Question 1: " My opponent asserts historical "facts" that support his position, without any evidence. Among these assertions is his claim that the Book of Mark did not include the Resurrection story. How then does my opponent account for the empty tomb at the end of even the old manuscript of Mark?"
Answer 1: That the Book of Mark did not include the resurrection story is not an assertion. There are no appearances of the resurrected Jesus in Mark. No appearances are even possible because the women who went to the aforementioned empty tomb didn't tell anybody about the empty tomb. Nobody else knew it existed, as far as the Markan tale goes. Kind of strange for such an essential event to have taken place with nobody knowing about it or seeing it.
My opponent suggests that the empty tomb implies a resurrection took place. If that's the case then why do the Pauline Epistles not mention it, yet they mention a resurrection? One does not appear to be tied to the other, per se. There are plausible reasons for Mark mentioning an empty tomb that have nothing do with a resurrection. As reported in Matthew, there were rumors that Christians had stolen the body. Furthermore, the Christian writers of the Book of Mark could have trying to avert the kind of hero cults that were common among Jews and pagans at the time, who tended to worship or at least strongly venerate shrines of heroic figures. As my opponent well knows, the supposed tomb where the Christ was buried was unknown to Christians at the time of the early Christians and remains unknown today. Thus there was no veneration of the tomb as a shrine. Last, Mark could be using the empty tomb symbolically, i.e. the tomb could represent a body, and an empty tomb could represent the notion that the "soul" has risen to heaven and left the body behind. This is line with traditions of the pagan mystery religions that were popular at the time. Indeed, there are many parallels between the Markan empty tomb narrative and the pagan narrative found on the Gold Lamella from Hipponion. The overall point here is that the empty tomb does not necessarily suggest that an actual resurrection took place, but that it is being used as historical fiction to convey some other point or message.
Question 2: Likewise, my opponent asserts that the Synoptic Gospels were not written until the late 2nd Century, and then only during canonization. I have shown that scholarship dates these texts in the middle part of the 1st Century. Will my opponent explain why he rejects the dominant scholarly position?
Answer 2: I believe I already discussed this in the earlier commentaries but I will re-summarize the points here. To re-iterate, the Synoptic Gospels refer to Mark, Matthew & Luke. My opponent says all three date from the middle part of the 1st century. That early dating does not seem possible. For example, the Gospel of Luke includes significant borrowings from the work of Josephus, which puts the Luke gospel - at the earliest- in the late first century (93 CE). For example, the census of Quirinius, the mentioning of the same the rebel leaders - Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and the Egyptian; the story of the death of Agrippa; the mentioning of a famine during the time of Claudius, and several others. Luke also says, as I already indicated, that "many" had written gospels before his. One cannot say that there were "many" gospels by the mid first century, but there were by the mid to late 2nd century. I'll also reiterate my earlier point about Matthew reciting rumors about a stolen body that were not in circulation until well into the 2nd century. At the very least, the gospels only become known in the historical and literary record in the mid-2nd century, as they were not known to early church leaders, and if they were unknown before then it is likely they had not yet been written.
Question 3: My opponent's statements on the letters of Paul are also full of assertions without backing (and rather incoherent). Would he care to explain how Paul "contradicts the Gospels"? Especially would he cite exactly where Paul says that Jesus was "raised spiritually" and not physically? Provide some evidence?
Answer 3: I'll once again re-summarize and elaborate on what I have already said. According to the Pauline version, there is no mention of an empty tomb. There is no disappearance from a physical grave of a physical body. No physical appearances of a bodily resurrected Jesus who does anything like allow people to inspect his wounds. There was none of this two-stage process, used later in the gospels, of resurrection to an earthly body, followed by ascension into heaven. Paul's notion of resurrection *was* ascension into heaven. According to the Pauline version, Jesus appeared to the "500". Yet there is no mentioning of this seemingly important factoid in the Gospels (remember, in the Markan version, even if you were to believe that his narrative implies a resurrection, *nobody* saw Jesus). Paul claims Jesus first appeared (resurrected) to Peter. The gospels say he first appeared to women or a woman. Paul says Jesus appeared to all twelve apostles. The book of Matthew says Judas hanged himself by the time of these events. And finally Paul says the resurrection is spiritual not physical. You ask specifically where he says this: it is 1 Cor 15:42. It cannot be more explicit:
" 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
Question 4: My opponent takes umbrage that there are conflicting accounts of who exactly saw the resurrected Jesus and when. If the Gospels were copied from one source, as he asserts, wouldn't these accounts be coordinated? Don't minor discrepancies actually provide evidence for textual independence? Can he have it both ways?
Answer 4: First, the gospels were copied from each other. The synoptics contain *identical editorial comments in the identical place*. See for example: Matt 9:6; Mark 2:10; and Luke 5:24. The synoptics are replete with verbal similarities and identical descriptions of what occurred. Now, do the resurrection contradictions suddenly negate the previous litany of examples where the gospels copy from each other verbatim and render the accounts 'independent'? No. Keep in mind what my opponent is trying to claim here, that these gospels are independent witnesses and thus that the resurrection was corroborated by multiple sources. How is it possible, if an account copies the corpus of another work with identical phrasing and identical editorial commentary, for it to be said that these accounts are independent? I say it's not possible. Now, if one were to ask, why, if so much of the main body of the gospels is identical, did this kind of striking similarity not also occur with the resurrection narrative, I'd say because the different gospels served different political purposes and represented different theological viewpoints. There would no need for separate gospels if they were simply 1 to 1 carbon copies of each other. They were written to emphasize different issues. Mark was written to evangelize Gentiles. Matthew was written to Jewish Christians. Luke emphasized Christianity as a universal message to Jews and non-Jews alike. Also, legends tend to become embellished as time progresses, becoming more and more fantastic. You see that here with the gospels and the resurrection.
Closing:
Thanks to Thucydides for organizing the debate, the judges for judging the debate, and for my opponent, Dipplayer 2004, for agreeing to the debate. I respect everyone's time and effort and apologize for the initial incompleteness of my portion. In my first statement I outlined, and my opponent agreed with, four criteria for evidence which would strongly indicate that an historical event occurred. The criteria for evidence is that it should be 1) non-biased; 2) contemporary, if not eye witness; 3) independent; and 4) numerous and corroborating. In my closing statement I would like to review whether the points my opponent has raised suggest that the historical evidence for the resurrection of the Galilean Jesus meet this criteria.
First, I earlier raised the issue of the bias of the anonymous authors of the gospels (I also included Paul's letters), the sole sources for this story. I spoke of the fact that all the authors were described as "Evangelists" or "Apostles" of Jesus and had a high stake in the event being considered true, as the leaders of Christian considered it central to their faith. I also spoke of the process by which these texts were selected as the Christian canon and where gospels which raised doubts about the resurrection were discarded. My opponent did not speak to the first issue of bias I raised - namely that all the sources for this story are Christian evangelists. He did not bring up any non-Christian sources for the story or in any way dispute the fact that all the sources are Christian. He did raise objections to the second aspect of bias, that the gospels and Pauline epistles do not read as though they were written by a single authority figure who foisted his own agenda upon the documents. But as I said earlier, I did not allege any conspiracy in the writing in the documents. I accept that different sets of authors wrote the documents. However, I claim that the 'vetting process', which my opponent concedes occurred, had a political orientation in mind. Namely, it sought to combat the Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas, which doubted the resurrection and raised other problematic points.
The second criteria that historical evidence must meet is that it should be contemporary, if not eye witness. My opponent has not claimed that the gospel accounts are 'eye witness accounts', but has claimed that they were written within 70 to 90 years of the events described. What basis does he give to give such early dates? None whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He claims that "most scholarship" gives these dates for the documents - a simple appeal to authority. He does not give any names of scholars or give reasons for why scholars supposedly agree on these dates. I have given reasons to doubt these early dates, especially for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew cites rumors which were not in circulation until the 2nd century, while Luke borrows extensively from a historical text written in 93 CE. Furthermore Luke claims that "many gospels" had been written before his. Also, these gospels were not known by early Christian writers, and do not show up in the historical or literary record until well into the 2nd century.
The third criteria that historical evidence must meet is that the sources for the event must be independent. I argue that the synoptic gospels, the main source of information for this event, all borrow extensively from each other, so much so that they use the exact same verbiage, the exact same interpretations of events, as well as the exact same editorial commentary in many places. My opponent claims that these borrowings are the equivalent of a modern political figure using other political figures' records to assist in the writing of memoirs, and that the gospels have different styles and numerous discrepancies which make them independent sources. However, the gospels are remarkable for having such similar styles of phrasing and a modern political figure using someone else's documents would have not see the same events in the exact same light or describe them in the exact same way. It's as if the very same person was witnessing or recording what occurred as far as the main corpus of the gospels is concerned. The fact that there are discrepancies does not make them independent texts anymore than re-makes of films with discrepancies from the originals renders the re-makes original screenplays.
This brings us to the last criteria for historical evidence - numerous and corroborating sources. That there are not numerous sources for this event is not disputed. All we have been presented with are the Pauline epistles and the synoptic gospels. My opponent does not even bother with the gospel of John. Furthermore, the four sources we are presented with are not corroborating on any of the main details. The Pauline epistles and the gospel of Mark do not even mention a physical resurrection of Jesus of Galilee. The Pauline epistles explicitly claim that the ascension to heaven of physical bodies is impossible. The epistles and synoptic gospels differ on all the main points regarding the death and resurrection of the Christ. When did he die? Who carried his cross for him? When was the temple curtain torn? What was the attitude of the two lestai towards Jesus at the time of crucifixion? Who saw the empty tomb? Who saw the resurrected Jesus? How many people did the resurrected Jesus appear to? Who was alive at the time of the resurrection? What was the resurrection a physical or spiritual one? They say different things. My opponent claims that these discrepancies are trivial and that the accounts all agree on the essential "fact" of resurrection. Furthermore he claims that the differences lend to the story's credibility, as corrupted sources would show more consistency. I argue that these discrepancies are the sign of a legend, growing more miraculous and fantastical as time and theological development progresses. Non-corroborating stories is not a reflection of historical credibility, as my opponent contends. In no other case of an historical event is it ever claimed that sources which disagree on the facts make the sources *more credible*. Also, these differences are not trivial. If nobody saw any resurrected Jesus, as the gospel of Mark contends, or 500+, as the Pauline epistles claim, this is a very important point and a big discrepancy. My opponent equates the recording of the number of witnesses to the resurrection with remembering how many people attended a wedding. I cannot agree that whether 512 or zero witnesses saw what Christians allege to be the central event in the history of the world is akin to remembering the details of wedding attendance and is of little importance.
In summary, I do not believe compelling evidence has been brought forward for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, or that satisfying counterarguments have been brought forward to dispute the reasons for why the evidence is weak. While early Christians may have believed it to be true, and in some cases even died for the sake of that belief, martyrdom and fervency is not evidence for factuality. If Christians want to demonstrate the truth of these historical claims, they will have to do it with the historical method. This has not been done.
Help understanding dislodgement
.
)
)
)
)