Official Debate: Are the Gospels based on a true story?

[chi pan]

Thank you. I do not see the supernatural aspects of the gospels being excluded as a condition of this debate though I will assume it is because that is what was agreed on. The first thing I would like to talk about is the textual reliability of the gospels. Now, the gospels undeniably have the strongest textual evidence than most any other historical document. Just to compare, Tacitus' Annals were written around 100 AD but the earliest copies of these documents are dated 850 AD with a total of 20 copies found. Now there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the New Testament books. The oldest complete copy is Codex Sinaiticus dated about 300 years after the originals. The earliest unanimously confirmed fragment is of the gospel of John, called Ryland’s Papyrus: P52 dated in the early first century. Most New Testament scholars (if not all) think that John was the last gospel written, so we absolutely cannot date the gospels any later than P52. With all these copies, there have been no significant changes to content. There may be some differences, like differences in spelling, and Mark 15:9-20 were probably added in later but nothing significant. Textually, it is more reliable than all other ancient documents. As for external confirmation, the geography and description of first century Palestine fits with all other known ancient documents. Archeology also confirms their historical accuracy. Plus, there are extra biblical sources that confirm the stories like Tacitus, Suetonius, the Jewish Talmud, and Josephus. There is also internal evidence to consider. This is looking at the stories themselves and confirming if they are consistent. The similarities of the gospels show apparent common material and also debunk independent fabrication. The many differences between them and apparent contradictions between the gospels discredit the theory of collective fabrication. Though these apparent contradictions have been puzzling, closer study of the text, culture, and situations can provide explanation. Sense independent and collective fabrication are ruled out, the most reasonable explanation is that these accounts are based on true events.

Next I will answer the key topics at hand.
When was Jesus born? Scholars who think Jesus existed (there are few that don't) have no problem in believing he was born around 5BC to 3AD.
When did Jesus die? Again, there is little debate that he was executed around 30AD to 33 AD.
How did he die? By crucifixion as reported by the gospels and secular sources around the time.
What was his ministry? The fact that the Jews downplay him a lot suggests his teachings were very controversial. The gospel accounts of his teachings fit very well with the nature of the Pharisees and how they would respond to such teachings.
What he said- coincides with the last question.
What he preached exactly- there is no reason why there should be much argument with the gospel's accounts of his teachings.

Next I will confront possible arguments I'm anticipating.
First, that there is no evidence that Jesus even existed and is most likely completely fictitious. Now, let me point out that this is a minority position among scholars and even well outspoken New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman doesn't think these arguments hold water. However, I have seen a surprisingly large number of people here who believe this so I'm not putting it past my opponent. One of the main arguments is the argument of silence. This is that because there are no contemporary or near contemporary witnesses who attest to Jesus' life that he must not have existed. It is a given that there are no secular contemporary writings of Jesus, though the same is true for many historical figures this is not a criteria for determining existence. It is not true that there are no near contemporary writings of Jesus. There are a few and I would like to point out a couple.
Josephus: he was a Jewish historian who was born about 37 CE and is one of the most prominent historians of his time. He wrote many volumes including the Jewish War in 78 CE, Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE, Apion around 96-100 CE, and The Life of Josephus around 100 CE and died shortly after. He mentions Jesus a couple of times in Antiquities of the Jews. First, he is mentioned in volume XVIII chapter 3, third paragraph.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him is not extinct at this day.

now it should be noted that this passage has been suspected fraudulent. the most compelling reason is that he was an orthodox Jew and he would not have mentioned Jesus as "the Christ" or say "for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold" without any sort of disclaimer. however, most scholars believe the paragraph is mostly true with some interpolation, particularly in the parts i mentioned. He is also mentioned in volume XX chapter 9, first paragraph.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

It should be noted that a vast majority of scholars agree that this paragraph has no interpolation at all. Also, notice it's speaking of Jesus' brother James which confirms the gospels' account of his siblings. The only argument I've heard against this passage is that it is not referring to Jesus Christ but Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest sense he is also referenced at the end of the same paragraph. But it really doesn't make sense that he would be called "the Christ" and there is no compelling argument to suggest he is referenced in the middle of the paragraph (where this quote is from).
Here is some commentary of the passages. http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Tacitus: known as the best historian of his time, he mentions Jesus once in his Annals in Annals 15.44.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

He was referred to..
as "Christus" which was completely normal for him to be referred to at this time. This was an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians. The only good argument I've heard for this one is that he could have been reporting hearsay rather than fact. If that were the case, however, it would have his usual disclaimer of "these accounts have not been confirmed." he clearly references him as a real person and accounts for his execution under Pilate.

Another common argument is the Jesus copycat argument, that Jesus borrowed his story from other myths. This is an uninformed argument as all myths brought up either: are greatly exaggerated or twisted to look similar to the stories of Jesus, are completely fabricated, or had additions to them after Jesus' life. I will not address specific ones unless they are brought up. There are other minor arguments that are used to prove he did not exist, but again I will not address them unless they come up.