at all, it seems probable that at least one of these assumptions is incorrect. If one of these assumptions is incorrect then my opponent can not rightly claim that we do not have eyewitness attestation for the existence Jesus. Insufficient Time: My opponent misses the mark. If Jesus was not a historical character, it is very unlikely that a formulated Jesus mythology could have formulated so quickly after his supposed death. The problem is that the time between the events themselves and the authorship of the gospels is too short for the MEMORY OF WHAT ORIGINALLY HAPPENED (or had not happened) to be erased. Paul: Mark can be reliably dated mid to late 50's (1). My opponent misunderstands Biblical language and consequently makes some blatant theological errors. Spiritual man =/ immaterial man. It is precisely because scholars understand biblical language that the vast majority of them agree that Paul believed in the actual, PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...). The dichotomy of Spiritual and Natural is merely between those who conform to worldly things and those who conform to spiritual things. My opponent goes on to say that Paul only vaguely refers to occurrences in Jesus' life. His own source, however, seems to disagree, "It turns out that careful analysis of the letters shows that Paul was not actually all that silent at all." (http://www.bede.org.uk...) In fact, lets look at some things his own source points out. 1. Paul believed Jesus died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:4) 2. Jesus was born of a woman and had ministry with the Jews (Galatians 4:4). 3. Jesus was human and a decedent of David (Romans 1:3) 4. Jesus had a human brother, James (Galatians 1:19). 5. Jesus physically initiated the last supper and was physically betrayed (1Cor. 11:23-25) And much more. Source: 1.J ohn Robinson,ï¿½Redating the New Testament