Destruction of the Temple or Resurrection of Jesus

[McCulloch]

We will apply the methods outlined by this article on the historical method to assess the relative probability of the actual occurrence these two events:

1. In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem.
2. Jesus of Nazareth, after being crucified by the Romans, rose from the dead, as described in the New Testament.

Question for debate: which event is more probable to have actually occurred based on an evaluation of the available evidence using the aforementioned historical method? McCulloch argues that the Destruction of the Temple is historically more likely. Goose argues that the resurrection is historically more likely.

Methodology:
The debate will consist of four rounds. In each round, each debater will present, in a single post, the applicable evidence for his particular event. Following that each debater will have a chance to respond, criticizing the evidence presented. Then each debater will reply to the criticism. Thus each round will consist of six posts. The next round will not start until the previous round has been completed.

In the final round, each debater can summarize his arguments and responses.

Round one: Primary sources
Round two: Secondary sources
Round three: Tertiary sources
Final round: put it all together.

Assessment and comments

[McCulloch]

Round One: Primary Evidence of the Destruction of the Temple.

Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied. The primary evidence for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem consists of

1. Remains of the Temple itself
2. Jewish coins (attesting to the existence of the rebellion)
3. Roman coins
4. Josephus' Wars of the Jews
5. the Talmud (Gittin 57b)

Historical Context: the destruction of the Temple occurred as part of the first Jewish-Roman War (66–73). That war ended when legions under Titus besieged and destroyed the center of rebel resistance in Jerusalem, and defeated the remaining Jewish strongholds.


A stone from the Temple with a Greek language inscription warning gentiles to refrain from entering the Temple enclosure, on pain of death.


A stone (2.43x1 meters) with Hebrew language inscription "To the Trumpeting Place" excavated by B. Mazar at the southern foot of the Temple Mount. It is believed that this was a part of the Second Temple.


Today's Western Wall formed part of the retaining perimeter wall of the platform for a massive expansion project on the Temple Mount by Herod the Great.


The Little Western Wall, (Hebrew: הכותל הקטן‎, HaKotel HaKatan), is a Jewish religious site located in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem near the Iron Gate to the Temple Mount. The wall itself dates from the Second Temple period, (516 BCE - 70 CE).

Titus, the future emperor, led the Roman troops against the Jewish rebels. We know what he looked like.

Here is a marble bust made ca. 79CE.


Here is the image of Titus on a coin from June-July 79 CE. on the reverse is a Jewish captive kneeling right in front of trophy of arms.

On September 25, 2007 Yuval Baruch, archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority announced the discovery of a quarry compound which may have provided King Herod with the stones to build his Temple on the Temple Mount. Coins, pottery and an iron stake found proved the date of the quarrying to be about 19 B.C. Archaeologist Ehud Netzer confirmed that the large outlines of the stone cuts is evidence that it was a massive public project worked by hundreds of slaves.








The sources of knowledge that we have of this war are: Josephus's account, the Talmud (Gittin 57b), Midrash Eichah, and the Hebrew inscriptions on the Jewish coins minted.

The Wars of the Jews (or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, or as it usually appears in modern English translations, The Jewish War - original title: Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστο�ία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου π�ὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλία) is a book written by the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus.

Josephus.

It is a description of Jewish history from the capture of Jerusalem by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 BC to the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish-Roman War in AD 70. The book was written about 75, originally in Josephus's "paternal tongue", probably Aramaic, though this version has not survived. It was later translated into Greek, probably under the supervision of Josephus himself.

In 69, Josephus was released by the Romans, having been a prisoner of war. He then played a role as a negotiator with the defenders during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. For this event, we have the Romans, a Jewish historian working for the Romans, and the Jews.

All of the statements made by these sources seem inherently probable, that is that they are consistent with human nature, and with what we know about the history of the area and the nature of human conflict.

In our agreed upon method, it is stated:

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:

1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)
2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.
3. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.
6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.
7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

I am having some difficulty applying this reasoning to the destruction of the Temple, since, try as I might, I cannot find any historian offering up any hypothesis other than the one that I am proposing. But let me give it a try.

Let us propose as an alternative hypothesis to the Temple being destroyed by the Romans in the war, that God himself saved the Temple from destruction and raised it into heaven.

1. This hypothesis is consistent with the observable data.
2. However, this hypothesis does not have greater explanatory scope than the war one.
3. Nor does it have greater explanatory power than the war hypothesis.
4. It certainly has less plausibility than the war hypothesis.
5. The direct divine intervention hypothesis is more ad hoc than the war hypothesis.
6. It is not disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.
7. It certainly does not outdo [1]-[6]

McCullagh [no relation BTW] sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."
The war hypothesis, based on the primary evidence, explains a large number and variety of facts, so many more than any competing explanation that there are virtually no competing explanations.

[Goose]

Firstly, I would like to thank McCulloch for engaging in and setting up the thread for this head-to-head debate.

I also want to thank McCulloch for choosing the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70AD as an event to defend as probably historical. This event is widely accepted as true historically speaking and gives a good bench mark for the return from the dead of Jesus to be compared. The destruction of the Temple is a significant Jewish-Roman historical event and involved presumably thousands of people. So we should expect there to be many early written texts and other evidence attesting to this event. I assume McCulloch believes the historical evidence for this event to be good and for this event to be an actual historical event. Presumably this is why he selected it.

• 1. In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem.
  
  2. Jesus of Nazareth, after being crucified by the Romans, rose from the dead, as described in the New Testament.

I will be referring to the above two propositions as (1) and (2) respectively for ease.

Preamble:

I will be arguing that (2) is more probable than (1) based on an evaluation of the available evidence using the historical method agreed to. This means we are to make our judgement of what constitutes acceptable evidence based upon the method. Then argue to the best explanation that combines both scope and explanatory power.

By laying the evidence for (2) along side the evidence for other events, commonly accepted as historical facts, such as (1) we have a viable way of measuring the strength of the evidence for (2). In this debate I will probably not criticize the evidence for (1) as much as use it as a baseline from which to work. This type of approach produces an environment that aids in keeping biases in check when evaluating the evidence for (2) – a task that tends to be difficult for both sides. It has been my experience that many sceptics of (2) prefer to evaluate the evidence for (2) in a vacuum. They will typically cite their personal subjective reasons for rejecting the evidence for (2) in hopes of building what appears to be a compelling negative case that the evidence is not good enough to warrant belief. What my approach in this debate will accomplish is to demonstrate whether or not McCulloch, and others who argue in this fashion, have a solid intellectual basis for rejecting (2) purely on historical grounds. If (2) can be shown to be more probable than (1), or even at least as probable as (1) for that matter, based on an objective evaluation of the available evidence then it becomes obvious that it is untenable to reject (2) purely on historical grounds. The sceptic of (2) will then be relegated to rejecting (2) on some other grounds such as a philosophical argument.

I’ll also go so far as to predict one or more of the following will occur:

• 1. McCulloch will arbitrarily raise the bar, employing a much tougher standard on the evidence for (2), when needed to maintain that (1) is more probable than (2) or that (1) is probable where (2) is not.
  
  2. McCulloch will favour a particular type of evidence and claim (1) is more probable because it has more of this type of evidence than (2). Even though we would expect to exist much of this type of evidence for (1) and not to exist much, if any, of this type of evidence for (2) because of the nature of the respective events.
  
  3. After evaluating the quality and quantity of the evidence for both events McCulloch will in the end default to both (1) and (2) being not probable. And that it makes no difference whether or not the Temple was destroyed by the Romans anyway because no one is asking him to worship Titus.

Round one: Primary evidence:

Though the definition of what constitutes a primary source is not a hard and fast rule and often rather ambiguous depending on the event in question, in McCulloch’s suggested method a primary source is defined as:

a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.
In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.

I’m willing to use this definition or any other criteria McCulloch proposes for a primary source as long as that definition/criteria is equally applied to what we would consider a primary source for (1).

McCulloch has listed the following as a primary source for (1):

• 1. Remains of the Temple itself
  2. Jewish coins (attesting to the existence of the rebellion)
  3. Roman coins
  4. Josephus' Wars of the Jews
  5. the Talmud (Gittin 57b)

This gives us a practical application of the criteria of what constitutes a primary source in McCulloch’s view. For example, the Talmud is written circa 200AD. This is 130 years after the destruction of the Temple. Yet, McCulloch feels this still qualifies as a primary source. To be fair then, in support of (2) we could, though I won’t need to, appeal to sources written as last as 160AD as being primary.

I will be appealing to portions of the following texts as primary source evidence in support of the probability of (2):

• Paul’s letter to the Romans
  
  Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians
  
  Paul’s letter to the Galatians
  
  Gospel of Mark
  
  Gospel of Matthew
  
  Gospel of Luke
  
  Book of Acts
  
  Gospel of John
  
  1 Peter
  
  1 Clement
  
  Ignatius’ letter to the Trallians
  
  Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans
  
  Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians

We have a wide variety of primary sources attesting to the return from the dead of Jesus. All of these sources were written within 20-80 years of (2). These sources were written within the lifetime of possible witnesses to the events and thus created during the time under study and should qualify as primary sources.

In addition we can also appeal to the following primary sources that provide circumstantial evidence for supporting facts from which we can infer Jesus rose from the dead:

• The Nazareth Inscription
  
  Josephus Antiquities
  
  Tacitus Annals

I would like to see how McCulloch handles these sources and his reason for rejecting them as primary sources if he does before continuing. I will apply equally the same methodology and reasoning to the sources supporting (1) as McCulloch applies to (2).

[McCulloch]

As I get easily confused by abstractions, I will not refer to the two propositions as (1) and (2).

McCulloch has listed the following as a primary source for (1):

• 1. Remains of the Temple itself
  2. Jewish coins (attesting to the existence of the rebellion)
  3. Roman coins
  4. Josephus' Wars of the Jews
  5. the Talmud (Gittin 57b)

This gives us a practical application of the criteria of what constitutes a primary source in McCulloch’s view. For example, the Talmud is written circa 200AD.

I withdraw the Talmud as a primary source for the proposition that the Temple was destroyed by the Romans.

I would challenge the use of any of Paul's letters as a primary or as a secondary source. Paul was not a witness to the events nor did he claim to get his information from those who were witnesses.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

Emphasis mine.

Paul openly admits that what he knows of the gospel he got by direct revelation from God. I think that it is pretty safe to assume that claims of direct revelation from the spirit realm is not considered evidence of any kind in historical analysis.

I would challenge Luke/Acts as a primary source of evidence. There is no evidence that the author, assuming that it really was Luke, had any first hand knowledge of Jesus or his resurrection.

I would challenge Mark as a primary source of evidence. Tradition identifies Mark with the John Mark mentioned as a companion of Paul in Acts, who later is said to have become a disciple of Saint Peter, not as one who himself witnessed Jesus resurrection.

I would challenge Clement as a primary source of evidence. According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by Peter, and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the latter part of the 1st century. Again, no first-hand knowledge of these events. Similarly Ignatius.

I will not challenge the Gospels of Matthew and John.

Nor will I challenge 1 Peter. Even though many scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death. Estimates for the date of composition range from 75 to 112 AD.

I challenge Goose' assertion that we have a wide variety of primary sources attesting to the return from the dead of Jesus. All of these primary sources were written by apologists for the new religion based on this resurrection.

Edit to correct a mistype in blue above.

[Goose]

Sorry for the delay in my response. Things have become very busy as of late. But in my defence I'm close to the time frame first established by McCulloch as it took him eighteen days from the time he created the thread to make his opening post.

Round One: Primary Evidence of the Destruction of the Temple.

Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied. The primary evidence for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem consists of

1. Remains of the Temple itself
2. Jewish coins (attesting to the existence of the rebellion)
3. Roman coins
4. Josephus' Wars of the Jews
5. the Talmud (Gittin 57b)

McCulloch has claimed there are five lines of primary sources for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. But I would like to remind McCulloch that he is not merely arguing that a Temple once existed and was destroyed. McCulloch, by his own choosing, is to argue (1)In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Talmud has been withdrawn by McCulloch as a primary source. However, I would challenge that any one of the pieces of archaeological evidence presented by McCulloch clearly supports the proposition that In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem. Each piece of archaeological evidence presented so far would support one of two inferences - 1) there once existed a man made structure which was probably a Temple and 2) there was a conflict between the Jews and Romans.

When we boil down the evidence we find, in fact, there is only one primary source for the proposition In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem - Josephus.

A stone from the Temple with a Greek language inscription warning gentiles to refrain from entering the Temple enclosure, on pain of death.

This inscription doesn't support the proposition the Romans destroyed the Temple. It would be evidence that there existed a man made structure.

A stone (2.43x1 meters) with Hebrew language inscription "To the Trumpeting Place" excavated by B. Mazar at the southern foot of the Temple Mount. It is believed that this was a part of the Second Temple.

Again, this inscription doesn't support the proposition the Romans destroyed the Temple either. It would again be evidence that there existed a man made structure.

Today's Western Wall formed part of the retaining perimeter wall of the platform for a massive expansion project on the Temple Mount by Herod the Great.

This would be evidence that there exists a man made structure.

The Little Western Wall, ( HaKotel HaKatan), is a Jewish religious site located in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem near the Iron Gate to the Temple Mount. The wall itself dates from the Second Temple period, (516 BCE - 70 CE).

This would be evidence that there exists a man made structure.

Titus, the future emperor, led the Roman troops against the Jewish rebels. We know what he looked like.

Here is a marble bust made ca. 79CE.

Yes, the Romans made busts. There are, however, conflicting accounts as to whether or not Titus wanted the Temple destroyed.

Here is the image of Titus on a coin from June-July 79 CE. on the reverse is a Jewish captive kneeling right in front of trophy of arms.

This coin would support the inference that there was a conflict (perhaps a war or rebellion) between the Jews and Romans. Where are the coins that depict the Romans destroying the Temple?

On September 25, 2007 Yuval Baruch, archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority announced the discovery of a quarry compound which may have provided King Herod with the stones to build his Temple on the Temple Mount. Coins, pottery and an iron stake found proved the date of the quarrying to be about 19 B.C. Archaeologist Ehud Netzer confirmed that the large outlines of the stone cuts is evidence that it was a massive public project worked by hundreds of slaves.

Evidence that there existed a man made structure.

The sources of knowledge that we have of this war are: Josephus's account, the Talmud (Gittin 57b), Midrash Eichah, and the Hebrew inscriptions on the Jewish coins minted.

Check. There was a conflict between the Jews and Romans (probably a war or rebellion).

The Wars of the Jews (or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, or as it usually appears in modern English translations, The Jewish War - original title: is a book written by the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus.

Josephus.

Yes, we would expect there to be a bust of Josephus. Romans made busts.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. For this event, we have the Romans, a Jewish historian working for the Romans, and the Jews.

I don't believe you have a number of independent sources containing the same message. In fact, when we boil everything down you have only one primary source containing the message - Josephus. He was a devout Jew that helped lead the Jewish rebellion against the Romans but later writes his account under the employ of the Romans as a Roman citizen. Strange to say the least. Adding to the confusion Josephus' tone on the account in Wars of the Jews later changes in his autobiography Life.

[McCulloch]

Goose has responded to my position on the primary sources and I will now reply to his critique.

But I would like to remind McCulloch that he is not merely arguing that a Temple once existed and was destroyed. McCulloch, by his own choosing, is to argue (1)In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem.

From the primary archaeological evidence we can conclude that a structure which was most probably a Temple existed and was destroyed at a time when Rome was in a prolonged military conflict with the Jews. Furthermore, the primary archaeological evidence confirms the existence of some of the major characters in the story.

The other primary source, Josephus, provides a narrative of some of the events about this destruction that is consistent with all known facts about the people, the history and common sense about this event. No one, no contemporary chronicler, no subsequent historian ancient or modern, no religious, political or military leader has been on record with any alternative explanations of the evidence.

There are, however, conflicting accounts as to whether or not Titus wanted the Temple destroyed.

Then it is a good thing that I am not arguing the case that the Romans were deliberate in their destruction of the Temple. It is sufficient that the Romans were in military conflict with the Jews, that they lay siege to the city of Jerusalem and as a result, the Temple was largely destroyed.

Thus ends the Temple side of the first round.

[Goose]

Goose's response to McCulloch's assessment of the proposed primary evidence for Jesus' return from the dead.

As a reminder I will be referring to the following two propositions as (1) and (2) respectively for ease:

1. In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem.

2. Jesus of Nazareth, after being crucified by the Romans, rose from the dead, as described in the New Testament.



Regarding Paul as a primary source:

I would challenge the use of any of Paul's letters as a primary or as a secondary source. Paul was not a witness to the events nor did he claim to get his information from those who were witnesses.

If we are to apply this criteria fairly then I'm afraid that would also rule out coins, busts, and inscriptions as primary or even secondary sources supporting (1). Coins, inscriptions and busts are technically speaking anonymous and we have no way of knowing if the creators of these artefacts were eyewitnesses, received their info from eyewitnesses, or had first hand knowledge. Additionally, where does Josephus claim to be a witness to (1)? Where does Josephus claim to have received his information regarding (1) from witnesses?

McCulloch claims Paul was not a witness to Jesus' return from the dead. However, Paul does claim to be a witness to the risen Jesus.

Paul writes to the church in Corinth, "[Jesus] was buried, he was raised on the third day in keeping with the Scriptures-and is still alive!- and he was seen by [Peter], and then by the twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Next he was seen by James, then by all the apostles, and finally he was seen by me, as though I were born abnormally late." (1 Corinthians 15:4-8)

If we are to reject Paul as a primary source despite the fact he directly claims to be one of the witnesses to the risen Jesus along with the disciples of Jesus then I can not see any good reason why we should accept Josephus as a primary source for (1). Even if Josephus were to claim he was a witness to (1). If Paul goes out the window as not being a primary source here, so then does Josephus if we are to be fair. This would leave McCulloch without a single primary source attesting to (1).

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

Emphasis mine.

Paul openly admits that what he knows of the gospel he got by direct revelation from God. I think that it is pretty safe to assume that claims of direct revelation from the spirit realm is not considered evidence of any kind in historical analysis.

Paul writes, "...that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man." Paul is speaking of the Gospel message and not necessarily about his experience of meeting the risen Jesus. The revelation of the Gospel message to Paul may have been a mutually exclusive event from Paul's experience with the risen Jesus. At any rate, Paul doesn't admit that it was a direct revelation from God in Galatians as McCulloch claims. Nor does Paul claim it was a revelation from the spirit realm. Paul claims that he received it through a "revelation of Jesus Christ." But of course Paul believed, as did the disciples, the Gospel message was not according to man but rather according to God as revealed through the person of Jesus. If McCulloch would like to argue that Paul believed Jesus was God I'll be happy to concede Paul believed he received his gospel directly from God.

Further, Paul probably did get his information about the particulars of Jesus' life from witnesses.

In the very next verse, after the ones quoted by McCulloch above, Paul writes, "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with [Peter], and I stayed with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19). Even if Paul was never actually a witness to a physically resurrected Jesus (let's say he only experienced some form of a vision) Paul did spend more than two weeks with the key leaders and witnesses to Jesus' life, Peter and James. It's hard to think the topic of the events of Jesus' life never came up during those two weeks. If that was not enough Paul tells us later in chapter two of Galatians that he went to see the key disciples (James, Peter, and John) in Jerusalem again, fourteen years later, and was accepted and acknowledged by them as the one to take the message to the gentiles. At no point in the early church is Paul or his views considered heretical.


Regarding other possible primary sources:

I would challenge Luke/Acts as a primary source of evidence. There is no evidence that the author, assuming that it really was Luke, had any first hand knowledge of Jesus or his resurrection.

I would challenge Mark as a primary source of evidence. Tradition identifies Mark with the John Mark mentioned as a companion of Paul in Acts, who later is said to have become a disciple of Saint Peter, not as one who himself witnessed Jesus resurrection.

I would challenge Clement as a primary source of evidence. According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by Peter, and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the latter part of the 1st century. Again, no first-hand knowledge of these events. Similarly Ignatius.

I will not challenge the Gospels of Matthew and John.

Nor will I challenge 1 Peter. Even though many scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death. Estimates for the date of composition range from 75 to 112 AD.

I challenge Goose' assertion that we have a wide variety of primary sources attesting to the return from the dead of Jesus. All of these primary sources were written by apologists for the new religion based on this resurrection.

If the criteria of what constitutes a primary source is to now include that there must exist evidence the author had first hand knowledge of the events that is fine. I'm assuming (because of McCulloch's position regarding Paul) this means the author must be or claim to be an eyewitness to the events. In this case I will withdraw as primary sources:

Luke/Acts
Mark
1 Clement
Ignatius
The Nazareth Inscription
Josephus
Tacitus

Not challenged by McCulloch as primary sources attesting to the return from the dead of Jesus we have:

1. Matthew
2. John
3. 1 Peter


Even assuming Paul's writings are excluded for (2) and we allow Josephus for (1), these three sources named above would, by comparison to there only existing one primary source for (1), be a wide variety of primary sources for (2). At the very least, these three sources would constitute a wider variety of primary sources for (2) than for (1). As already noted there is only one primary source that attests to (1) - Josephus. The artefacts presented earlier by McCulloch would support (1) if by support we are to mean the artefacts do not seem to conflict with Josephus' account of (1).


Round 1 has concluded.

[McCulloch]

Start of Round Two -- Secondary evidence for the destruction of the Temple

The Arch of Titus.
constructed by the emperor Domitian shortly after the death of his older brother Titus (born AD 41, emperor 79-81), commemorating the capture and sack of Jerusalem in 70.

One of the panels depicts the spoils taken from the Temple