Metzer vs Erhman

I know a lot of critics like to cite Erhman when trying to show that the NT is somehow faulty but....

“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” (From Bart Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus, p. 252)

A test for Atheists

Ask the atheist, On a scale of 1-4, how confident are you that there is no God?

By “God,” I mean the perfect being of Christianity. Though one could just refer to Theism in general: a being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness as creator and ruler of the universe.

1. Not confident, but there is enough evidence against God to justify my unbelief.
2. Somewhat confident; there is enough evidence to justify my unbelief and to make theists seriously consider giving up belief in God, too.
3. Very confident; there is enough evidence such that everyone lacks justification for belief in God.
4. Extremely confident; near certainty; there is enough evidence such that it is irrational to hold belief in God.

Now there is evidence. Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not. Does the atheist actually have a well-thought-out explanation for the world as we know it, or is their view is mainly complaints about Christianity/religion?

If the atheist answers honestly, you now have a starting point to question them. Too often, the theist/Christian is put on the defensive. However, this helps atheists to see they are making some kind of claim, and a burden of proof rests upon them to show why others should agree with their interpretation of the evidence.

Others posts on atheism

The atheist's burden of proof

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

The Judgment of the Canaanites was not Genocide

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

 This is a rebuttal of an argument presented on Reddit;  This is an outline of the argument presented:

Two claims

1. That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 
2. The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(These are reiterated in the conclusion)

Sources that Christian use (the Gospels and Acts) do not meet the criteria that historians use, which are:

• Numerous 
• contemporary [to the time question]
• independent
• Impartial
• consistent with other sources

Christian sources have the following issues

A - Are of a late date

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

C - are anonymous

D - akin to the telephone 

E - Use only one source 

F - Are contradictory 

G - are biased 

Further points

I - Salem witch trials, and eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout 

J - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

The rebuttal

A - Are the Gospels and Acts late?

First there is no argument presented for this. Selected scholars are cited, and a conclusion is drawn.  I could cite scholars who hold to a pre 70 A.D. date New Testamant . But the problem with this whole line of argumentation is that consensus isn’t critical thinking. Here is Bart Erhman:  I need to say that again: scholarly consensus is not evidence. But big but – if you have a view that is different from the view of the scholarly consensus, given the circumstance of who maintains the consensus, you probably should have some pretty amazing evidence of your own.

So, it comes down to who has the best explanation for the available data. But we cannot evaluate which argument the best explains data because there is NO argument presented, only the conclusions of selected scholars that are presumed to be correct. 

Remember the scholarly consensus was that the Hittites were a fictious people since there was no archaeological or historical evidence to support their existence. Except for the Biblical record and that “biased” piece of fiction certainly couldn’t be trusted in this matter. Until it could be  This is one of many examples where the “scholarly consensus” was proven wrong. So we have no reason to simply accept any scholarly consensus 

 As I argued here]the Gospels and Acts, the entire New Testament, in fact, is early. In short  the Jewish War in 66 , the Neronian persecution of the late 60s , the fall of Jerusalem in 70; there is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths. Easy to explain if none of the their deaths had yet to happen. 

A question

Do atheists/critics here also rail against the “myth” of Alexander the Great? If not, why not?

Alexander the Great lived ~356-323 BCE, but we only know about him due to: 

Diodorus Siculus' Library of History - c. 30 BCE  [350 yrs later]

Quintus Curtius Rufus' Histories of Alexander the Great - c. 40 CE [360 yrs later]

Plutarch's Life of Alexander - c. 100 CE [425 yrs later]

Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander - c. [450 yrs later]

Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus - c. 200 CE [525 yrs later]

This seems to be a double standard fallacy that is consistently used by atheists/critics; Judging the historicity of Jesus by one measure and the historicity of others ancients by a different standard. 

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

The only “argument” presented is the scholarly consensus of a late date. And thus any eyewitness would be long dead. However since we have good reason to believe that the New Testament was written early – see above – then there is no reason to discount the plentiful eyewitness accounts of the Risen Jesus 

C - are anonymous

Anonymity of the sources is not a death sentence for a historical document and should not be used as some kind of indictment of any anonymous ancient text. 

If rejecting an anonymous document is a standard used historians, I am have not been able to confirm it,  in fact, historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. See Gottschalk,  A Guide to Historical Method p 169 – If you have a source controverting this please provide it. 

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument concerning the “anonymous” Gospels. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” full argument here 

If we have people arbitrarily attaching names to the Gospels throughout the centuries, why is it that we don’t see that in the extant documents?  Why do we see only “Matthew” attached to Gospel attributed to him? And the same for Mark, Luke, and John?  

Evans summarizes, *“There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions"* Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts, page 53

D - akin to the telephone game

The Bible was not translated similarly to how the telephone game is played. The telephone game is designed to be confusing for the sake of fun. The Biblical authors did everything they could to preserve the accuracy of the biblical texts.

Oral traditions were involved in preserving some biblical texts, but this does not mean the oral traditions were not scrutinized and transmitted correctly. Similar to how a martial art is taught, repetition was used and perfection was expected by Jewish teachers. 

Oral culture is a culture in which stories are learned and passed on primarily by word of mouth. Those people tend not to rely on written accounts. Because the United States and Western Europe are not oral cultures, many people in these cultures struggle to understand how facts can be reliably communicated orally. But there is ample evidence that people who do live in oral cultures are capable of seemingly near-impossible feats of memory and accuracy.

The telephone game:

a) the message is heard and passed along one person at a time,

b) there are no controls over the message,

c) there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.

All of this makes it fundamentally different from the oral transmission of the Gospels:

a) The biblical stories were relayed in communities (not one-to-one),

b) when the stories were shared in community, many people knew the stories and would correct mistakes relayed in the retelling,

c) the people retelling the stories had a strong personal interest in the truthfulness of what they were saying, especially when persecution of the church increased.

The telephone game is irrelevant to how the oral tradition worked.

E - Use only one source

The further back in time one travels, the thinner the source material becomes. Sources for WWII are vast beyond the ability of anyone to master them. Sources for the Napoleonic era is abundant and more than adequate. Sources for the Hundred Years War are meager and somewhat fragmentary. For the Carolingian Period, one really needs to dig deep to adequately cover any topic. The Roman Empire is a jigsaw puzzle missing a significant number of pieces. Ancient civilizations are lucky to have one source to an event. 

Let one example suffice: the details of the demise of Pliny the Elder while he was attempting to rescue a group of Pompeiians when Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD are known from **one source only** - the report written by his son, Pliny the Younger, who was also present that day.

So to have one source for a historical event is not unheard of in history. And to reject the Gospels and Acts on the basis is to be guilty of the Special pleading  fallacy

The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem are vastly overstated; see this harmony of the Gospels and see how dissimilar they actually are. 

Secondly, the similarities are better explained as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses relating the same events. 

F - Are contradictory

For every alleged contradiction there are better explanations of the passage in question. But let’s look at the specific contradictions mentioned.

Note: A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

Many atheists/critics fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Many also fail to realize that these independent writers are at liberty to mention every detail, or as few as they want.

What is also fun to note is that atheists/critics will allege that the Gospel writers “copied” one another, then in the same breathe show differences, which undermines their first point!

Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself, or did Simon of Cyrene carry it (John 19:17, Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26)?

Both carried the cross.  John 19:17 does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone the **entire** distance or that **only** Jesus carried the cross,  it says he bore his own cross, which He did. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true.  John not adding that detail doesn’t equal a contradiction. 

Did both thieves mock Jesus, or did only one of them mock him, and the other come to his defense (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27:44, and Luke 23:40-43)? 

While Luke 23:39 does say “ One of the criminals…” this is not the same thing as ONLY one of the thief reviled Jesus.  Recording how one person was doing something is **not** the same thing as saying ONLY one person did something..

Luke seems to be relating what was specifically said by one of the thieves. Both men can be reviling Jesus in the beginning but later one of the thief has a change of heart. 

What did the women see in the tomb, one man, two men, or one angel (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and Matthew 28:2)? 

First, wherever there are two angels [or men] , there is also one! The fact that Mark only referenced the angel (“man”) who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic. The fact that Matthew only referenced one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

Even though Luke did not specifically refer to the two men as angels, the fact that he described these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” (Luke 24:4) should have been a dead giveaway. Moreover, he was  addressing a predominantly Gentile audience, Luke no doubt measured his words carefully so as not to unnecessarily give rise to their pagan superstitions.

Finally, after reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, any critical thinker has ample data to determine that the “man” described by Mark was an angel; that the “men in clothes that gleamed like lighting” were angelic; and that Matthew’s mention of only one angel does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem, or did they immediately leave and go to Galilee (Luke 24:49-53, Acts 1:4, and Matthew 28:16)?

Three times in Matthew, it is recorded that certain disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Jesus in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt 26:32; 28:7, 10). In Matthew 28:16 we see that the disciples went to Galilee. So, Jesus desired to meet with his disciples in Galilee. His disciples obeyed. Jesus did not rebuke them.

But, according to Luke 24:33-43, he also desired to meet with them in Jerusalem. The two places are about three  days journey from one another. People can't be in the same place at the same time, so this is a contradiction, right?

We must remember that the resurrection accounts of Jesus are coming from different, independent witnesses, So, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus met with his disciples in both places - but at different times. It appears that on Easter Day, he met with all of the disciples (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as the Gospel writers Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). 

We know that Jesus appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on earth after his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-7). Matthew, Luke, and John only mention some of the more prominent instances. Though Luke does not mention the trip to Galilee, in Acts 1:3 he states that there was a forty day period before Jesus' ascension. A lot can happen in forty days; including a three day trip.

(1) Assuming Jesus' words were stated on Easter Day, they were not stated in an absolute sense, but with an implied contingency (as determined from the other 3 Gospel accounts), given a future planned meeting in Galilee.

(2) The words in Luke 24:44 could have been stated on Day 40. The disciples did in fact stay in Jerusalem for ten more days, until Pentecost, as Luke himself relates in Acts 1:13.

It's merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44 on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11). At times information is just skipped; just like we skip it today.

 Both statements can be true. Just because information is omitted in one statement does not make the other statement false. In Luke 24, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee were omitted, but commented upon by both Matthew and John. However, notice that Luke never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day of his resurrection until the day he ascended up into Heaven. Acts 1:3 leaves a lot of room for a lot more activity (cf. John 21:25).

G – are biased

This objection eats itself. Everyone is biased. If the objection is to rejected any and all biased accounts, then all accounts must be tossed.  

I - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

When Christians say, or at least this Christian says, the supernatural what is meant is that a physical only model of the world is illogical we have good reason to think that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God 

 Anything "supernatural" must be in that context. 

J - eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout

This was  “A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations”

This study is mis-applied]

On one hand we have someone who was 

1) unknown to the witnesses, 

2) who was seen only for a few seconds, and 

3) who changed his appearance - a slight mustache during the crime but not in the lineup film 

Versus Jesus who 

1) walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for 42 months, then 

2) post Resurrection, who walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for a time and 

3) didn’t change His appearance [though He did hide who He was for some, temporarily] 

So we are comparing apples to oranges here. For an analogy to be a valid analogy the comparison between two objects must be similar. Given the above there is too much dissimilarity for this to be a reasonable or justifiable analogy. 

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

Reason is the basis of knowledge not empirical observation. And we know that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-defeating, so any who hold to that idea need to address how they ground goal-oriented, critical thinking in a physical-only model of the world where all things are caused by the antecedent physical condition acting in accordance with the physical laws.

Those that do not hold to Philosophical Naturalism, I’d ask what then is the objection to something acting outside the bounds of the physical laws? 

Conclusion:

The two claims revisited:

1 - That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 

First, we see the OP attempted to Poison the well (a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an opponent). Here it’s suggested that all Christians have are assertions not arguments grounded in facts. Why do that unless one is not confident of one’s view being able to compete and an intellectual discussion?

Secondly, the main (only?) argument is basically a presumption of naturalism or as Ruse puts it “but to act as if [naturalism] were” while evaluating data. 

Thirdly, given the arguments linked above we do have good reason to think that, sans the presumption of naturalism, the Resurrection of Jesus is historical. 

2 - The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given the above we do have good reasons to think that the evidence presented in the Gospels and Acts are exactly what was the criteria that historians use:

• Numerous 

• contemporary [to the time question]

• independent

• consistent with other sources

I left out “impartial” since no one is impartial.

I think this argument was an example of skeptical thinking, but skeptical thinking is not critical thinking It’s a low bar to sow doubt. The higher bar is to offer a better explanation  for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus).

Objection A - human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws occured. There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - First, can you explan why its "obvious" human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws? 

Second I'm not saying not saying that any human testimony can establish a suspension of natural laws; I am saying that since a physical-only model of reality is illogical, and that God is the best explanation for reality, and that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God thus thest Best explaination for the facts surround Jesus is that He rose from the dead. 

Objection B - There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - I guess you didn't read the  “floodgate” problem above

Objection C - What puzzles me is that an omniscient god could have anticipated skeptical reaction and preempted it by arranging conditions such that the resurrection was extraordinarily well attested.

Reply: There is more than enough evidence, but nothing can overcome, chronic skepticism - a suspicion about everything, that's a sickness. Suspicion means you've made a foregone conclusion; that's why one should be a critical thinker not skeptical thinker. 

Objection D - Jesus could have been a real person who was mythologized after his death.

How does one then explain the empty tomb? Various theories are examnied here 

Objection E - You are presupposing that the Bible must be accurate

For investigatory purposes one must assume that a text or testimony is accurate.  For example, when police take statements regarding an incident they assume that the statements are true and accurate then they can look for inconsistencies errors etc.  Assuming the document is the beginning of the investigation, not the end.  If one concludes that the document is true and accurate then there must be solid reasons for it. 

Objection E -You trying to control the narrative of what exactly is a "contradiction."

It's the law of non contradiction [one of the fundamental laws of logic] connect contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. If you think you have a better attested definition please provide it

The Gospels Not Anonymous Accounts

The scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are anonymous. At one level, that’s true. The names of the authors are not embedded in the text of the Gospels. And since we don't really know who wrote them, how can we trust that what they say about Jesus is true?

Anonymity doesn't matter

Historian C. Fasolt argues that Paul’s letter to the Roman church is helpful as a historical source “only on the assumption that it was written by Saint Paul.” Mike Licona, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, notes historian M. S. Cladis’s response to Fasolt:

This is going to be news to countless social historians of the religions of the ancient Mediterranean basin who investigate archaeological and textual work without always knowing the specifics of the exact agents involved. Indeed, these historians are investigating the society that shaped the agents, even if they do not know most of the agents’ names (and all that this means).

They collect, analyze, and interpret evidence from a variety of sources—monuments and tombs, literary texts and shopping lists—in order to learn something important about the socio-historical circumstances in which people, like Paul, lived, moved, and had their being. The historian of antiquity, then, can learn much about the past from the ‘Letter to the Romans’ whether or not that text was actually written by Paul.

Here is the takeaway point: even if we grant that the books and letters of the New Testament are anonymous, we can still gather important historical information from those texts. Anonymity of the sources is not a death knell for historical studies, and should not be used as some kind of sweeping indictment of texts. We can know what happened to Jesus and his disciples two thousand years ago, using the New Testament documents as our sources.

We know who wrote the Gospels 

Martin Hengel makes the argument that titles like “According to Mark” were used much earlier than previously suspected (Studies in the Gospel of Mark 64–84). These titles were added sometime before the end of the first century, prompted most likely by the presence of two or more gospels that needed to be distinguished.

Part of Hengel’s argument is that the authorship of the four gospels was unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by the middle of the second century, and the only way for this to have happened was for the church to have known for quite some time who wrote the Gospels. If the authors’ names were truly not attached to their writings, multiple names would have been attached (as is the case with Hebrews).

To state it simply: if nobody knew for six decades who wrote the Gospels, the second-century witness wouldn’t have been unanimous. Rather, it would have been highly contested, and we’d have records of that. Instead, we find the traditional names as the only names.

This is especially significant when we realize that the Gospels spread throughout the Roman Empire as Christianity exploded onto the scene, and yet everywhere we look, the same four names are attached to the same four gospels. The ancient world was obviously not as well-connected as we are today. If people in one area arbitrarily attached the name “Matthew” to the first gospel, it would be an astoundingly rare coincidence for ALL people in ALL other countries to do the same. And yet in different countries throughout the ancient world, “Matthew” was always attached to the first gospel.

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” In papyrus 75, a papyrus from the middle of the third century, we read “on leaf 47 (recto), where Luke ends (at Luke 24:53), the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν [“Gospel according to Luke”]. Below these words is a blank space, the equivalent of two to three lines. Below this space follow the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάνην [Gospel according to John and then the opening verses of the Gospel of John.”

Evans summarizes, “There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions" (Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts  page 53).

It would have been nice if there were ancient publishers that had statements of authorship and dates of writing, but there weren't. Rather, we must rely on historical evidence, but in the case of the Gospels the evidence is ample. We can comfortably believe that the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is accurate, and that means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in a place to know who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught.

Objection A - Widely attributing a text to a specific author still doesn't mean that the named person actually wrote it.

Other posts of interest 

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

Eyewitnesses of The Risen Jesus

The writers state emphatically that they saw and heard Jesus, and they recorded their testimony so that people all over the world would know the truth about Jesus: “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe” (John 19:35).

And we know that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was written early

The writers document that Jesus told these men repeatedly that He called them for the purpose of being “His witnesses,” and to distribute a record of all He had said and done; “everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Eyewitnesses Who Saw The Risen Jesus:

1. Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-17
2. Mary/Salome: Matthew 28:9-10
3. Peter: Luke 24:34
4. Two Disciples: Luke 24:13-32
5. 10 Apostles: Luke 24:33-49
6. 11 Apostles: John 20:26-30
7. 7 Apostles: John 21:1-14
8. 12 Apostles: Matthew 28:16-20
9. 500 at one time: 1 Corinthians 15:6
10. James: 1 Corinthians 15:7
11. 11 Apostles: Acts 1:4-9
12. Paul: 1 Corinthians 9:1, Acts 9:3-6, Acts 9:17, 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 18:9-10, Acts 22:12-21, Acts 23:11, Acts 26:12-18

The New Testament Records The Writers Stating They Saw Jesus

Contrary to critics who seek to impugn the reliability of the authors for the New Testament, the writers themselves state repeatedly that what they are recording, they saw with their eyes, heard with their ears, and they are telling the truth.

There are 387 uses of the Greek word, ὁράω (“We saw, we have seen,” In the New Testament. Clearly the writers of the New Testament are stating emphatically, they saw Jesus and they are eyewitnesses. 

The Koine-Greek text is very specific in this regard, the writers using the precise word, ὁράω, to define what they saw:

Paul said: Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen (ὁράω) Jesus our Lord with my own eyes? ~1 Corinthians 9:1

There are eight places in the New Testament where Paul states that he saw (ὁράω) Jesus; two additional places where Ananias and Barnabas state that Jesus appeared to Paul:

1. Paul’s statement: 1 Corinthians 9:1
2. On the road to Damascus: Acts 9:3-6
3. Ananias said that Paul saw Jesus: Acts 9:17
4. Barnabas said that Paul saw Jesus: Acts 9:27
5. At Corinth: 1 Corinthians 15:8
6. At Corinth: Acts 18:9-10
7. At Jerusalem: Acts 22:6-10
8. While praying at the Temple: Acts 22:12-21
9. At the Roman barracks: Acts 23:11
10. Before King Agrippa: Acts 26:12-18

The last meeting Paul had with Jesus, in Acts 26:12-18 (above), Jesus said the following to Paul:

Jesus told Paul: “But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.” ~Acts 26:16

Peter said: that he had seen the risen Jesus with his own eyes.

“For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes. ~2 Peter 1:16

This is a reference by Peter to the Transfiguration of Jesus that Peter, James, and John also saw, as recorded in Matthew 17:1-6, Mark 13:26, and Luke 9:28-32. On that day Jesus showed these three men what He will look like when He returns to establish His kingdom on earth. Moses and Elijah were also with Jesus during this transfiguration.

In Mark’s Gospel, we find this text that Mark recorded as Peter recounted to him, what took place on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is this event that Peter recorded first through Mark his scribe, that Peter later cites again as the moment when he saw Jesus with His eyes and truly believed.

The Evidence Mark Was The Scribe Of Peter

Peter later wrote in 1 Peter 1:19 that this experience of seeing Jesus, as He appears after His resurrection, forever convinced him that all the prophets had written about the Messiah was penned only for Jesus.

“Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place.” ~1 Peter 1:19

John Said: “We saw  him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands…We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard…” ~1 John 1:1-4

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning (Jesus) the Word of life…” ~1 John 1:1

James saw the risen Jesus, as recorded by Paul, who said that James also saw Jesus with his eyes after His resurrection, and finally all 12 of the Apostles saw Jesus alive, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:

“I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures had said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures had said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.” ~1 Corinthians 15:3-7

Mary saw Jesus crucified: “Standing near the cross were Jesus’ mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary Magdalene.” ~John 19:25

Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus: “Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance.”…Mary was standing outside the tomb crying…She turned to leave and saw someone standing there. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. …“Mary!” Jesus said. She turned to him and cried out, “Rabboni!”.~John 20:1-16

Two Disciples, on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, saw Him alive with their own eyes as they were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus.

“13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” ~Luke 24:13-34

Matthew records eleven of the original Apostles who saw Jesus alive on the third day after He was crucified. Paul is added later in the book of Acts. In order to be a true Apostle of Jesus, they had to see the risen Jesus:

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” ~Acts 1:21-22

The Apostles who were eyewitness to Jesus post resurrection

1. Simon, called Peter
2. Andrew (Peter’s brother)
3. James (son of Zebedee)
4. John (James’ brother)
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew (the tax collector)
9. James (son of Alphaeus)
10. Thaddaeus
11. Simon (the zealot)
12. Paul of Tarsus, later.

As Matthew is recorded in the New Testament as one of the Apostles whom Jesus chose to be His witness, it is certain that Matthew saw Jesus with his own eyes, alive after being crucified.

500 Eyewitnesses Who Saw Jesus All At The Same Time

Jesus was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I (Paul) had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. ~1 Corinthians 15:4-8

These Men And Women Who Saw Jesus Alive After Dying On The Cross, Said They Are Witnesses Of The Risen Jesus

Peter: 32 “God raised Jesus from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this.” ~Acts 2:32 (NLT)

Jesus told these men that they are His witnesses and He wanted them to tell the whole world about what they had seen Jesus accomplish.

So when the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, “Lord, has the time come for you to free Israel and restore our kingdom?” He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” ~Acts 1:6-8

In describing their eyewitness testimony of Jesus. There is no ambiguity in what these writers meant; they saw Jesus with their eyes, they heard Him with their ears, they wrote a truthful testimony.

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

The case for 1st Corinthians being written in the 50s. 

The first prong of reasoning is that the Epistle was written in ignorance of the Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. Nowhere in the letter is this even hinted at. 

Secondly, Paul visited Corinth in roughly AD 50. We know this because he stood before the proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12), whom we recognize and know from secular history. Archaeologists uncovered the famous “Gallio stone,” which dates the beginning of Gallio’s office to the early summer of AD 51.[source]

When Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, this was obviously after he stood before Gallio, placing the date after AD 51. Moreover, Paul writes that he was still in Ephesus when he wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:8), after just planting the church there (Acts 18:18-21). Therefore, Paul probably wrote this letter sometime in between a two-and-a-half-year span, while he was at Ephesus from the autumn of 52 to the spring of 55 AD (Acts 19:10; 20:31). Thus, most NT scholars date this letter sometime in the late winter or early spring of 55 AD. [Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, p164] Leon Morris dates the book to the mid-fifties, and cites “wide agreement” on this amongst NT scholarship. [1 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, p35] 

And, if Paul is saying that he had delivered this to the Corinthians earlier (which reinforces the notion of a repeatable creed), then that would have been somewhere around 51AD, only 20 years after the resurrection. But, note that if he were delivering it, then it had to be earlier than that, for this had been passed on to him. This might have been in 37AD when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Which means the creed had already, within a few years of the resurrection, been a part of the early believers worship. Some scholars think that it could have been formed within a few months after Jesus rose from the dead. 

Why might we think this? Because of the polemic. There were lies being spread that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, but instead His body had been stolen by the disciples. It is challenges like that which make people articulate and summarize what they believe, and thus gives rise to a creed. 

The rest of the New Testament was written early as well

The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists

Problem of Evil Formulated

Many atheists are fond of using the argument from evil to debunk the notion of God. It goes something like this:

• If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could stop evil.
• If God is all-loving (omni-benevolent), He would stop evil if He could.
• Therefore, if an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God existed, evil would not.
• Evil exists; therefore, an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God does not.

Another variation of the argument was put forward by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, centuries before the time of Christ:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil? 
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
• 
  

The Problem of Evil for Christians

Logically, this argument misunderstands what's meant by God's omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God cannot possibly be more powerful than He currently is. His power is perfect. But within these traditional confines, we acknowledge that God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot, for example, will what is contrary to His Will. Why? Because that's a contradiction.

Herein lies the easiest answer to the problem of evil:

• God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good.
• Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (i.e. evil).
• God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil
• Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God.

The easiest answer expanded:

The Bible makes it clear that evil is something God neither intended nor created. Rather, moral evil is a necessary possibility. If we are truly free, then we are free to choose something other than God’s will—that is, we can choose moral evil. Scripture points out that there are consequences for defying the will of God—personal, communal, physical, and spiritual.

The existence of evil is often presented as an enormous problem for those who believe in God, mostly because it's based on a False Dilemma Fallacy God must either not allow any evil or God - as the Christians define Him - doesn't exist.  In reality, these assumptions miss the actual means by which Scripture resolves the problem of evil.

Freewill defined

"...what is critical to free will is not the ability to choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. WLC

He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness, the release of the condemned from punishment is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will. 

Objection - What about freewill in heaven - why didn't God jusat create heaven in the first place.  

Reply: Well, I'd argue that  God did create "heaven" first. The Garden of Eden was heaven-like. The problem was that Adam nor Eve never chose to be there or chose to follow God over evil. And apparently God sees real value in freely making morally significant choices - choosing to in follow or disobey God,

In heaven the saved will be elevated to a better state of being eternally than they are currently (Rom 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17), and once glorified, will no longer have a sin nature throughout eternity (Rev. 21:4,27). The term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)

Jesus Christ, even though He didn't sin, still had free will.  One of the more clear Bible passages that demonstrates such is John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." 

One can also point to the temptation in the wilderness in Matt 4 as evidence that Jesus had freedom to do what He pleased. What he chose was not to sin. Thus, the notion of an all-loving God is consistent with abundant free will, and free will is consistent with the presence of evil. But it does not necessitate the existence or practice of evil.

Back to the argument...

You may disagree with that solution—you may not see why free will is better than God forcing us to perform on command, for example—but it at least shows that there's no logical problem with the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God and evil.

So the Problem of Evil is easily solved for the Christian. God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil; after this God will wipe out evil (but not free will) from human existence. Those who chose to follow God will do so, those that did not, will not. 

The Problem of Evil for Atheists

If the atheist says that only subjective morality exists (i.e moral values and principles are based on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal contexts) then it is difficult for the atheists to construct a logically coherent problem of evil as rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide is just one's opinion, they are not necessarily evil. 

Thus, the atheists is barred from intellectually, rationally, logically condemning rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide, etc

If the atheist says that objective morality exists (moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) how then does the atheist ground objective morality in their worldview.

But here's the problem with that: Objective morality is best explained by God. What else can give us moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

This doesn't mean that atheists can't be moral people, as Christians teach that objective morality is knowable by all via natural law. 

No good definition of Good? 

The atheist may say that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals; the atheist defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures. But why, given atheism, should we think that the "flourishing of human beings" is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris, as William Lane Craig points out, fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.

Science, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make humans flourish. But why is “human flourishing” a good thing? Why not "rat flourishing" Or "cockroach flourishing"? 

Harris commits the Is/Ought Fallacy - the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. Example: “That man is a murderer. He should be hung/punished.”  Let's say the former statment is true, but why would the latter statement logically follow? Especially if morality is subjective. Because Harris, and atheists, cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redefines  the word “good” to mean human flourishing. 

Naturalistic Determinism

If one is committed to naturalistic determinism, as most atheists are, then they most likely reject the notion of free will as well. In essence, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions. Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Dawkins, pp 133] 

So how can one condemn people for their actions?  Given determinism, one's actions were pre-loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry. According to naturalism all actions are the result of antecedent the physical conditions of matter, acting in accordance to the physical laws. How can their be moral choices? How can there be any choices at all? How can there be logical conclusions? 

Naturalistic Reasoning?

The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make conscious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recognized this fatal flaw. He remarks, 

“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe. but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.” -  C. S. Lewis. In other words, if atheists are is on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.

While atheists' attempts to affirm objective morality via naturalistic presumptions, they are fatally flawed as they have no rational basis to stand on.

Morality from Evolution?

Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification". This process of natural selection acting on random mutations is the standard view.  If Darwin was right then creatures scratched and clawed their way to survival, killing and eating each other. Natural selection explains sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of morality? 

Kin selection theory an animal engages in self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives. For example, a rabbit might cry out a warning to her relatives if it sees a predator coming putting itself at greater risk, or may choose to fight/sacrifice  themselves. This sacrifice, ensures that the family genes will survive and pass on to the next generation.

Reciprocal relationships, aka “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.

Evolution’s Failure to Explain Morality

If Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than roaches, rats, or spiders? Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.

Take the black widow who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Most male animals forcibly copulate with their female counterparts.  Do these creatures commit moral evils? 

If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? Atheists and secular humanists may wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. 

Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved so human females eats her male counterpart during the mating process or it's the norm for  human males forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. And the atheist and secular humanist would simply nod in agreement. 

Evolution  does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. 

but they confuse Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology

Atheists, naturalists, and secular humanists may be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even "know" objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.

The fact is humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice, they ought to choose honor, rather than dishonor. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with the Christian worldview.

More specifically, the problem is that is that there's no way to get from statements "how the world is" to "how the world ought to be" without imposing a value system. And to say something is objective good [or evil] you must believe in objective values, binding everyone . It has to be something infinitely more than whatever your personal values might be.

This is a serious problem for atheism, since atheistic naturalism denies any such universally-binding moral laws. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, laid out the problem like this:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore God exists.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that mortality is hardwired into our genes as an evolutionary survival mechanism.  A man might simultaneously be sexually attracted to a non-consenting woman, and conscious that rape is immoral. 

Why, from a strictly biological standpoint, should the man listen to his genetic hard-wiring when it tells him rape is wrong, and not when it gives him an urge to rape? The answer to that question is a moral one, and one that (by definition) can't come from mere evolutionary urges. The urges are the problem, not the solution. You can see this with virtually any sin: man both desires sin, and knows it's wrong. If both the desire and the moral aversion are nothing more than evolutionary conditioning, why listen to the unpleasant one? Why not act like simply another member of the animal kingdom, a world full of rape and theft and killing.

But for that matter, is it morally evil to go against our genetic hard-wiring? If the hard-wiring is nothing more than the result of random chance over millions of years, it's not at all clear why it would be morally evil to disregard it. Your body may also decide to start producing cancer cells, but you feel no moral allegiance to quietly let it have its way. 

And indeed, atheists constantly go against their genetic hard-wiring. For example, I'd venture that most atheists use or have used birth control and don't seem to find this immoral, even though it's transparently contrary to both our genetic hard-wiring, and evolutionary survival mechanisms. They're literally stopping evolution from working: a more direct violation of evolutionary hard-wiring is almost unthinkable (except, perhaps, celibacy).

So, evolution can explain urges we have for or against certain behaviors. But it cannot say which are worth acting upon, some aren't. Nor why. But to know which to obey and which to ignore is a moral question, not a biological one.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that objective moral values do not exist. Not everyone has the same moral standards. Our perception of what is right and wrong have changed over the centuries

If this is true, they cannot logically, rationally criticize the Nazis for killing millions of Jews, Or for the Chinese imprisonment of the Uyghurs Or any genocide, rape, murder, etc. 

If objective morality does not exist, the problem of evil breaks down. So when atheists raise the problem of evil, they're already conceding the existence of objective morality.

Objective Evil Exists

We can see that objective morals do, in fact, exist. We don't need to be told that raping, torturing, and killing innocent people are more than just unpleasant or counter-cultural. They're wrong—universally and completely wrong. Even if we were never taught these things growing up, we know these things by nature.

Incredibly, even the most evil societies—even those societies that have most cruelly warped the natural law for their own ends—still profess these universal morals. Nazi Germany, for example, still had laws against murder, and theft, and rape. They didn't have some delusion that those things were somehow morally good: it's sheer fiction to suggest otherwise. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of the  severely mentally handicapped/ill, recognizes these things to be evil, whether or not they've been formally taught these truths.

Conclusion

So is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Sure. However, there are intellectually satisfying answers for the Christian

Is the problem of evil a problem for atheists? Yes.  If the atheists denies that objective morality exists, then any "problem of evil" argument falls apart.

Thus, in order to complain of the problem of evil, one must acknowledge evil. To acknowledge evil, you must acknowledge objective system morality. But the atheist/naturalist/secular humanist cannot do that. 

Objective universal moral laws is best explained by a Lawgiver capable of dictating behavior for everyone. This Lawgiver is best explained by One who we call God.

Ironically, the Problem of Evil lays the groundwork for establishing that God not only exists, but cares about good and evil. And humans as well, caring enough to die for them. 

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 Slavery is my second most 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