The Jesus of History Probably Existed - C

I will start by critiquing his listed contentions. ================== No Direct Eye Witnesses ================== My opponent not only makes the mistake of saying that the absence of DIRECT eye witness accounts is the single most important reason to be skeptical, but he assumes with certainty that the recorded gospels were not direct eyewitness accounts. Most humorous, however, is my opponent's whole hearted acceptance of what "most scholars" believe (a dubious assertion) with an obvious disregard for the fact that those same scholars most likely believe that Jesus actually existed – in fact, the amount of historians and scholars that believe as my opponent believes can probably be counted on one hand. Let us take a look at the facts: 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. Even still, if my opponent wishes to be consistent in his approach, he must also respectively deny that Alexander the Great existed, and even, unfortunately, our great George Washington. As it is, the only way my opponent can deny traditional authorship of the Gospels is to also deny Tacitus' authorship of the Annals and virtually all other ancient texts whose authorship is not currently questioned. It is more probably that the synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark and Luke – eyewitnesses. ================== The Argument From Silence ================== Really? Any argument entitled "the argument from silence" should already be considered wanting. One should always be skeptical of an argumentum ex silentio. But let us consider my opponent's claims. Certainly if Jesus was as the Gospels purport him to be, he would have been noteworthy and contemporary historians would have included him in the tracts of history. This is my opponent's damning assumption. Let us consider some primary reasons that Jesus may not have made the docket (though we don't know for certain that he did not). 1. Jesus did not change the political, social, or economic climate of Palestine 2. Jesus was executed as a criminal – making him significantly marginalized 3. He associated with societies rejects – offending many people 4. His own lifestyle was offensive to many 5. He was a poor carpenter living in a land full of wealthy urbanites Jesus was not a huge name during his lifetime, at least among those who write the histories, so there is no reason to believe that he would be recorded by his contemporaries. It was not until after his resurrection that the movement spread like fire – but even then, approximately 95% of persons during that time were illiterate, especially those who Jesus influenced the most (the poor and down-trodden) – I do not think they could write a formulated history. ================== The Case of Tacitus ================== By the way, the majority of scholars believe this passage to authentic – since my opponent is fond of arbitrarily choosing when to affirm majority scholarship. My opponent disregards Tacitus by again using argumentum ex silentio. Moreover, in the case of Severus, to suggest a later Christian interpolation to Tacitus is ridiculous, why would a Christian use Tacitus' name to deride Christianity. Moreover, why in the world is it more probable that Tacitus copied Severus and not vice versa? As far as alterations go, one manuscript bearing a scribal mistake is not evidence that Tacitus was referring to something entirely different. It is more probable that Tacitus' mentioning is Genuine. ================== The Case of Josephus ================== My opponent disregards Josephus by essentially saying that because there were some Christian interpolations, that means Christians gon der and dun em all. Unfortunately, it is most likely that Christians altered previously existing material about Jesus in order to reflect Christianity more positively. If Josephus' later mentioning was an interpolation, it seems the terminology would have been changed to reflect Christianity positively. My prior statement stands. There is no evidence that such a reference is an interpolation because it is in every extant manuscript we have available. The textual evidence suggests that it is genuine specifically because of the nonchristian terminology and even disagreement with Christian history regarding the martyrdom of James It is more probable that Josephus' mentioning is Genuine. ================== Extrabiblical Accounts ================== This point remains unscathed. Since the Bible is consistent in representing history and geography correctly, it stands to reason that it makes correct historical assertions regarding the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. ================== 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. My opponent is also forgetting that the gospels are most probably based on oral tradition, as they draw upon the supposed gospel Q – a much earlier tradition. Paul's letter to the Galatians was written sometime in the 40's – approximately ten years after Jesus' death (1). ================== The Rule of Parsimony ================== 1. It is more probable that the Gospels reperesent direct eyewitness testimony. 2. It is more probable that Tacitus and Josephus represent history genuinely. 3. It is more probable that Paul in his ministry very early after Jesus' death was in response to actual events. 4. It is more probable that the Christian movement revolved around the actual person, Jesus of Nazereth. 5. It is more probable that contemporary historians would NOT have mentioned Jesus' life in their recordings. 6. It is more probable that the followers of Jesus – the ones who would have known it was a formulated lie (namely his disciples) – would die for something they thought was true and not something they knew was false. As I see it, the law of parsimony favors the existence of Jesus of Nazareth ================== Comparisons with Mediterranean mystery religions ================== My opponent says there are many parallels that predate Christianity. If he could please list these parallels as well as the extant manuscripts where they can be found, that would be helpful. It is mere casuistry to say there are "many" parallels and then not list them, because when these supposed parallels are considered, we can see it is like saying Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenegger are truly twins. ================== Conclusion ================== Really?