The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses (debate #2)

Response to Con's introduction Con claimed, "Additionally, I wish to point out that my opponents heavy overuse of minority opinions are comparable to citing a pimple to ascertain the overall dermatological health of a patient." My claims were presented in the form of arguments based on ancient evidence, not mere authoritative opinions, so they should be treated as arguments and not brushed aside in favor of majority opinions. The majority opinions of New Testament scholarship are especially irrelevant, because, unlike almost all other academic fields, the majority of New Testament scholars are explicitly slanted in favor of religious ideology. For example, all of Con's sources have religious statements of faith. Among them is the vision statement of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg [4]: "Bearing witness at the crossroads of history and hope, the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg proclaims Jesus Christ to a restless world by preparing students for faithful discipleship. As we listen to God’s Word in community, the Holy Spirit empowers us to lead in church and world through worship, education, service and encouragement.” This is a reminder of the faults of argument from authority in this field, not an attack on Con’s sources (I welcome Con to cite academic arguments that reinforce his position, as I will do likewise). Response to Con's Contention 1 Textual reliability should not be conflated with firsthand sourcing or historical reliability. The debate concerns sources, not the development of the texts, and the consistency of texts does not relate strongly to sources. The surviving textual copies of "The Life of Apollonius" may be very consistent, but it does not follow that the author Philostratus sourced from eyewitnesses, because the two matters are largely unrelated. Response to Con's Contention 2 Con claims, "[Acts] does not give a complete account of Paul’s life. It would have had the author known of his death." Only a biography is strongly expected to account a character's death, and this silence in Acts can be explained by the book of Acts being a literary genre different from a biography [5], such as a history or a novel. If Paul did not have an extraordinary death related to the history of the church, then the account of his death would not be expected to be contained in Acts. There is a church tradition that Paul was beheaded dating to the 4th century [6], but this tradition is late and it fails the criterion of dissimilarity--Christians were strongly interested in martyrdom stories of the apostles. Con claims, "The fall of Jerusalem was predicted in the Gospels. Yet there is no mention of the fulfillment [in Acts]." This silence can be explained by the timeline of the narrative of Acts preceding 70 CE. Why should we expect events outside the timeline of the narrative? Response to Rebuttal on 1 Con claimed, “The Roman Culture had a scribe in every agora. You need only hire a scribe for a small sum of money and any rural bumpkin could write anything that he wanted in any language.” This argument requires that the original gospels were translated from spoken Aramaic to written Greek. Yes, there are some quotes of Jesus within the early gospels that make sense only through translation from Greek back into Aramaic, indicating at least some Aramaic origins (i.e. Mark 2:23-24). However, there are other passages that make sense only in Greek. An example is John 3:3-8. This passage is difficult to sensibly explain in English, and equally difficult in Aramaic, but it makes elegant sense in Koine Greek, because it rests on a double entendre that exists only within the Greek language. The Greek word, “ἄνωθεν,” has two meanings in Greek. It is often translated, “again,” but it is also means, “from above.” Jesus seemingly said, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3 NRSV). However, the listener Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, thinking that he said, “…without being born again.” Jesus then corrects him by saying that he actually meant, “…born of the Spirit.” It is a dialogue that makes sense only when the reputed conversation was first invented by a speaker of Greek who believed that the spiritual realm was in heaven above (John 3:31). It could not have originated from an Aramaic speaker, because the double entendre is exclusive to Greek. Response to Rebuttal on 3 Con claims, “Miracles: Not a problem if you believe in God---This is only a problem if you are presupposing naturalism as the only possible background of a text.” On the contrary, as I already clarified in Round 2, the argument is “based on the patterns of history and the modern age.” I gave three examples of literature that was sourced from myths: the ancient accounts of Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, and Pythagorus. They all contain miracle accounts. A bit later, I listed many eyewitness accounts (Hannibal, Pliny, etc.) None of them contain direct eyewitness testimony of miracles--not even the Apostle Paul! I am not claiming that direct eyewitness testimony of miracles is impossible. People do indeed at times attest to observing miraculous events. But, it is simply not expected from what we know of the patterns of history. Miracles are far more common in myths than in eyewitness testimonies. Remember, I am not arguing for the falsehood of the gospels. I am arguing for their sources being myths. Response to Rebuttal on 4 Con inquires, “These guys spent decades together sharing the details of the same event over and over again with each other and their converts. Why would they not relate a consistent event?” The first answer is that people who spend time together telling the stories together are not expected to compose entire paragraphs that are the same word-for-word, though it is of course possible. This evidence is far more expected, however, if the gospel authors sourced each other, and Con must show the greater probability of his own position per Rule 3. To do this, the proposed hypotheses should greater satisfy criteria of good historical methodology. For example, the third criterion of the historical methodology of “Argument to the Best Explanation” is “greater explanatory power,” which requires that a hypothesis “must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.” [7] The second answer is that the specific details of the similarities between the synoptic gospels create a pattern that is not expected of any explanation except the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke sourced from prior sources including Mark, not just shared narratives in common with each other. Sometimes, Matthew uses the same words as Mark, but Luke is significantly different (i.e. Mat 4:19, Mark 1:17 and Luke 5:10). Sometimes, Luke uses the words as Mark but Matthew is significantly different (i.e. Mat 3:6, Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3). However, there is never a time when Matthew uses the same words as Luke but Mark is significantly different! This is a universal rule that demands a very good explanation, which cannot possibly involve putting the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke all on the same level. Con demands, “Provide a Q document.” The Q source is inferred from the commonalities between Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark. But, if Con is not even willing to grant Marcan priority (that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark), then this issue should be dropped, as the Q hypothesis follows from Marcan priority. The case for Marcan priority is much stronger, more direct and more relevant. References [4] http://www.ltsg.edu... [5] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd edition, 2004, p. 133. [6] Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, III.VII.XXVI, via http://www.ccel.org... [7] C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, 1984, p. 19.