The Jesus of History Probably Existed - C

================== No Direct Eye Witnesses ================== My opponent's entire argument – not just this particular point – stems from the tenuous assumption that there were no direct eye witnesses. We have unanimous 2nd century testimony that asserts traditional authorship. A priori assumptions - bad ones too - have led some scholars to conclude that the synoptic gospels were written too late for them to have been authored by authors generally ascribed to them. There is no reason to doubt traditional authorship. All extant manuscripts confirm apostolic authorship - or eyewitness scholarship. There are no manuscripts or surviving traditions that assert different authorship - which is common of anonymously written material (this suggests that unanimous traditional ascriptions of the 2nd century were drawing upon much earlier tradition). Similarly, most scholars agree that the gospels draw upon oral tradition (the thing most common in that era considering the 90% illiteracy level). Moreover, many have contended that the even earlier tradition, the Gospel Q, was indeed oral tradition. And actually, some scholars are now recognizing that Mark was probably written in the mid 50's (1). Circulated tradition about Jesus comes almost immediately after his resurrection - with oral tradition and Paul's epistles (that make use of what seems to be even earlier Christian creeds). 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. My opponent has not shown that "most" scholars agree that there is NO eyewitness attestation. Indeed, even his wikipedia source says "some reject traditional ascriptions." That's hardly MOST. Moreover, he has not explained why he finds it acceptable to rely on majority scholarship when it comes to this point, but it is, for some reason, not acceptable to rely on majority scholarship when it comes to the matter in question. ================== The Argument From Silence ================== First, my opponent disregards the reasons given in my former post. Alexander the Great was a revolutionist. He DID change the social, economic and political climate – yet, ironically, all we have is secondary sources. So the claim that because Jesus was doing some pretty radical things, he MUST have been recorded is simply not salient. The contemporary historians had no good reasons for including Jesus in their scrolls. (1) In his life time, he did not revolutionize political, social or economic systems, (2) He was a criminal, (3) he hung out with the marginalized and untouchables and (4) and he was a poor amidst wealthy urbanites. This critical assumption, if applied universally to other historical figures, nearly robs us entirely of the existence of any ancient character. ================== The Case of Tacitus ================== Since this is important to my opponent, let me say this: The consensus among scholars is that Tacitus' reference is a genuine one. The reason why early Christian writers did not refer to Tacitus is because his words were not all that becoming – indeed they were hostile. The quote quite nearly blames the great fire of Rome on Christians – hardly something a Christian interpolator would do. Severus seems to have drawn from Tacitus' material, not quoting it entirely. My opponent assumes that all later manuscripts were predicated on the earliest one we have now (a marvelously preposterous assumption) and he assumes that it is not a scribal mistake (though those are known to very common in ancient manuscripts) (see Texts and Transmission). ================== The Case of Josephus ================== It is blatantly false that there is "undisputed" evidence that Christians were seeking to bolster there case of a historical Jesus. In fact, many scholars contend that Christians only changed previously existing references to Jesus to reflect more positively on Christianity. There was clearly no reason to bolster a historical case for Jesus, why would there be? - No one doubted it at that time! We only have evidence that Christians would say positive things about Jesus. My opponent's entire point hinges on the false assumption that early Christians needed to bolster a case for the historical Jesus, but that was not an issue until millennia later. Therefore, any Christian interpolations would have been positive ones. There is no reason to doubt Josephus' later attestation. ================== Extrabiblical accounts ================== I said historical validity of the person, not the titles or deeds ascribed therein. There is a copious amount of evidence for virtually all described geography and numerous biblical characters. Since we know that the Bible is making generally correct historical claims – what reason do we have for doubting the actual existence of Jesus? ================== Insufficient Time ================== I am not sure why my opponent is not understanding this point. Let me try to clarify with an analogy: Consider you have lived in the same neighborhood for 30 years. If someone comes and tells you that a man named Bob Jerky lived just a few blocks down from you and he healed people and manipulated matter, and he often had large followings of people – and he generally always called attention to himself. But there is one slight problem – you, and all your surrounding neighbors, have never heard of this man, indeed, the house he supposedly lived in had been occupied for 35 years. You would rightly disagree with the person telling you this. Similarly, there is no way that this movement could have spread so rapidly during the time that supposed eyewitnesses were still alive – but it did. ================== The Rule of Parsimony ================== My opponent has not addressed this point adequately. The rule of parsimony is, essentially, the argument with the same explanatory power and least amount of assumptions is to be preferred. My opponent has to posit too many unnecessary variables in order for his conclusion to follow. He has to assume that 2nd century attestations were lies that were not based on earlier tradition, he has to assume that all extant manuscripts bear false titles. He has to assume James, Jude, and Peter were lying. He has to assume that Matthew, Luke and John were not written by eyewitnesses. My opponent need only be wrong in one of his assumptions for his conclusion to be errant. I, on the other hand, can be wrong in virtually all the listed and still have an accurate conclusion. ================== Comparisons with Mediterranean mystery religions ================== My opponent merely lists a site for his attestations – all of which are sorely wanting and many do not actually exist. Please furnish extant manuscripts that confirm this hypothesis. The parallels are drawn from a document called "Toledoth Yeshu." And, funnily enough, some people actually use it to prove that Jesus actually existed. We can discount this document entirely because, somehow, the writers of this document were able to drag Rabbi Tanhuma back through the chambers of time, because he is listed in the writing, even though he lived 400 years AFTER Jesus' lifetime.