The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

========= Introduction: ========= I was sorry to see that my opponent could not commit full attention to his fourth round due to family matters. As it happens to us all, this should not be considered against him in this debate. Moreover, he may, for the benefit of discussion, respond more fully in the comments if it suits him (though they will inevitably get buried assuming this debate receives enough attention to garner comments). I will use this last round to sum up and clarify my position as it has already been stated. ========= The Case of Tacitus: ========= It was shown that ALL historical documents contain omissions, errors and additions. So this is never, under any historical analysis, sufficient, or at all good, reason to distrust a historical document. It is the job of the critical historian to sort through these matters. I have also maintained that there are no good reasons for assuming that Tacitus accepted Christian tradition uncritically – inasmuch as his character as a critical historian is lauded by those who study him. ========= The Case of Josephus: ========= In this debate I have shown why historians believe Josephus made a genuine reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, the sources I provided for why "so-called Christ" was not a later interpolation are inherently more trustworthy given that they are, or unilaterally rely upon, historical scholars – not amateur blogging literature. ========= Insufficient Time: ========= This point was NEVER adequately addressed. I maintained that it is historically ignorant to believe it possible for a formulated Jesus myth to have easily surfaced and promulgated so soon after the supposed events. That is to say, people would have known it was demonstrably false given that primary sources of verification were readily available. ========= The Rule of Parsimony: ========= This point is a powerful one and was very obscurely shrugged off by my opponent. Since denying the historicity of Jesus is tantamount to making many unfounded assumptions that are poised against contradicting evidence and are based on little or no evidence at all, it is observably less parsimonious then maintaining that at least one of the assumptions listed in my round 3 are incorrect. ========= The Case of Paul: ========= I have shown that there is great textual evidence for believing that Paul believed in a literal, human Jesus – my opponent's assertions notwithstanding. My opponent has resorted to making the empty assertion that we are somehow justified in assuming that things that contradict his presuppositional bias were later additions, even though absolutely no textual evidence exists in favor of this position. ========= Extrabiblical Accounts ========= It was shown that archeological finds are continuing to affirm the biblical characters found in the New Testament. The accounts as they are found in the New Testament gain mounting evidence for their veracity virtually all the time (as the posted video sought to demonstrate). Given that the Bible records many now established historical figures – many of whom were first known through the Bible – there exists no good reasons for believing that Jesus was a fictitious character inserted into a generally reliably accurate historical narrative. ========= The Bible: ========= I asked my opponent what good reasons we have for disregarding 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. He responded by asserting that it is because they are religious in nature. The first problem with this, is that all ancient historical sources contain elements of religion or the supernatural. Moreover, the gospels are not religious in "nature." In fact, they are purported as historical accounts and are therefore HISTORICAL in nature. The point of any unbiased historical model is that, when applied, it can accurately sort through what is most plausibly historical and what is not. The unfortunate problem here for my opponent, is that when any historical model that is used on other ancient sources is used on the Bible, the historicity of the biblical claims ring true by leaps and bounds. Even when a completely biased historical hermeneutic is applied (think The Jesus Seminar), the conclusion is that (1) Jesus existed and (2) a few parceled sayings can be ascribed to him. When my opponent claimed that historians do NOT view the New Testament as historical, I pointed this out as patently absurd – as any Google search or Amazon perusal will rightly confirm. New Testament historians (many secular) have created a very specific lens for which they use to determine historical reliability: "New Testament historians have developed quite a number of so-called criteria of authenticity for discerning the historical about Jesus, such as multiple attestation, dissimilarity to Christian teaching, linguistic Semitisms, traces of Palestinian milieu, retention of embarrassing material, coherence with other authentic material, and so forth. These criteria do not presuppose the general reliability of the Gospels. Rather they focus on a particular event or saying of Jesus and provide evidence for thinking that specific element of Jesus' life to be historical, regardless of the general reliability of the document in which the particular saying or event is reported. These same criteria are thus applicable to reports of Jesus found in the apocryphal Gospels, or rabbinical writings, or even the Qur'an (1)." The reason other sacred texts are NOT typically used as historical by modern historians is that they FAIL specific historical criteria. The reason I kept asking my opponent to answer my question regarding the historical model he uses to discount the veracity of the New Testament, is precisely because there are NO good reasons for regarding the Gospels as generally unreliable according to any unbiased historical model. In fact, my opponent failed to give any specific historical criterion for which the Gospels fail – his religious by "nature" quip notwithstanding. There are a wide range of established historical facts that very much appreciate the overwhelming affirmation of the majority of New Testament scholarship today – the literal, actual existence of Jesus is, of course, one of those established facts. ========= Conclusion: ========= In this debate my opponent was not able to cast plausible doubt on the existence of Jesus. I have established the veracity of the Bible by any fair standard and that the Rule of Parsimony dictates that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth probably existed. Moreover, I have provided adequate reasons for believing that a formulated Jesus myth could not have formed and spread given its environment (or at least that it was very unlikely that it would). I also established that there are not good reasons for disregarding extrabiblical attestation for Jesus (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny, Thallus, Talmud, and Acts of Pilate). Again, I would like to thank my opponent for a fascinating debate, and I hope the readers have enjoyed this debate as much as I have! ========= Sources: ========= 1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... http://www.christiancourier.com... http://www.str.org... Thank you, InquireTruth