The atheist Euthyphro Dilemma

 The Euthyphro Dilemma is usually formulated against Christians as:

1) Does God choose what is good because it is good,

2) or does God chose what is good?

For the Christian, neither choice is acceptable.

To affirm that God choose what is good because it is good is to establish an autonomous moral principle that has authority over Him

To affirm what is good is whatever God has said it is to render morality arbitrary

The solution for the Christian is a 3rd option: God is Good itself. Since God is simultaneously the source and the measure of all goodness, the dilemma disappears.

But the atheist has an Euthyphro Dilemma of their own concerning the source of their morality:

A common atheist view of morality is that human instinct/society has decided that human well-being [Or harm mitigation] as the root of morality. Both atheistic views of morality often require people to act against their interests.

However:

The Marquis de Sade an atheist philosopher, concluded that Nature teaches us the principle that the strong ought to rule over and therefore exploit the weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche atheist philosopher, said a healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person.

Both philosophers chose instincts such as the desire to dominate and cruelty, which are the antithesis of the "human well-being/harm mitigation" morality. The question therefore arises: why should we choose a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over those of the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche?

To argue that our morality’s source is human instinct/society means that we have no reason to prefer a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche’s, since their moralities are derived from the same human understanding as today's atheists who should be aware of the fact that there are humans who do not have the same instinct for compassion as they do. So why prefer one morality over another?

Why should the human instinct/society be the arbiter of what is good? We look to history to see that it has been wrong in the past: Abolitionists held the minority view during most of human history, yet their anti-slavery philosophy is now almost universally accepted, except for the minority who continue to enslave people today.

If, as atheists assert, human instinct/society is the source of their "well-being or no harm mitigation" morality, a Euthyphro-style Dilemma arises.

The atheist Euthyphro-style Dilemma is this:

1) is a "well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" good because human instinct/society says so, or

2) is it morally good because it is a good?

If they say it is morally good because human instinct/society says so, then they run into the problem of those who feel/operate according to different instincts - aka Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. Why well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" over Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade?

If we say it is morally good because it is good or benevolent, then we admit a morality is external to us.

Whereas theists argue that morality’s external source is God, atheists who wish to adhere to an external morality have the burden of demonstrating this morality’s external source.

I suppose that a 3rd option would be that which best helps humans survive as a species, but why humans? What makes us special? Why not cockroaches or rats or the tardigrade? If it's about well-being or harm mitigation, those 3 probably caused less harm than humans combined...

God of the Gaps fallacy

Arguments from ignorance [which is what a GOTG is] occurs when evidence against one proposition is offered as the sole grounds for accepting an alternative. Thus, they have the following form:

Premise: Cause A cannot produce or explain evidence C.

Conclusion: Therefore, cause B produced or explains C.

It's easy it is to identify this type of fallacy, and how unreasonable it would be to use such thinking to try to prove any conclusion. Atheists and other skeptics often claim that the argument for God’s existence based on intelligent design is guilty of this type of illogical thought. How can the theist who is using the design argument show that it is not a God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance?  

To depict proponents of the theory of intelligent design as committing the GOTG fallacy, critics must misrepresent the case for it. This misrepresentation of the design argument looks like this:

Premise: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.

Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced the specified information in life.”

If this were how the design argument actually worked, there would be serious problems with it, and the skeptic would be right to challenge it as false. However, that this misrepresentation of the design argument leaves out a very important premise. The design argument includes the positive evidence that it implies:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Premise Three: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.”

Notice that there is no gap in the properly stated form of the design argument. 

1) We have been doing scientific research for hundreds of years. 

2) We have discovered that intelligence is the only entity capable of producing large amounts of specified information. 

3) We see large amounts of specified information in cells. 

4) Therefore, we are forced by what we know about intelligence from centuries of scientific research to conclude that the specified information in cells is the product of an intelligent Creator. 

On the other hand, we also know enough about how matter behaves to conclude that it is impossible to get the specified information from materialistic causes. Origin-of-life experiments have been done for decades that have shown how matter does and does not behave. In every single experiment done to date, we have seen that natural processes not only do not produce life, but they cannot produce life. This is not a gap in our knowledge. The argument for design is based on what we know to be scientifically valid in every instance.

Why, then, are so many skeptics convinced that the design argument is a God-of-the-gaps logical fallacy?

The reason for this is a prior commitment to naturalism - the idea that only the physical exists. If a person begins by assuming that there has to be a naturalistic process that brought about life, then that person is forced to see a gap in our current knowledge, since no naturalistic processes have ever (in any experiment under any circumstances) even come close to producing a living cell. 

What chemical [or other natural] process first produced life? Since no such chemical process has been discovered, we are told this is simply a gap in our current knowledge that will be filled in the future. 

Nevertheless, our present lack of knowledge of any such chemical process entails a “gap” in our knowledge of the actual process by which life arose, only if some materialistic chemical evolutionary process actually did produce the first life. Yet if life did not evolve via a strictly materialistic process but was, for example, intelligently designed, then our absence of knowledge of a materialistic process does not represent “a gap” in knowledge of an actual process. Stephen C. Meyer (2021), Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe pp 424

An illustration that a “gap” only exists if a person begins by assuming that all scientific explanations must be materialistic:

Imagine someone mistakenly enters an art gallery expecting to find croissants for sale. That is, he thinks the gallery is actually a fancy bakery. Observing the absence of pastries and rolls, such a person may think that he has encountered a gap in the services provided by the gallery. He may even think that he has encountered a gap in the staff’s knowledge of what must definitely be present somewhere in the gallery. Based on his assumptions, the visitor may stubbornly cling to his perception of a gap, badgering the gallery staff to “bring out the croissants already,” until with exasperation they show him the exit. Ibid., p. 424.

The moral of the story? The gallery visitor’s perception of a gap in service or in knowledge of the location of the croissants derives from a false assumption about the nature of this establishment or about art galleries in general and what they typically offer to visitors.

There is only a gap if a person will not accept what we know scientifically to be true. We “do have extensive experience of intelligent agents producing finely tuned systems such as Swiss watches, fine recipes, integrated circuits, written texts, and computer programs.” Furthermore, “intelligence or mind or what philosophers call ‘agent causation’ now stands as the only known cause capable of generating large amounts of specified information.” And “it takes a mind to generate specified or functional information, whether in ordinary experience, computer simulations, origin-of-life simulation experiments, the production of new forms of life, or, as we now see, in modeling the design of the universe.” Ibid., pp 338, 187, 385

Conclusion

The design argument for the existence of God is not an argument from what we do not know, or we do not understand about the Universe and life in it, but instead is an argument based on the aspects of nature that we have reasons to conclude to be true. As John Lennox has stated, “I see God not in the bits of the Universe that I don’t understand, but in the bits that I do.” 

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 

Jesus according to non-Christian accounts and archaeological evidence within 150 years of his life

 

The evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible confirm that the Jesus story in the NT is rooted in history. This is because the core outline of most of the Jesus story is attested by sources who had access to independent information outside of the Bible. The pieces of evidence listed display here claim or imply the following about Jesus:

1. Jesus existed.
2. Jesus was an important distinguished person (possibly The James Ossurary,Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata). Josephus calls Jesus a "sophos aner," which implies that Josephus thought of Jesus was an extremely important person. As Ulrich Victor points out (2010), this phrase commonly referred to men of very high importance in both Josephus' writings and outside of his writings in ancient Greek literature. People who are called σοφὸς ἀνήρ outside of Josephus' writings include people like Socrates (Plato, Apol. 18b:7), Plato (Chion. Ep. 5.1), along with Aesop, Solon, Thales, Xenocrates, Aristotle, Themistocles, Pindar, etc. If the phrase "if indeed it is right to call him a man" is authentic, as I think, then not only does this imply that Josephus saw Jesus as an important man, but also an extraordinary one. However, as Victor argues, the phrase "wise man" (which is typically taken as authentic by scholars) was more exclusive than the phrase "if indeed it is right to call him a man." In short, I don't see any reason to take the less exclusive phrase as inauthentic than the more exclusive phrase ("wise man"), which is nevertheless taken as authentic by most (see Bart Ehrman's blog cited below for this claim). Mara-bar-Serapion also compares Jesus to Socrates and Pythagoras, both famous and important people in the ancient world. Lucian explicitly calls Jesus a "distinguished personage."
3. Jesus was born in a village in Judaea (Celsus).
4. Jesus had a father named Joseph (James Ossuary), or a Roman soldier named Pantera (Celsus). The latter is clearly reflective of Jewish polemic.
5. Jesus had a brother named James (James Ossuary, Josephus).
6. Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin (Celsus).
7. Jesus was poor (Celsus).
8. Jesus went to Egypt out of poverty (Celsus).
9. Jesus was wise (Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus).
10. Jesus was law observant (Celsus).
11. Jesus did miracles (Josephus, Celsus). The early Mishnaic Sanhedrin 43a also attests to this. The words "παραδόξων έργων" (startling deeds), which are used in the TF, often refers to activity of divine/supernatural elements in Josephus' books (e.g., Ant. 2:223, 267, 285, 295, 345, 347; 3:1, 14, 30, 38; 5:28, 125; 6:171; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10:28, 235; 13:282; 15:379; Ag. Ap. 2:114). In addition, every person in Josephus' works that are called a "wise man" are also described as having supernatural powers.
12. Jesus was a teacher and a lawgiver (Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata).
13. Jesus taught that all of his followers are "brothers" (Lucian of Samosata).
14. Jesus claimed to be "a god" (Celsus).
15. Jesus founded various rites (Lucian of Samosata).
16. Jesus gained many followers that did not cease after the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus).
17. Jesus was known as the Christ (Josephus).
18. The Jewish authorities accused Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate (Josephus). Mara bar-Serapion also attests to Jewish involvement.
19. Jesus was crucified by Pilate in Judaea during the reign of Tiberius (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata).
20. Jesus was resurrected from the dead and appeared to many (Josephus, see below).

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.  [Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 -Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.]

This sentence from the Testimonium Flavianum [TF] though, if original, has interesting implications for the appearance to the 500 as reported by Paul and his pre-Pauline apostolic informants, because Josephus says that Jesus appeared to "them," with the "them" referring to the followers who did not yield after Jesus' death, which in turn refers back to the "many" Jewish and "many" Greek followers that Jesus gained during his life. 500 is "many."

(A) The James Ossuary (62/63 C.E.) "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." There has been huge controversy over the inscription on this ossuary. The ossuary itself is not a forgery, but many question the latter half of the inscription on the ossuary which references Jesus. The inscription says: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Another large group of scholars think that this is authentic (or at least plausibly so) and refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The reader may be interested in a scholarly piece here by Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 2014) which I think offers very valid critiques against the biased and unprofessional decision of many of the members of the IAA, who ruled the inscription on the ossuary as forged or redacted.

Some also doubt whether the reference to James being the father of Joseph and the brother of Jesus is specific enough to conclude that the ossuary is James the Just's, since Jesus, James, and Joseph were all common names at the time. According to a calculation by Tel Aviv University statistician Camil Fuchs, it is 95 percent likely that only four people of first century Jerusalem named James would have a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. However, the fact that the inscription specifies that James was the brother of Jesus indicates that this Jesus was an important figure. Only one other ossuary from the ancient world ever studied mentions the brother of the deceased. Further reading: Is the “Brother of Jesus” Inscription a Forgery? · A to this ossuary being authentic is the testimony of Hegesippus (170 CE). Jodi Magness says: "Hegesippus’s testimony suggests that James was buried in a pit grave or trench grave marked by a headstone (stele)" - Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit, p. 176.

"The evidence that James was buried in a grave dug into the ground and not in a rock-cut tomb renders the controversy over the “James ossuary” moot" - Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit, p. 179.

However, while Hegesippus may have some useful kernels of information of James' death to supplement Josephus (especially since he was raised in Palestine [though he wrote later in Rome]), he is largely unreliable and legendary in his account. 

First, clear legend can be detected in the depiction of James as a Nazirite high priest. He even mentions James going into the Temple alone, just like the high priest on the day of atonement. This is probably legend or embellishment and seems implausible. 

Second, he seems to try and parallel the death of James with the story of Stephen's death in Acts. 

Third, the account of Hegesippus claims that James was buried "on the spot" of his death, and that his burial was "by the Temple."

However, as Yaron Z. Elia points out (HTR, 2004), "scholars felt uneasy with such a positioning because it appears to contradict Jewish law. Strict halakhic rules forbid any sort of impurity in the temple area, making a grave at the site of the temple highly unlikely; indeed, a human corpse is considered the most potent source of impurity. Yet proposals that would resolve these difficulties by relocating the tomb elsewhere—for instance, to the ravine east of the city known as the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see fig. 2.3)—are totally at odds with the picture drawn by the tradition. Hegesippus repeatedly underscores the close proximity of James’s tomb to the temple. Not only does he formulate the site’s name as the “pterygion of the temple,” he also locates the burial site and monument, which according to him survived to his day, in the immediate vicinity of the temple’s shrine" (p. 42). Finally, if Hegesippus is right, it seems strange that James' grave site would be identifiable after the Jewish war, where the Temple was razed to the ground,

(B) Mara bar-Serapion (~73 C.E.) "What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down."

Mara Bar-Serapion, a non-Christian Syriac philosopher, probably had knowledge of Jesus, who, if so, is labeled as the "wise king." Cicero doesn't mention Spartacus by name either, and he is our earliest source for Spartacus. Do historians reject that as a source for Spartacus? No! Arguing that Mara bar-Serapion is referring to another unattested person is ad hoc. No other person in ancient history that was claimed to be the king of the Jews was killed by "the Jews" except Jesus, as Serapion says. Indeed, the whole range of the features of the wise king doesn't fit anyone else except Jesus: the people who caused his death, his new law, the connection of the wise king's death with the Jewish war, etcetera.

Serapion also compares this wise king to Socrates and Pythagoras, so no bloke, that's for sure. Mara Bar-Serapion says that the wise king was killed unjustly by "the Jews," and that the 'wise king' lived on because of his new teachings. Serapion also links the 'wise kings' death with the Jewish war. Thus, he is likely partially or fully dependent on Christian thought. In my opinion, Serapion would likely date in the 70s C.E., though there is disagreement in scholarship, with some scholars dating it later. Most scholars support the early dating in the 70s C.E., however (e.g., Ilaria Ramelli; Michael Blomer; David Rensberger; Annette Merz; Teun L. Tieleman; Ephrem-Isa yousif; Gerd Theissen; Fergus Millar; Craig A. Evans). The fact that the author of this letter was not Christian (he speaks openly about "our gods," for example) is significant, since he gives his non-believing opinion that Jesus was an important figure. He is also independent of the Gospel stories if he dates in the 70s C.E.

(C) Josephus (93 C.E.) About this time there comes Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds and was a teacher of such people that receive the true things with pleasure. He won over many Jews, but also many of the Greek element. He was ["called" or "known as"?] the Christ. When Pilate, at the accusation of the principal men among us, had condemned him to a cross, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease doing so. For he appeared to them having a third day living again, for the divine prophets had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after this fellow, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18:63-64)

“Ananus . . . assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20:200).

"Much of the past impetus for labeling the textus receptus Testimonium a forgery has been based on earlier scholars’ anachronistic assumptions that, as a Jew, Josephus could not have written anything favorable about Jesus. Contemporary scholars of primitive Christianity are less inclined than past scholars to assume that most first-century Jews necessarily held hostile opinions of Jesus, and they are more aware that the line between Christians and non-Christian Jews in Josephus’ day was not as firm as it would later become. The implication of this is that supposedly Christian-sounding elements . . . cannot be ruled inauthentic a priori" - Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic," NTS, 2008, pp. 575.

"In recent times, with gradually more balanced discussions of the text, the authenticity of the passage, or at least an authentic core, seems to be increasingly accepted, except perhaps that many scholars will agree that Jerome (Vir. ill. 13) may well have been right in translating credebatur esse Christus, instead of the Greek text's ὁ χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν, 'he was the Christ,' his translation being supported by the Syriac version." - Jan N. Bremmer, "Ioudaismos, Christianismos and the Parting of the Ways," in Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE?, Walter De Gruytur 2021, pp. 69-70.

(i) Arguments Against the Whole-Sale Invention of the TF.

First, the episode of John the Baptist has no obvious connection with the TF. John appears to be an independent person in Josephus, unlike in early Christian theology. The John episode also awkwardly appears after the TF in Ant. 18., whereas John's ministry is before Jesus' in early Christian theology (such as in Eusebius' quotation of Josephus). This all points to an original Jesus and John passage.

Second, the Testimonium is much shorter than many other preachers Josephus speaks of. If a Christian editor was as audacious as to forge an entire paragraph, it would be much longer and elaborate. And compared with any Christian text of the second to fifth centuries, it is for the most part very bland. Nothing about son of God, coming from God, pre-existence, Trinitarianism, Holy Spirit, atonement, being in Christ, shed blood, gone to heaven, about to return in the clouds, reluctance of Pilate, etc. etc. The only real puzzles are the Christ clause and the resurrection sentence. J.C. Paget points out: "Where we can be certain of the existence of Christian additions to Josephus as well as glosses, they strike a more aggressively Christian note" (Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, pp. 600).

Third, the language used in most of the TF is very specific to Josephus, and at times uses language that was considered negative by Christians. For the former point, the Greek construction πολλοὺς μὲν . . . πολλοὺς δὲ also seems Josephan in style (e.g., J.W. 1:146, 322, 383, 2:49, 177, 341, 4:643, 5:562; Ant. 7:194; 15:296; 20:98). For example, Ant. 15:296 says: "many [πολλοὺς μὲν] of his allies in the war as well as many [πολλοὺς δὲ] of the neighboring populations." Another way that this passage appears typical of Josephus is the plural noun ("Jews") followed by the singular adjective ("of the Greek [element]"), which Eusebius changes to "many Jews and many Greeks." Josephus making a noun from an adjective (as he does here), or a noun from a participle plus an adjective is a technique Josephus used commonly (especially in Ant. 17-19!).

This seems far too specific for a Christian editor to replicate centuries later author technology. For two examples of the latter, first, it's difficult to see how a Christian interpolator would have chosen the word ἡδονῇ to include in his passage if it were not originally from the pen of Josephus, because it has strongly negative connotations in all uses in the NT: Luke 8:14; James 4:1, 3; Titus 3:3; 2 Peter 2:13 (ἡδονὴν). Eusebius changes the text to "those who revere the truth." Tibor Grull (2020, pp. 19), Bermejo-Rubio (2014, pp. 354, n. 130), and Graham Twelftree (1999, pp. 305) rule out a whole-sale interpolation of the TF from this alone. Josephus was often not someone who held back on negative language on people he disliked, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be the case. Instead, we have to glean and speculate what Josephus thought about Jesus through statistics on certain words and phrases, which is inconclusive when taken together as will be shown here.

Second, the word ἐπηγάγετο occurs twice in the NT, it is used negatively both times (Acts 5:28; 2 Peter 2:1), which points against a later Christian addition. Eusebius omits this word and replaces it with "σεβομένων." Ken Olson however has recently tried to reignite the hypothesis that Eusebius forged the entire TF, since he is the first to quote it, and adopts much of Josephus' language. But Sabrina Inowlocki writes that "this has not found support among scholars" - Inowlocki, “Josephus and Patristic Literature,” in A Companion to Josephus, Wiley Blackwell 2016, p. 359.

Alice Whealey likewise says that "the overall thesis of fabrication by Eusebius has not been generally accepted in the scholarship" - Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in A Companion to Josephus, p. 352. See Alice Whealey's essay in the book called Josephus und das Neue Testament (Mohr Siebeck, 2007) for convincing arguments against Eusebius inventing the TF. Eusebius never even explicitly pointed out/highlighted important parts of Josephus' passage on Jesus which he quotes in his works. For example, Josephus mentions how Jesus did miracles. Except Eusebius never stresses this detail. This in spite the fact that the reference to Jesus' miracles in Josephus would have been useful in his rebuttal to those who denied that Jesus did miracles (see Whealey 2007: 80), and in spite of the fact that Eusebius explicitly highlights more mundane portions of the TF (such as the mention of Jesus gathering many followers). Eusebius also highlights other details in other Josephan works, such as the Jewish War in his anti-Jewish rhetoric to prove that the Jews suffered for killing Jesus, in contrast to the more "Christian" sounding parts of the TF. Eusebius also doesn't ever highlight Josephus' hesitation in calling Jesus a man, his mention of Jesus being the Christ, or the resurrection sentence. This fits with how Eusebius used Josephus to back up Christian doctrine as a non-believing Jewish person. For Eusebius, Josephus being a non-believer was extremely important, and so inventing and/or touching up the TF passage would have gone against his interests.

Fourth, Steve Mason argues:

"The order of his identifiers suggests that he chooses James as representative of the condemned group because he is ‘the brother of the one called [or known as] Christos’, already known to the audience. James’ name comes as an afterthought. This formulation suggests, therefore, that Josephus has mentioned someone ‘known as Christos’, recently enough for his audience might remember. The only plausible candidate is Jesus in Book 18." (Mason, "Sources that Mention Jesus from Outside the Circles of Christ-Followers," Jesus-Handbuch (ish), 2017, p. 12)

Some try and relate Ant. 20:200 to Jesus ben Damneus, but the Greek in 20:203 is constructed in such a way as to introduce this figure to his audience. In addition, as TimO'Neill points out here, this view entails that Josephus employs appellations to both Jesus' in a way he does nowhere else. Alice Whealey writes that the authenticity of the Jesus reference in Ant. 20.200 is "accepted by most contemporary scholars" - Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in A Companion to Josephus, 2016, p. 353.

(ii) Josephus' Source of Information.

If anyone has the greatest chance at having heard of Christians and Jesus from outside Christian sources, surely it is Josephus of Jerusalem. Josephus was born around 37 C.E., shortly after Jesus' death. Gary J. Goldberg points out (2021, pp. 32) that Josephus notes in Vita, 9 how he grew up in Jerusalem with "principal men" which Josephus mentions in the Testimonium, who would have chiefly been 30-60 years old (some younger, some older).

These men Josephus grew up with are who Josephus got his information regarding pre-70 Judaism from and are thus a possible source of information for Jesus and indeed for the other first century Jewish preachers. Supporting this is the mention the principal men that Josephus says handed Jesus over to Pilate is said to come from "among us," since Goldberg points out in his 2021 article (pp. 19) that: "in historical narrative, Josephus takes care to write in the third person." But here he doesn't. He combines "principal men" with "among us," which he does nowhere else. 

If Josephus just wanted to say the "principal men among us" to mean that these principal men came among us in the sense of being Jewish people of his own class, Josephus could have used his more typical phrase seen in e.g., Ant. 14.165 ("the principal ones of the Judaeans"). This all may imply that Josephus knew at least some of these people who are said to hand Jesus over to Pilate. It is also possible that he heard about Jesus from Ananus II or the Jewish leaders related to James’ death in the early 60s when Josephus himself was in Jerusalem. Ananus II was the son of Ananus, who interrogated Jesus (John 18:13-14).

(iii) A Note on the Scholarship of the Tone of the TF.

Bermejo-Rubio has to admit: "the overwhelming majority assert nowadays that it was originally neutral" (Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, "Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text?," JSJ, 2014, pp. 327). See Tibor Grull's 2020 article for critiques of negative tone like that argued by Rubio. 

Josephus was often not someone who held back on negative language on people he disliked, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be the case. Instead, we have to glean and speculate what Josephus thought about Jesus through statistics on certain words and phrases, which is inconclusive when taken together as will be shown here. One shouldn't be too worried about Josephus' tone. 

In addition to what was pointed out above vis-à-vis tone, Josephus was a complex writer, who had no single agenda. He often changed his appraisals of individuals between his Jewish War and Antiquities, because of the works’ different issues (Herod and family, Ananus II, Simon son of Gamaliel). AND even when discussing the same person (e.g., Saul, Gaius Caligula, Nero) he can say ‘positive’ things while being generally critical. Josephus was not a robot who held onto simple views of things. 

No reason to think that Josephus would have been so negative personally about Jesus. Consider Josephus' mention of the fate of Jesus’ brother James: he and others were executed by the rather savage Sadducee Ananus II, in a brief moment when there was no Procurator. Josephus points out that all the fair-minded people thought that Ananus had behaved illegally and immorally in executing James, and he also seems to personally have thought the same. So why would Josephus be overly critical, whom he describes chiefly as a Judaean teacher of virtue (not as crucified son of God, etc.).

(iv) ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων ("For he appeared to them having a third day living again, the holy prophets having foretold these things and many other marvels about him"). 

In support of authenticity here, first of all, are the words "having a third day...," which does not match the Christian story since it implies that three days already passed, as opposed to "on the third day" (which Eusebius changes it to) in the inclusive way of counting days. 

Second, the phrase "having a third day" is rare in not only the NT, but other Greco-Roman writers in general. However, the phrase "having X days" (with "days" as the object of ἔχω) is very at home with Josephus, appearing in e.g., Ant. 2:72; 3.290; 5:327; 7:1; 9:223; 14:96. 

Third, the phrase ἄλλα μυρία is Josephan (see e.g., Ant. 8:382; J.W. 2:361). 

Fourth, the words "divine prophets" has an almost exact parallel in e.g., Ant. 10, where Isaiah is called a divine prophet. Other places where the words "divine" and "prophet" occur close to together include Ant. 6:222; 8:243; 9:60; 10:180. For a similar phrase (τοῦ θεοῦ προφήτης), see Ant. 8:402; 9:33, 211; 10:92. 

Fifth, some sort of mention of the resurrection to Jesus' followers in some way "provides a better explanation for the fact that, as the text asserts, the Christians continued to remain attached to Jesus" (Bermejo-Rubio 2014, pp. 354, n. 90). 

Sixth, Josephus avoids the typical resurrection verbs such as egeiro, used especially in the New Testament, in keeping with Josephus elsewhere. Seventh, there is little evidence for an interpolation in the manuscript tradition or the versions. While the text seems to imply that the author actually believed Jesus rose from the dead and the prophecy connection, there are many places where Josephus appears to agree with things that elsewhere he rejects, most obviously giving plausible speeches to characters he doesn’t like. Most importantly though, much of what Josephus writes in the Antiquities is from someone else’s report, and so having an oratio obliqua (e.g., "they reported...") would have gone without saying. Alice Whealey also says the construction of the Greek doesn't necessarily imply a claim of belief for Josephus.


(4) Tacitus (~115 C.E.)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." (Annals 15:44)

Tacitus was a Roman historian and is typically considered one of the most reliable and careful ancient historians of the period by modern historians. He is probably reliable in what he writes, especially if he is independent from Christians. Tacitus reports that Jesus (a) was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, (b) was the founder of the Christian sect in Judaea, and (3) had followers who spread Christianity even further after Jesus' death.

Tacitus: Independent Information?

For one, Tacitus thought of Christians as “a most mischievous superstition ... evil ... hideous and shameful." This does not seem like words one would expect from someone willing to accept information from Christians, whether directly or indirectly. This is especially since Tacitus disliked hearsay stemming from street gossip and the "popular report" (see Annals 4:11), which Tacitus would have considered Christians surely. 

Moreover, nothing in Tacitus' passage suggests as Christian source, since he makes no mention of anything that indicates a purely Christian origin. Pliny, on the other hand, in reporting what Christians said, mentions hymns sung to Jesus "as to a god." There is actually a more likely source of information that Tacitus got his information about Jesus from: the aristocratic Jewish exiles who were in Flavian court as he was. This included Princess Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa. 

One has to keep in mind that the Jesus Sect began in Galilee, and Tacitus was at court with the daughter of the Herod Agrippa of Galilee who was a contemporary of Jesus and tetrarch of Galilee shortly after Jesus' death. Someone like her would have been more keenly accepted by Tacitus, since she was much closer to his class, was not despised (unlike Christians), and would have had relevant information on Jesus from reliable sources.

(5) Lucian of Samosata (~165 C.E.)

"... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. (Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 11)

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws." (Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 13)

Lucian of Samosata was a Syrian satirist who references Jesus. It is possible that Lucian of Samosata provides us with an independent tradition regarding Jesus's crucifixion, too, since he uses a word to describe the crucifixion with a Greek word that ancient Christians are never documented as using ("stauroun" = "impaled") for the crucifixion of Jesus. 

Plus, Lucian detested Christians, and so probably would have been less keen on accepting their information. 

Finally, Lucian isn't entirely accurate in his representation of Christian practices, which may suggest that he didn't interact much with Christians. Scholars like Craig Evans and Paul Eddy support Lucian of Samosata relaying a tradition of Jesus' crucifixion independent to that of Christians.

Nevertheless, writers like Tacitus and Lucian show that Jesus' crucifixion was an accepted fact by Romans in the second century. Lucian also records Jesus being the originator of many of the Christian rites, as well as being a teacher or lawgiver. Lucian also seems to imply that the "crucified sage" was considered important ("distinguished personage").

(6) Celsus (~175 C.E.)

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery with a soldier named Pantera. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28)

Celsus was a second century Roman philosopher and critic of Christianity. The books criticizing Christianity from Celsus are lost but quoted by Origen, who wishes to try and debate Celsus. While Celsus knows much about the Christian story from Christian literature, the evidence suggests that he is also relying on ancient Jewish tradition. Origen even explicitly says that Celsus is relying on Jewish polemic. 

Second, what Celsus says parallels ancient second century (or earlier) Jewish polemic in reflected in Tosefta 2:22-23, where people in Galilee are scolded for healing in the name of "Jesus son of Pantera" (Tosefta 2:22-23). As in Celsus, there is a tradition that Jesus was born of a person named Pantera. Adolf Deissmann showed in 1906 that "Pantera" was a surname for Roman soldiers in particular, and later Talmudic sources from the early fourth century CE show that ancient Jewish people were claiming that Jesus was born from a Roman soldier named Pantera explicitly. 

As for historical datums of Jesus, he attests to a lot. Outside of this quotation, Celsus also says that Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin and was law observant. The major question is whether the earlier Jewish polemical source reflected by Celsus is wholly reliant upon Christian information, which is ambiguous. 

That seems unlikely, however. Indeed, Markus Bockmuehl for instance cites Ernst Bammel who claims that there may have been independent tradition concerning Jesus in Jewish circles until the year 500 CE (This Jesus, p. 184). One also cannot accept on face value many of the points made in this account of Jesus, since it is polemic. However, Celsus seems to be working off of core facts here which could have been relayed to him by his earlier Jewish source. Plus, he can't be totally inaccurate in his account, since no one would have taken his arguments seriously if he was.


Honorable Mentions and Possible Sources

Thallus (49-52 C.E). Dale C. Allison Jr. writes: "Thallus was a pagan or Samaritan historian who wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to his own day, which was the middle or latter part of the first century C.E. His work, composed in Greek, has perished and is known only through mention in later writers. Among these is the ninth-century Byzantine historian George Syncellus who, in a quotation from another lost history, that of the early third century Christian Julius Africanus, refers to Thallus' words about the darkness that accompanied the death of Jesus (cf. Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44) . . . Yet the fact that the latter states his disagreement with Thallus' interpretation—"This, it seems to me, is contrary to reason"—strongly implies that Thallus was offering a mundane explanation for what had happened when Jesus died" - Dale C. Allison Jr., "Thallus on the Crucifixion," in The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton University Press, 2006), pp. 405-406. 

In short, I think the way Julius Africanus/George Syncellus responds negatively tips the scales in my direction. Benjamin Garstad puts it this way: "There has been unwarranted doubt as to whether or not Thallos actually wrote about the Crucifixion or merely an eclipse . . . If Thallos had not connected the darkness at the Crucifixion to an eclipse, he would not have been censured by Synkellos for explaining a miraculous sign as a natural event" - Benjamin Garstad, ‘Thallos’ in Brill’s New Jacoby, Ed. Ian Worthington et al., Brill Academic Publishers, 2007.

Pliny the Younger (111 C.E.). Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan. Pliny is relying upon Christian information here (but not the Gospels), and he confirms that early Christians worshipped "Christ" as "a god." Pliny also gives us information as to how these ancient Christians he encountered in Bithynia worshipped before the writing of this letter. He does not give any information about the historical Jesus though aside from his existence, and so is not included.

Suetonius (119-122 C.E.). See John Granger Cook, "Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: a Second Century Anachronism?," Vigiliae Christianae, 2020, p. 253 for a recent defense of Suetonius having mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Chrestus was a common misspelling of ‘Christus’ as the substitution for ‘e’ for ‘i’ was a common itacistic error. For example, the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus has the spelling (Chrestianos) in the three NT of the term ‘Christian’ (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). 

However, Suetonius may imply that 'Chrestus' was in Rome in the late 40s CE, which wouldn't fit. Then again, if Irenaeus could claim that Christ was crucified during Claudius’s imperium, maybe this mistake is forgivable. If Suetonius attests to Jesus' existence, he also attests to the presence of a Christian populace influential enough to cause the Jewish people to cause instigations and be kicked out in the city of Rome in the 40s C.E. Things are not certain though. While many NT scholars think Suetonius does have Jesus of Nazareth in mind, some classical historians disagree with this view. Since he doesn't provide any evidence of the historical Jesus aside from his existence, and since this can be disputed to be a reference to Jesus after all, Suetonius is not included in the main list.

"Contemporary or shut up!" That these documents were not contemporary and therefore are not reliable is a non-sequitur. It doesn't necessarily follow. The "it must be contemporary" rule is not used by any contemporary credentialed historian of today. Of course, such sources are preferable, but most documents in the ancient world were not contemporary to the events recorded in them. Such people or events were the exceptions, not the rule. For example, the first written source attesting to the existence of king Archelaus of Cappadocia is Josephus in his book Jewish War, around 60 years after his death. 

Another example: only six sources attest to Spartacus within 150 years of his life, the earliest of which doesn't explicitly name Spartacus by name (Cicero), and another of which is lost (Varro), with the rest being short passages written decades or a century after the events. None of the sources to Spartacus were witnesses nor were they written during Spartacus' life. 

If we want to dismiss the later references to Jesus at the end of the century and in the next, do we do this with all ancient sources that are not contemporary? Markus Bockmuehl argues in his book Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study that the date of a source doesn't necessarily become a serious problem for the core of the story until we are 150+ years out from the events. Indeed, the 100–150-year timeframe after an event is when 'living memory' ends (e.g., when people who knew eyewitnesses typically all die out). Hence the time frame used here.