Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?

My Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel is my most second viewed post.

It also seems to be very popular among atheists and other anti-Christian critics. Popular in that they like try to slam, condemn, denounce, excoriate, disparage, lambaste the post. Unfortunately there isn't a good deal of actual analysis. But I want to respond to my critics and give their criticism the justice it deserves.  

The Hitchen's Razor variety: The critics that have non-effort criticism. 

Most of it is not very intellectual, just rants that say that it's been rebutted, full of fallacies, errors, yet zero effort given to show it or make their case. 

For example: 

"corrected/rebutted/rebuked very thoroughly"

"thoroughly got taken down point by point"

"It just get's crushed by scholarship"

"they are not willing to entertain the idea they are wrong"

The assertion is the extent of the "analysis" - i.e. none; it's just make an assertion that it's been debunked, and hope that people conclude that the assertion is true.

I call these Hitchen's Razor variety criticisms since comments like these one can, and should, apply Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

So I just lop those off and don't worry about them, and neither should you. This dismissal is the justice such criticism deserves.

But now we come to a different category of critism...

The Some Effort Criticism - 

My original statements will be underlined

Debunk attempt : will be noted as such - with bold to indicate key points

My response to the "debunking" will be in red  

Debunk attempt one - Did God in the Old Testament specify that a Hebrew may purchase a person from the foreigners and keep him as property for the lifetime of the person purchased? The answer is yes, the purchased person is chattel by definition, thus chattel slavery. No amount of obfuscations and red herrings alters that fact.

What this seems to have missed is that, the main lynch pin of my argument. The Anti-Kidnap law - and the Anti-Return law. As I sated in my argument:

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned if they left. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

Regrettably the criticism doesn't take this key points into considereation. 

Given the above, what Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery. And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master.

It is very difficult to think that the Bible endorses or supports chattel slavery with the Anti-Kidnap and the Anti-return laws in mind.  This is why they need to ignore it. 

Debunk attempt two: 

This alone is enough to dismiss your entire post [Lv 25] and to exemplify the issues in your approach. This passage is the most direct and explicit statement of chattel slavery in the Bible - but you only offer a paper-thin response to it, none of which actually addresses the substance of the passage. You also mysteriously leave out the extremely relevant first half of this passage; here is the full thing: Lev 25:39-46

This makes the same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring  point 4 - Anti-Kidnap  anti-return laws. Ironically this rock solid foundation is called "paper-thin".   

Debunk attempt three: 

First, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion - in reference to LV 25:44-46: says you can buy a foreign slave, and you can bequeath them to your children

Let's break down your response: By itself this is a naked assertion and it's not clear how many of your 7 points would even relate to this. You do argue two specifically though, presumably the two you thought were most relevant, so I'll assume this is just teeing that up.

Calling my entire argument a "naked assertion" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt four: 

One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”. But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants".

This is just completely absurd. No, one does not need to assume that "ebed" must mean "chattel slave" in order to find chattel slavery in this verse. We don't think this verse refers to chatter slavery just because it says "ebed"! We think that because of all the very explicit details of chattel slavery here - 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my argument; if one is simply using the word "slavery" or "ebed" to say that means chattel slavery an argument without any rational basis. However, I did say that "whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context."

Debunk attempt five:

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life. We also think it because of the extreme contrast between the two halves of this passage, which immediately clarifies what the meaning of "ebed" is here. The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half. By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites, which is obviously inconsistent with everything you have said and also with the dozens of laws about how to treat Hebrew "ebed"s.

Once again this makes the EXACT same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws. Ignoreing key points in an arument is NOT the path to debunking it. 

Debunk attempt six:

As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

Yes, "buy" relates to transactions. Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery? Even if you want to argue that this word can sometimes be used for other things, you know it's primarily used for buying property, right? This is not a counter to the verse!

Once again the EXACT same fatal flaw as above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws.

Asking, "Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery?" No,  I'm saying that Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery.  One must read it in the context of those laws.

Debunk attempt seven:

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force.

This is by far the most mind-boggling part of your defense. It says you may take them as property, not that you have to, so there's no chattel slavery here????? If I said "you may murder people if you want" would you read that to have no murder in it????

Sigh. So all this person has is, let's ignore the actual argument and attack a strawman version of it. 

How can they I'd just say go back and [read the response to objection F](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/seven-facts-about-biblical-slavery.html) that answers this.

Debunk attempt eight:

This is very explicitly allowing you to do these things - to engage in chattel slavery. It sets out a legal way to own another person, to buy and sell them, to treat them as property. This passage could not possibly be more explicit about that. It takes care to give multiple redundant examples of property rights, to clarify things multiple ways, to contrast it with indentured servitude so that you can't possibly confuse it with that. This unambiguously says "you may engage in chattel slavery" and your response was "well it says 'may', not 'must', so that means the Bible outlaws chattel slavery".

Only if one ignores the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws, then they could see that this was speaking of indentured servsants and "owning" their services. And these servants, upon the death of the master could be bequethed to the children until their contract runs out. Or they may choose to stay forever, 

Debunk attempt nine:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave; "Buy" refers to financial transactions;  This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

All three of these are true! And none of them respond in the slightest to the objection that this verse describes chattel slavery clearly and obviously.

But the hat Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws do!

Debunk attempt ten:

There's so much else wrong here: your brazen mistreatment of slave-beating law which also ignores Exodus 21:28-32, 

Exodus 21:28-32 deals with a bull goring a man or woman. Furthermore corparate punishment was normal in the ANE, even free men could be beaten. So, this has nothing to do with slavery. 

Debunk attempt eleven:

Your attempt to preempt academic criticism because you know this is a fringe view that nearly every serious commentator in the last 2000 years would have found laughable while you yourself lean heavily on a scholar's authority, 

How am I "preempting academic criticism"?

Majority opinion isn't a test for truth.

Debunk attempt twelve:

your reading of a person who "desires" a woman captured in war and so "takes" her and makes her his wife who is not free to go unless he "doesn't delight in her" as just her buddy hanging out with her with no indication of rape,

The law stipulated that a rapist was to be killed by stoning, see Deuteronomy 22:25.

Debunk attempt thirteen :

The complete lack of any discussion of the enslavement of Israelites in Egypt which would counter like half your claims about the meanings of "ebed" and the state of slavery in the ANE, 

First I never said that "ebed" couldn't mean chattel slavery; I said that "whether ebed means indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.

Debunk attempt fourteen:

your absolutely BONKERS response to objection B that for your sake I'm going to let you reexamine and blame on the person you quoted, 

Calling my response "bomkers" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt fifteen:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave, "Buy" refers to financial transactions. This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

You missed the most important part of my argument: the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law - These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Given that, it's reasonable to read LV25:44-46 through that lens. As I wrote earlier, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion; sadly, this seems to be the case of most of the critical replies.

Debunk attempt sixteen:

The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half.

It's right there in the verse: They are to be treated as hired workers...; the contrast isn't between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, but between indentured servitude and hired workers

Debunk attempt seventeen

By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites

Correct, They are to be treated as hired workers... which is different from an indentured servant.

"buying" slaves - The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".

Debunk attempt eighteen

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life.

Nope, you've ignored the anti-kidnap law and the anti-return law. Under penalty of death they could not be bought or sold, or possessed against their will, and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned. Again, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion.

For an example of "ebed" escaping: But Nabal responded to David’s servants, “Who is David, and who is this son of Jesse? This is a time when many servants are breaking away from their masters! 1 Sam 25:10; Also 1 Kings 2:39 - Three years later, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to King Achish son of Maacah of Gath

Debunk attempt nineteen

It says you may take them as property

They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.

There's so much else that you got wrong here, there's really no point addressing any more of your responses, until you figure out how you will deal with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law which is the very foundation of my argument.

Debunk attempt  twenty

You read the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws a certain way, take that as authoritative, and then say 'what the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with that, so we should read it some other way.' Not due to any internal reason within the text, but because it doesn't match your reading of these other two laws.

No, I do not say that the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws. I say that they are completely consistent with the rest of the entire slavery code if one understand that it talks abut voluntary servitiude. 

Debunk attempt  twenty-one

The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants.

Are you planning to give any evidence for this, or are you just going to assert it? Saying the word has multiple meanings won't cut it! I agreed with you that the word refers to financial transactions. So what? You're concluding from that "and therefore this does not refer to the purchase of property." Why?????

You agree that acquire [qanah] refers to financial transactions; all I'm saying that based on that alone it doesn't necessarily mean  purchasing chattel slaves.  It could mean, just as easily, purchanse the services of someone. 

Debunk attempt twenty-two

You mention the "anti kidnap law" a lot. If there is a law that says "thou shalt not steal a car", is that the same thing as a law that says "thou shall not own a car"?

Slavery apologetics is just bizarre to me.

In order to aquire a slave one must take another person against their will - i.e. kidnap them. Which is vasly different than purchasing another's services. 

Differentiating between chattel slavery and voluntary servitude us foolish and absurd? I think it's wish to understand something before you judge it 

Debunk attempt twenty-three

Genocidal and slaving societies aren’t known for the consistency in their laws and action. Your whole argument seems to be on the level of denying Israelites ever killed anyone because it clearly says in the bible that killing is wrong so they can’t possibly have committed genocide.

I'm not saying that chattel slavery didn't happen in the ANE or in Israel, I'm saying that if it did it went against the law. Just like Israel had laws against muder, rape, robbery tht doesn't mean those things didn't happen.  those who did that broke the law as did those who partook in chattle slavery. 

Debunk attempt twenty-four

and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned.

Slavery was a major social institution, and obviously allowing slaves to run away whenever they pleased would break a whole bunch of stuff. 

I agree, that slavery was a major social institution. I put multiple quotes showing that slavery was poverty based social institution. You accept one but not the other. Why?

For example, enslavement was used as a punishment for some crimes; a thief who can't afford his fine is sold as a slave (Exodus 22:2-4). 

Thanks, that's another example of debt slavery 

You would have us believe they can get up and walk away the next day if they don't feel like serving out their sentence.

Oh, please. You ncan't see the difference between one who voluntarily goes into indentured servitude and another who is sentenced to serve as slave to pay for crime?   

Creditors could take children as slaves to pay the debts of their dead fathers (2 Kings 4:1-7) - you would have us believe they could high-five the creditor and go back home.

Do you realize that Ancient Israel was an honor-shame society, where honor was a cultural value that could grant people power and status? And that walking away from a debt could seriously harm the entire family group? One's family's honor becomes your own and vise versa, as does the reputation of your hometown. That is why genealogies are so important. You can earn honor by doing something worthy or noble. And lose it by doing something unworthy or dishonorable. So to walk away isn't something that was taken lightly 

Debunk attempt twenty-five

Again, you rest your entire case (as you admit) on this plainly wrong reading of the return law. Here, let me quote a Talmudic commentator who says the exact opposite thing that you do and even quotes Deuteronomy 22 as support for returning escaped slaves: The Gemara states that verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, 

The Gemara, a part of the Talmud, was written around 500 AD by scholars in Babylonia. The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah, a written version of the Oral Torah that was completed around 200 AD.

Deuteronomy was written around 630 BC; what was this interpreation based on? From something in the text?  What would that be? Show me where you getr that idea from the text: 

DT 23:14-16 Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

This  law applies to ALL slaves who have escaped from their masters

a. The decisive factor is that the text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves  

b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial/tolerable to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area which would be in line with Anti-Oppression laws - 

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them.

c. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Not a single one proposes an interpretation remotely similar to yours. Why do you think that is?

Incorrect. Two who do are Matthew Poole, see English Annotations on the Holy Bible and Christopher J.H. Wright in New International Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy And of course the  one I cited in the original Seven Facts about Slavery article: 

HANEL Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

Debunk attempt twenty-six

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore.

Your reading here is completely and absurdly wrong,... let me point out the obvious: Leviticus 25:47 speaks about foreigners. Foreigners, obviously, were not all slaves!

But neither does it exclude them; once out of indentured servitude they could become a hired worker - they already have the knowledge and skills - and thus work to become self-sustaining

Debunk attempt twenty-seven

Almost every protection for Israelite slaves specifically states it's for Israelites, not for slaves in general. I know of exactly two protections for foreign slaves - no murder (Exodus 21:20-21) and free them if you disfigure them

I cited the Anti-Oppression laws “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

In Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, God charges all Israelites to love aliens  who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her sservants. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to God himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities.

Debunk attempt twenty-eight

You are wrong when you said chattel slavery is explicitly outlawed by an anti-kidnapping law. Saying you can't kidnap people is not the same thing as saying you can't own people as property. They are two different things, 

In order to own people as property, it must be against their will, so yes the Anti-Kidnap law does apply, since there are no Slave codes that legalize chattel slavery in Israel. The verses that people cite that say "buy" and "property" must be read in light of the anti-kidnap,  anti-oppression laws and voluntary servitude. 

Debunk attempt twenty-nine

To maintain your argument you were forced to claim that the Old Testament forbids indentured servitude of Israelites. The reason for this is that Leviticus 25:39-46 very explicitly and unambiguously draws a distinction between Israelite indentured slaves and foreign chattel slaves:

You want to deny chattel slavery and make the second half of this passage about indentured slaves instead. But this passage could not possibly be more clear that the first half is in contrast to the second, so that means the first half can't be about indentured slaves - so you claim that there were no Israelite indentured slaves and that they were all hired workers:

First, given my argument I reject your presumption that foreigners were chattel slaves

Second, there is a distinction between Israelite and foreign "ebeds", but it's not what you think.

Ellicott's Commentary says this about LV 25:39-40 - Under these circumstances he is not to be treated like heathen slaves who are either purchased or captured, and made to do the menial service which these Gentile slaves have to perform. The authorities during the second Temple adduce the following as degrading work which the Israelite bondman is not to be put to: He must not attend his master at his bath, nor tie up or undo the latchets of his sandals, etc.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible...but a brother, an Israelite, sold to another through extreme poverty, was not to be put to any low, mean, base, and disgraceful service, by which it would be known that he was a servant, as Jarchi notes; such as to carry his master's vessels or instruments after him to the bath, or to unloose his shoes; but, as the same writer observes, he was to be employed in the business of the farm, or in some handicraft work, and was to be kindly and gently used, rather as a brother than a servant, and to be freed in the year of jubilee.

Israelite and foreign could both be indentured servant, but only foreigners could do the work above. 

The good effort critism - These I actually appreciate this kind of critism, since an intelligent, in-depth conversation is hard to find on the internet. Not shockingly these are rare.

Debunk attempt thirty

You are wrong on ebed, the Hebrew word is actually abad

You are correct; abad, whose primary meaning is "to work, serve" is used 3x in Lev 25 and ebed whose primary meaning is "slave, servant" is used 8x; I don't see the meaning changing much, and certainly not to mean chattel slave.

I'll rework my argument to incorporate this into it. 

Note: This will be an ongoing post as I field other critisms and examine them to see if they have any merit. So far, nothing that would justify any significant changes 

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Molly Worthen is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received her BA and PhD from Yale University. 

Lorian Foote, Patricia & Bookman Peters Professor of History at Texas A&M, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma.  

This is a transcript of a talk entitled How a History Professor Changed Her Mind About the Resurrection

Note: This has been slightly edited [ums, ahs, you knows, double words deleted] and links and emphasis added. 

Lorian Foote: So what were kind of the key realizations that you had that that started to to make you think that the resurrection was possible and plausible,

Molly Worthen: The book that was most important for me was N.T. Wright's big book on the resurrection although I had to... it is even for a historian it's really a slog.

So I would constantly have to kind of pause and read a chapter that Tim Keller has in his book Reason for God on the resurrection where he sort of summarizes N.T. Wright's whole argument. So I could remind myself of the forest for the trees. That book is a is a very elaborate kind of layer after layer exploration of the views of the resurrection, and the afterlife, both in the Greco-Roman Pagan context in the first century and the spectrum of Jewish views, and he makes clear that whatever Jesus's disciples were hoping would happen, expecting would happen the end of the gospel story and the resurrection appearances are so far outside the cultural lanes, the sort of range of cultural imaginative options, that one has to really take seriously the possibility that they they did not confect these stories to support their beliefs but rather they develop these beliefs to explain unbelievable things that actually happened.

And part of the power of N.T. Wright's book is that, for me, is that it is such a slog and that there's just this cumulative effect of the depth of detail that he explores that I found really compelling. I guess I had in the past accepted what I now think of as fairly lazy analogies between Jesus and other self-declared messiahs**, other stories of gods, you know, descending and rising again to heaven. And once Wright and other scholars s**ubjected these comparisons for me to more scrupulous analysis I was persuaded that they weren't very good comparisons at all and that, the Jesus case is just incredibly strange.

And this drove me into, I think a new relationship with the gospels. I was reading the gospels over and over, you know, and having a reaction, I'm not, I'm still waiting for the mystical experience that I thought I would get, you know, at some point and nothing like that; the closest I have gotten to that is the experience of seeing for the first time the sheer strangeness of the things Jesus does his interactions with people especially the accounts of healing and the strange details, the way every healing is a little bit different. Jesus meets each person on their own terms and as much as I hate, I think I had a real, sort of allergic reaction to that evangelical theme of, "imagine yourself in the scriptures, put yourself in, in the place of these people", I did start to get tugged into the stories a little bit.

I also, I mean, there's a way in which when you spend a lot of time reading primary sources, you just develop a sort of sixth sense for what a source is, what category it belongs in. And I think this is one change that's happened in the New Testament scholarship.

So, you know following, the famous German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann in the early 20th century there was, I think, a move toward talking about the Gospels really in the category of Mythology. But the consensus has shifted and I think this is fair to say even of non-believing historians. That the appropriate genre for them is really more, Greco-Roman biography, but even then if you go and you read Plutarch’s Parallel Lives or you read, say Philistratus's biography of Apollonius of Tiana who was a traveling, Greek sort of magician, healer, who's in the first century sometimes compared to Jesus, the character of those texts, is so different.

So, the character of those texts is they're very polished. They're deeply embroidered, that the authors have a real commitment to careful theme setting. There is a brutal roughness to the Gospels. Especially Mark. Mark, I'd always kind of dismissed Mark because, like, the short one was sort of boring, least theological, Mark was the one that wrestled me to the ground and it is the grittiness, the sense that this is not, honestly, it is not a great work of literature, it is a desperate author, just trying to get on paper this bananas stuff, that this author was much closer to, than I had realized. And I became persuaded by the work of people ike Richard Bauckham was another one of these Anglicans, who can kind of speak to secular American snobs, that it's not that we need to distinguish between some sort of vague idea of oral tradition passing from community, to community and getting garbled along the way and oral history. And that there are, there are clues in the text that create a, not an airtight, but an awfully interesting and persuasive case that the Gospel authors were quite close to the events they were describing and, and possibly should be dated earlier than I had kind of come to believe. And so all of that, I mean, this was so imoprtant, I did not have to treat the Gospels as inerrant. All I had to start to do was to treat them with the same methods and the same kind of respect and questions as I would treat other historical sources. But for that to be possible, for me, they had to be sort of de-familiarized.

Lorian Foote: Interesting. Yeah, you know it's as a professional historian what you described is, how I feel about the Gospels. Because when I bring the techniques that we have in our profession to them, you know, I was telling Molly earlier, it drives me crazy. When I just hear somebody casually say, "well there's so many things that don't exactly match across the four Gospels. And so that's why it shows that that didn't really happen" and I'm like, okay. So then clearly we don't know that anything in history happened because as historians we know, when there's accounts of events....

So like I'm a civil war historian, there is not a single newspaper article and a single eyewitness to the Battle of Gettysburg that agree on the details of what happened at the battle. None of us questioned the battle we have to piece together a rough estimation of what we think happened based on accounts that don't add up.

And so to me I think as a historian I came to some things on my own that scholars, who are much better than me at the New Testament, come to do as part of their apologetics. But it was just striking to me that, in one gospel that there's two thieves are both making both making fun of Jesus and another gospel, one of them eventually turns to him, and that's what I witnessed. They both have on either side of Jesus, different witnesses are remembering different things that they saw that to me, made it more plausible and made it read as you said more like a true attempt to write a biography than a formalized document and and little things like the gospels record that women were first there.

And that women are there and women are the key eyewitnesses in a culture that discounts the testimony of women. As a historian when I would read a document like that, I would say, okay now, wait a minute, why are they having, if they're wanting to convince people of something that isn't true, would they put these witnesses, as their first class. Look, these women were the witnesses, so just lots of questions, the way that I methodologically go through and ask questions of the source. If I do the same thing to the gospels, I've always found them to be very compelling as historical documents

Molly Worthen: And the women, their role is one part of the broader absolute humiliating scandal of the whole end of the gospels. And this is what N.T. Wright's picture of Jewish theology and culture, really drove home to me in a way that I just had not assimilated before that no other movement that had believed in a self-declared Messiah had then seen that Messiah killed and declared him God. I mean, you could run away, right? Because the whole idea of the role of the Messiah in Jewish thought, was that this would be the individual who would lead Israel to worldly victory, and then Resurrection would kind of follow in the in for everybody, in the context of that victory.

And so I think this helped me see how I thought as a historian, it always been really an important part of my self-understanding that I approached people in the past with respect and a sense of humility.

But I think that there was a way in which that first task, that we're called to as historians to just really respect the chasm between them and me. It can easily slide into a kind of condescension. Because you you forget, you in your quest to distance yourself from your subjects, you can dehumanize them a little bit and maybe reduce the complexity of their worldviews.

So worldviews in the first century were, of course, very different from ours, but no less complicated. And so there were clear ideas for these people about what was and was not possible. And they were not, they were not fools. Who would just sort of believe any crazy thing, They were clear on on dead people, remaining dead, right?

And I think I had just not fully grappled with the radicalism of the Gospel claims in the first century, forget about now for me, the big hurdle and I think this is true of many scholars who spend their careers on this subject. If you don't already allow for the possibility of an open universe. If you are committed to an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality than any possible explanation of the empty tomb and Jesus's appearances to his followers is preferable to the Christian explanation, no matter how Baroque and elaborate and I had to come to grips with my own deep anti-super-naturalist bias, I could always sort of thought of myself as open to the claims of Christianity.

But I had just, mean, my whole existence was in this one epistemological groove and this one kind of lane of approach and there are good reasons why in the modern research university in a secular university certain questions are just ones we set aside and we focus on other questions. But there's a way in which in doing that one can just get so used to setting aside those questions that you forget about the presuppositions that are involved in ruling those questions out and you can begin to think in the subconscious way that those questions are just foolish questions. Because your tools that you use in your teaching and research are not aimed directly at them.

I think also, I had a kind of "all or nothing" view of the historical method. If we define the historical method as drawing our ability to draw analogies between our own experience of cause and effect in our own life and the way cause and effect works in the past.

And we Define a miracle as Divine intervention Interruption In the normal order, normal relationship between cause and effect. Then yes, it's true that at the sort of Singularity of the miracle, the historical, method fails. So you can't prove as you couldn't a lab or or even you know, to the extent that that historians can prove things, you can't prove the resurrection.

However, there's all sorts of context. And you can bring the historical method to bear and all kinds of really fruitful ways to the textual record, the archaeological record. You don't have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And if you're willing to suspend your disbelief in the Supernatural, then then you can be, you can begin to investigate the historical context of Christians claims about the empty tomb and the appearances of Christ that then get you to the point where you are, you're still faced with a leap of faith, but it's no longer a wild leap in the dark; it's a well-researched, reasonable leap. And then you start to realize that you were always making a bit of a leap and you just weren't acknowledging it. This was from true for me, anyway, that I had paid, I think lip service to the idea that, yes, as a secular agnostic person I had unproofable presuppositions because we all do, no view from nowhere blah, blah, blah.

But I had never. I'd never truly like looked that in the face and and and wrestled with it.

[End of Talk]

Key take aways:

1) If we treat the Gospels as we do other ancient documents they are clearly historical and reliable.

2) Accounts that "don't add up" are common in historical documents

3) In the first century people were not fools and knew that dead people stayed dead. so to conclude, even from the evidence, that Jesus rose was radical.

4) It's only a bias for an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality that is the stumbling block for accepting the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historocal fact.

Two agreed upon historical facts

1) We know that Jesus died a torturous death by crucifixion; this is attested to in every gospel, but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. - Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

2) The empty tomb. Something happened to the body. Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body, bring it to downtown Jerusalem and dump it on the street. Especially after His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem. This is ezpecially true since the Jewish authorities asked the Romans to guard the tomb. 

The alternative explanations...

The Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. A nearly dead man, in need of serious medical attention, could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, and that he was a conqueror of death and the grave.

Second, Roman soldiers were professional executioners, and knew everything about the torture and crucifixion of people, making this theory highly improbable.

Third, are we to think that the Jewish and Roman authorities sealed and guarded the tomb without verifying the Jesus was dead in it? Another highly improbable assumption.

The disciples stole the body - this was the charge by Jewish authorities; Jesus’ followers stole the body unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances.

First, this theory does not explain why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb - the were not considered to be reliable witnesses. This is not the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.

Second, this also doesn’t explain how the disciples actually stole the body that was 1) sealed by a heavy stone, and 2) guarded by Romans.

Third, there was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.” [Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, p372.]

Fourth, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul, a devout Jew and persecutor of Christians, who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. source  This gave the disciple little time to come up with a "steal the body" plot, especially given their emotional state. 

The disciples experienced hallucinations.

First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances. In fact, this is the unanimous agreement of the Gospels.

Second, hallucinations are private experiences as opposed to group experiences. Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.

Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, why the Roman and Jewish authorities didn't produce the body, and the conversions of skeptics like Paul

The only real obstacle to resurrection as a plausible explanation is an anti-supernatural bias. But as I've argued the belief that nature is all that exists is logically self-refuting and thus cannot be true if reason, critical thinking, and knowledge are part of our reality

Objection A - Right in that last bit she says that "you can't prove the resurrection"!

Reply: That is in the context of the historical method which, like the scientific method, assumes an unproofable presupposition, i.e. an anti-super-naturalist bias. So please provide your proof or argument that "physical only view of the reality" is correct.

We have good reasons to think that "physical only view of the reality" is logically incoherent

I have had many atheists and critics say that they do not ascribe to a "physical only view of the reality"; so what then given the above is the issue with the conclusion that the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact?

Objection B - If we treat the Gospels as we treat every other historical document, then we could never conclude that an actual resurrection occurred as a historical event.

This is the thing that Christian apologists are never honest about: historians, scholars, and us skeptics and atheists don't accept the resurrection story not because we aren't giving it a fair chance; it's because WE are the ones treating the Gospels the exact same as every other historical text that exists.

Reply: Yes, you are using the same anti-supernatural bias that you look at everything. But that lens is faulty. Thus, I am under no obligation to view reality through your faulty lens especially when this unsupported assumption that has been pointed out time and again, with no defense ever offered for it.  This is even touched on in the OP

Objection C - Why is the "best explanation" here something that we know to be impossible and not "people lied?"

Reply: First it’s only "impossible" if one assumes PN, but we have good reasons to think that is a false idea. Secondly, it's not part of the historical method to assume that the writer of a document lied or the poeple quoted in the text lied; that would have to be proven.

Objection D They got the wrong tomb. Josephus said he buried the body and didn't.

Reply: Are we to believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities, the latter posting a gaurd at behest of the former, wouldn't have checked to see that the body was there prior?

Objection E - You need to reproduce your proof

Reply: We do not prove historical events by reprodcuing them. Do we prove World War 2 by "reproducing" the proof? No. 

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

Skepticism as defined by Webster's as:

1) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object

2) a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3) doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking.

Skepticism is just a small part of the critical thinking process, the beginning part.  

The problem with Skepticism is that we know almost nothing with certainty, save a few mathematical or logical proofs almost everything we know is via The Inference to the Best Explanation, Since almost everything is 1) not known with certainty and 2) our knowledge of anything can change with better data or better explanations than skeptical "doubting" is a very low intellectual bar.  

Skeptics need to get into the intellectual mainstream, offer better explanations of the data, reasons why something is better understood as false rather than true; just relying on "I don't know" when in an intellectual corner; it's intellectually weak out.   

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Is one justified in rejecting the historicity of the life of Jesus if there are no eyewitnesses to Him and His life, and the accounts are decades after He lived? Is this the standard that historians use? Or is it a double standard?

 
The Strange Case of Hieronymus of Cardia

Hieronymus [356–323 BC] is not a household name, but among historians he’s known for several things. He was an eyewitness to the campaigns of Alexander the Great, but he lived to the age of 104 — long enough to record the first battle between a Roman army and a Hellenistic kingdom. He was a friend and confidant of kings and commanders during the chaotic aftermath of Alexander the Great’s death. He was a military governor in Greece. Furthermore, he managed the asphalt industry on the Dead Sea.

Above all, he is regarded as a key source for many of the most of the history of the years 320–270 BCE. He’s also a prime authority for Plutarch’s famous biographies of Eumenes, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Pyrrhus. In fact, he’s often cited as the first Greek to write about the rise of Rome.

On the other hand, Dionysius Halicarnassus — writing during the reign of Augustus — called him “a historian no one bothers to finish.” He’s everywhere without being personally a key historical figure.

However:

The bit about him being 104 at the age of his death comes from another author whose work is also lost: Agatharcides of Cnidus who lived roughly sometime in the later 2d century BC — born probably three generations after Hieronymus’ death. We know he discussed Hieronymus because he, in turn, is quoted by Lucian of Samosata (~ 125–180 CE) — about 300 years after Agatharcides and over 400 from Hieronymus.

The oldest surviving work that refers to Hieronymus by name is that of “a certain person named Moschion” who probably would have lived a bit before Agatharcides, writing in Sicily — 750 miles or more from where Hieronymus lived and worked and maybe 75 years after his death. The only thing we know about Moschion is the handful of his pages quoted by Athenaeus, about 450 years after Hieronymus.

There’s no reference to Hieronymus in any Latin source, despite his reputation as an early reporter of Rome. The reference to him being the first Greek to write about Rome comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing about 250 years after Hieronymus’ death.

Key biographical details — his relationship with Eumenes, his work for the Antigonid dynasty, and his governorship — only show up in Plutarch, 350 years after Hieronymus’ day.

The history for which he is famous is lost; it exists only in paraphrases or name-checks by later writers. Although there are several facts attributed to him, there is no verbatim quote of anything the wrote. It’s a commonplace among historians that Hieronymus is the main source for much of what is interesting and detailed in the work of Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote 200 years or more after Hieronymus’ death.

Diodorus tends to be somewhat wordy and diffuse, but when he covers the age of Hieronymus he suddenly becomes more detail oriented, has interesting anecdotes, and provides reasonable numbers; this is all assumed to come from Hieronymus. However, although Diodorus does refer to Hieronymus (for example, he tells the story of Diodorus’ job in the asphalt bureau in book 19) he never explicitly quotes him. The common assumption is that big chunks of books 18–20 are basically plagiarized from Hieronymus — but naturally, Diodorus doesn’t tell us this himself.

He’s not quoted by Polybius, whose account overlapped with events he wrote about. His most industrious recyclers are Diodorus and Dionysius during the transition from Roman republic to Roman empire (~200 - 250 years), and then Appian and Plutarch in the second century CE (~ 350 - 400 years).

It’s worth pointing out that not only is he not attested very close to his own lifetime — neither are many of the sources which refer to him. Agatharcides for example has no contemporary mentions — he’s cited by Diodorus, and by early Roman-era writers but none closer to him than a couple of generations.

Diodorus, too, is not referred to by his contemporaries — we have to guess when he died from the contents of his book, which does not refer to any event later than around 32 BC. At least his book survives him — about a third of it, anyway. The last complete copy was destroyed during the Turkish sack of Constantinople. There is no evidence for him that does not come from his own writings, and the oldest explicit quotation from him is from Athenaeus in the latter half of the second century CE, over 200 years from his own time.

Of the people mentioned in this piece by name Plutarch, Appian, Athenaeus, and — of course — emperor Augustus are attested by contemporary sources and known by any other means than their own writings. Only Augustus and Plutarch are known from physical objects (the latter from a single inscription). There is an inscription from Diodorus’ hometown in the name of a Diodorus; we have no way of knowing if it’s the same Diodorus and it offers no clue to the date.

This is how a fairly famous person — a widely cited author, diplomat, and friend of kings — fares in the sources. Hieronymus of Cardia is a figure who is completely familiar to ancient historians; if anything they are often over-eager to spot traces of him — he is almost universally assumed to be the source of most of the interesting and detailed bits of Diodorus and Dionysius in the the era of Alexander’s successors. He routinely shows up in any discussion of the early historiography of Rome.

But he does not pass the contemporary mention test by a country mile. [Source]

The implication: 

Therre are no eyewitness account for the life of Hieronymus of Cardia and no contemporary accounts of him either, yet historians have no doubt or minimal doubt that he existed.

But maybe is just an outlier, surely this is just an anomaly, an exception, an oddity.... 


What about other well known people from history, they certainly are much more documented than people from Bible, right?

Spartacus 103–71 BC

The story of a slave turned gladiator turned revolutionary has been told and retold many times in media. Although a well-known and much-admired historical figure, Spartacus does **not** actually have **any** surviving contemporary records of his life. His enduring fame is in part due to the heroic visage crafted by a priestess of Dionysus, who was also his lover.

The story is mentioned in Plutarch’s biography of Crassus, the wealthy Roman who ultimately put down the uprising led by Spartacus. Parallel Lives was a collection of 48 biographies of prominent historical figures written by the Greek historian in the **second century AD**. Another major source of information about Spartacus came from another Greek, Appian, **writing around a century after the events**.


Hannibal born in 247 B.C

Despite how well-known his great deeds as a general are, there are **no** surviving firsthand accounts of Hannibal - or indeed Carthage at all. The closest thing to a primary source for the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage is the account written by the Greek historian Polybius around **a century later**

The historian was alive for the third and final Punic conflict and spoke to survivors of the second war, but obviously did **not** meet Hannibal himself.

Another major ancient source, which drew on other works from the time that are now lost, was by the Roman historian Livy. The History of Rome was **written in the first century** AD, but only part of the 142-book collection remains. While not considered as objective as Polybius and far removed from the events, Livy’s work fills in a lot of the gaps.

Alexander the Great 356 - 323 BC

At its peak, his empire stretched from the Balkans to the Indus River. Countless pages have been written of his deeds, but almost all were done **long after** his was dead

Our only knowledge comes from the much later works that drew on those long-lost pages. Perhaps the most valuable of all was the tome written by his general Ptolemy, who would later found his own great empire. One of the very few written records that survive from Alexander’s time is an incredibly brief mention of his passing in a small clay tablet of Babylonian astronomical reports.

William Wallace 1270 - 1305 AD

The screenplay for the 1995 film Braveheart occasionally drew upon a poem written by a monk known as Blind Harry in the 15th century.

Because Harry's romanticized account was penned more than **150 years** after the Scottish hero was tried and executed at the behest of Edward I, it’s not exactly going to be a reliable telling of the tale. One of the few contemporary records comes from a **single** English chronicle that doesn’t try to be objective: *…a certain Scot, by name William Wallace, an outcast from pity, a robber, a sacrilegious man, an incendiary and a homicide, a man more cruel than the cruelty of Herod, and more insane than the fury of Nero…*

The passage details an unflattering description of the Scottish defeat at Falkirk in 1298, where Wallace apparently fled the scene before being captured. The time between the loss and his later apprehension was spent in mainland Europe, attempting to raise support for his cause. We know this because one of only **two** surviving documents personally attached to Wallace is a letter written on his behalf by the King of France to the Pope

Attila the Hun (c. 406-453 AD) was one of late antiquity’s most notorious figures, a brutal conqueror who ransacked the weakened Roman Empire.

Little is actually known of the Huns, as they left little evidence behind, and the few contemporary accounts that remain are from sources not disposed to view them favorably. The surviving fragments of a history of Rome written by Ammianus Marcellinus depict a backward, savage people of unknown origin.

As for Attila himself, much of his early life is the subject of speculation from later authors. Jordanes, a **6th-century** Eastern Roman historian, wrote a second hand account as he drew upon the work of Priscus, a fellow Eastern Roman who actually met Attila. Unfortunately, only a few scraps of Priscus’s work remain.

So it seems that historians have no problem in taking as historical, people and events are much less evidence than what the Bible contains.

If anyone uses the "The gospels are not eyewitness accounts" argument to dismiss the Gospels as history, commits the double standard logical fallacy 

Bart Erhman - [He is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity - he is an atheist/agnostic
Jesus existed. Source for the quotes below]

Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John). All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit. .... Here I am simply stressing that the Gospel traditions themselves provide clear evidence that Jesus was being talked about just a few years after his life in Roman Palestine.

There is more. Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.”

Why would the author leave the key sentence in Aramaic? If you have ever had bi-lingual friends who assume you too know their second language and have heard them tell a joke about something that happened in the other country, you will know that sometimes they give the punch line in the other language, even though the lead up to the line is in English. That’s because often the punch line packs a better punch than the original.

This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples.

The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek.

My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner.

But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for?

The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans.

Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem.

But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, 

Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

Objection A  - But Jesus is said to be God and rose from the dead. That's a major difference between all these other historical figures

Reply: So, your real objection has to do with the metaphysical implications of saying the Jesus rose from the dead, not the hidtorical nature of the account. That is beyond the scope of this argument.

However, I invite you to read why Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is logically self-refuting and why there is evidence for God

Objection B - The eyewitness stuff is important with the Gospels because there is a massive difference between 'I lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died' and 'I heard others lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died.

Reply: But the "eyewitness stuff" is apparently not impoertant - see nthe above for how many people/events are considered historical sans eyewitness account. The take Luke, for example, said the he investigated everything from the beginning and wrote an orderly account. This sems to be in line with what other ancient historians did, like Herodotus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian - There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources