The Historicity of the Canonical Gospels

It is no mystery that non-theists frequently attack the historicity of the canonical gospel accounts.  Why? Because probabilistic argumentation for Christ's divinity and resurrection hinge on the basic historicity of the New Testament texts.  When arguing that the Christian explanation of the claims of Christ and the events surrounding His resurrection are the most rational, non-theists have to reply with an alternative explanation for those claims and events.  The problem for them, however, is that any reply they make is (in essence) pure speculation since they have no available counter-sources from which to draw.  In order to forward their alternative explanation as even remotely plausible (rather than mere wishful thinking) they have to debunk the historicity of the Gospel narrative. 

In order to forward the generic arguments in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection, Christians need historical evidence for the following: Christ claimed divinity; Christ was thought to be an historically real human being; Christ died; There was an empty tomb / a missing body; and the Apostles, broadly speaking, believed these things to be true

If these things are true, then the probabilistic argumentation in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection hold. IE) the alternative explanations are probabilistically less likely because they are speculative whereas the Christian explanations fit with the earliest sources. Non-theists typically argue against these texts in the following ways:

• They contradict each other
• They show signs of literary craftsmanship
• They are late in developing / composition
• They are all from one side of the issue

Counter-arguments after the jump! 

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a supporter of Barrack Obama.  Compose a very brief (5 - 10 bullet points) outline that tells the story of Obama's rise to the presidency.  Try to tell the story in a dynamic / interesting way, but which also retains historical accuracy.

When you're done, take a look at my version of events:

• There was once a man, the son of an immigrant in a land founded on immigration but with powerful anti-immigrant attitudes.  His appearance marked him as a pariah in his society, which held racist attitudes against his ethnicity.
• This land promised equal treatment for all, and that anyone could pursue his or her dreams, yet the prospects for this young man seemed so dim given the inequality and racism of his culture.
• Despite these obstacles, this young man grew up and pursued a career in law and politics, overcoming the barriers of the society around him. 
• The political establishment adored him for his rags to riches story, but they became antagonistic towards him when he began to challenge that establishment - he didn't just want a career, he wanted to be the ruler of the land.
• The current rulers, all of the favored ethnicity and all long-standing members of the ruling class, waged war with the young upstart for the hearts of the people, but the promise of change and the promise of hope brought by the young man (whom some called messiah) eventually won the day.
• The son of an immigrant, of a maligned ethnicity, was inaugurated as President Obama in January of 2009.

First, are all of its facts 100% right in both of our stories?  Are the BASIC facts of the core narrative consistent?  Do our accounts have literary craftsmanship?  Does that mean they are not intended to be true?  If others (presumably supporters of Obama) wrote a narrative of his rise to the office of president, might their story show slight differences with mine, but have a similar core outline?

Applying these principles to the Gospel accounts we can see that there is a remarkably consistent core narrative:

• A poor man from Nazareth, Jesus, takes over for the prophetic John the Baptist when John is imprisoned by the ruling authorities.
• Jesus preaches in a way that challenges the traditions and authority of the religious leaders of his day.
• Jesus claims to be the Son of Man (a prophetic reference to the Messiah) and the Son of God (a clear claim to some level of divinity). 
• This Jesus performs many miracles (like the feeding of the 5000 that appears in every Gospel account), and is especially known for healing illnesses and expelling demons.
• For his claims to divinity, his attacks on the religious authorities, and his vague language of ruling a kingdom (which threatened the Romans), Jesus of Nazareth is captured and executed by crucifixion around the festival of the Jewish passover.
• Jesus is lain in a tomb with a full burial.
• That following Sunday morning, the tomb is found to be empty.
• Several of Jesus' followers claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus after his tomb is found empty.

Each of the things that we "need" for the probabilistic argumentation in favor of Christ's divinity and Christ's resurrection are in that core narrative.

Also, the GENRE being written suggests that these were intended to be a true story: gospels (good news accounts) were not invented by Christians.  They traditionally were written for Roman generals or emperors upon their victorious return from battle.  The Gospel of Christ is the (true and triumphal) account of this King's victory over His enemies: sin, death, the world. 

EVERY story told by humans will highlight certain facts and leave out other ones; that's inevitable - as a result, EVERY story will have literary constructions in it (that's just how humans tell stories).  Go read an average story from a newspaper on a given day; if you look hard enough, you'll find literary elements.  People gravitate towards telling stories in ways that are interesting; literary elements are interesting.  Therefore people will compose even TRUE stories in ways that are literarily interesting.  The Gospels are no different.

It appears that the early church believed these to be true - true enough to be willing to die for them.  And EARLIER sources (i.e. the epistles of Sts. Peter and Paul) attest to the fact that the earliest disciples believed the core outline given above to be TRUE.  Even OTHER sources (Josephus) agree that this Christ existed and was crucified and that his followers claimed he was alive.  So it is NOT true that only the comparatively late Gospels and that only Christian sources teach on the issues we are concerned with.

The Gospels are not generally considered to be all that late in developing.  Most scholars today place their composition right around the time of the death of the Apostles that they are most strongly linked with.  So Mark and Matthew appear to have been composed somewhere in the second half of the 1st century (60's & 70's AD), Luke probably around the same time or a bit later, and John somewhere around the mid 90's AD.  Those dates are within the living memory of the events themselves in question (in other words, it is possible - as Luke claims - that these stories are derived recorded eyewitness accounts).

We see NO heavily-Greek language (rather, Matthew and Mark are remarkably Semitic in their language and composition) and NO 2nd c. anachronisms.  In the OTHER supposed Gospels (i.e. the so-called gnostics gospels) we see both of these things: they appear to have been written by Greeks (not the Jews whose name they bear) and have several events or ideas that fit better in the 2nd century than they do in the 1st.  It'd be like someone writing a story today, claiming it was written by Mark Twain, but including references to airplanes.  The gnostic gospels have those sorts of inconsistencies - the canonical gospels do not.

So here you have four sources agreeing on a core outline written by four different people at four different places with different sources.  They are within living memory of the events in question, corroborated by other, earlier (but non-narrative) sources and by other sources outside their own tradition / perspective.  They suffice to explain other events we are aware of (i.e. Christians willingness to die for their beliefs) that are attested to by several other early sources.  It doesn't get any better than that in terms of history.  You can either agree with the above core outline, agree that you are being hypocritical (i.e. applying a different standard of history here than you do in every other case), or reject ALL history.  Since most people do not want to be hypocritical, and do not want to toss all of history out the window, they accept this core outline of Christ's life and ministry.

If you accept this core outline of Christ's life and ministry, THEN the probabilistic argumentation used in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection follows (as it was ONLY by denying these sources that there was a possibility of offering a non-speculative alternative probability).

Any incidental contradiction between the texts is irrelevant in terms of constructing this basic, core outline of the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  The precise day on which Christ was crucified is not a critical element in determining, historically, THAT Christ was crucified.  Additionally, the fact that these accounts are all from the same "side" of the issue seems irrelevant, again, for this core outline.  It is sufficient to demonstrate that the Apostles (eye-witnesses) BELIEVED these things to be true and, as eye-witnesses, we have warranted cause to accept their testimony (in particular in light of their willingness to be martyred).  This is beginning to get into the broader arguments in favor of the resurrection - for now, it suffices to say that the inerrancy of Scripture follows from one's acceptance of the Lordship of Christ.  The arguments FOR that Lordship do not need an inerrant Scripture, only a warranted reason to accept a basic, core outline of Christ's life.  The rest follows from there.