The Jesus of History Probably Existed - C

No Direct Eye Witnesses My opponent states "There is no reason to doubt traditional authorship." If there is "no reason", why have scholars debated, and continue to debate, the subject of authorship? Anyone at all familiar with biblical scholarship, knows that the "Synoptic Problem" (1) has bothered scholars for centuries. Why do the Gospels agree on some things and disagree on other things? If they were all written by firsthand eyewitnesses, and they all witnessed the same events, why do they disagree on so many things? The dominant theory for over a century on the Synoptic problem has been the "two source hypothesis" which states that "Mark" was written first (probably around 70 - 75 CE, after the fall of Jerusalem, not 55CE as my opponent claims, referred to as "Markan priority"), with "Matthew" and "Luke" written decades later. It states that "Matthew" and "Luke" used "Mark" as a source as well using the "Q document" and their own private sources. (2) If "Matthew" and "Luke" were copied from pre-existing sources, they can hardly be considered authentic firsthand eyewitness accounts. So that leaves "Mark". And the same source that gives Mark it's name, Papias via Eusebius, clearly states that Mark was not an eyewitness ("For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him"). Even if Papias' attribution is correct, and we have zero evidence to support it, then Mark was *not* an eyewitness. "Luke", on the other hand, actually *states* that the author isn't an eyewitness. My opponent can't seem to decide if he wants to take the position that the Gospels actually *are* firsthand eyewitness accounts or are merely recounting "oral tradition". Oral tradition, from an historical perspective, especially when concerning miracle workers, has to be treated skeptically. Every primitive society has passed on stories about miraculous deeds or messiahs using oral tradition and they are treated by historians as mythology unless there is evidence to suggest they are more than that. There is no reason why the oral traditions of Jesus should not be treated with the same skepticism. I would also point out that the non-canonical Gospels were also attributed to apostles and were passed on by oral tradition. Yet the validity of these Gospels are readily denied by Christian apologists, even though they pass the same standards of authenticity as the canonical Gospels. The only difference between them is that the canonical Gospels suited the purposes of the people who ended up running the church under the guidance of the murderous Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century. The Argument From Silence My opponent seems to be trying to make the argument that if Alexander existed, then so did Jesus. This is a logical fallacy. We have to examine each case on its merits. He again tries to make the argument that none of the contemporary Jewish or Roman historians wrote about Jesus because he wasn't important. I repeat my earlier point that, considering the claims made in his name by the NT gospels - that he magically healed the sick, walked on water, multiplied fishes and loaves, raised the dead(!) and, most importantly, claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, I find it beyond comprehension that at least the Jewish scholars of the day didn't mention his feats or his claims. Anyone claiming to be the Jewish Messiah who could also demonstrate unlimited magical powers would have attracted the attention of the Jewish scholars. In fact, isn't that why the NT claims he was executed? Because he offended the Jewish leadership of the day? Yet none of their historian mentioned him, not one word. The Case of Tacitus Early Christians didn't refer to Tacitus because he was hostile? Do you have evidence to support that claim or is it just more speculation? They refer to the crucifixion of Jesus - a hostile act. Even if the mention of Jesus in Tacitus is genuine - and I've pointed out in earlier responses why we should be skeptical about that issue - he wasn't a firsthand eyewitness, doesn't mention his source and therefore we cannot say for sure if Tacitus was just repeating commonly-held beliefs about Jesus or if he actually did have hard evidence. The best we can say is that we do not know. The Case of Josephus My opponent agrees with me here that early Christians changed historical documents such as Josephus, in his words, "to reflect more positively on Christianity", which supports my case that we must treat with skepticism all early documents that mention Jesus. Extrabiblical accounts Again I point out that human mythology was often set in real geographical places and yet contained characters who were not historical - Heracles in Greece, Achilles in Troy, King Arthur in England. It is another logical fallacy to suggest that because a place mentioned in mythology is historical, that the characters in the stories are also historical. Insufficient Time There are several problems with my opponents analogy. 1) The existence of the non-canonical Gospels. They, too, ascribe to Jesus many wonderful feats and deeds, written around the same time as the Gospels, in the 2nd century. If the canonical Gospels are accurate, surely these are as well and for the same reasons? And yet no modern Christians ascribe any authenticity to them. 2) The first Gospel, "Mark", wasn't written in Palestine or Judea, where people might have had some local knowledge. It was written in Rome. 3) Paul's letters weren't read by the general community, only by a small group of believers. The general public (or the Jewish and Roman authorities) who lived in the 1st century didn't have an opportunity to discuss and debate the authenticity of them. 4) We're talking about mostly uneducated, illiterate and unscientific people living in the Middle East 2000 years ago, at a time when most people believed in pagan gods and all sorts of crazy stuff. The Rule of Parsimony My only assumption is that without a single firsthand eyewitness or contemporary account of Jesus' life, it falls into the same category as all of the other mythologies of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Human around the world in those ages believed all manner of mythologies that have as much (or as little) evidence behind them as Christianity. The simplest explanation is that Christianity is just another ancient mythology. Comparisons with Mediterranean mystery religions I am asked for extant texts depicting other Middle Eastern gods and I suggest my opponent starts with the "Pyramid Texts", dated to 2400 - 2300 BCE, the oldest texts to mention Osiris and the oldest known religious texts in the world. Osiris, however, is also mentioned on the Palermo Stone which dates to 2500 BCE. (4) Conclusion Here, again, are the basic facts that my opponent has not been able to refute: 1. There is not a single firsthand eyewitness account of Jesus exists. 2. There is not a single contemporary account of Jesus exists. 3. The majority of historians writing in and around Judea in the 1st century make no mention of Jesus. 4. The few historians who do seem to mention him are either proven frauds, suspect, or, at best, do not reveal their sources. 5. The details of Jesus' life and his deeds are paralleled in the story of many other mystery gods that predated or co-existed with him. 6. Logic states that if it looks like a mystery cult and it smells like a mystery cult, and there is no firsthand eyewitness evidence to the contrary, then it probably *is* a mystery cult. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...