Was the Passion narrative Forged or Faked to Fulfill a Supposed Prophecy in Psalm 22

Here is a Reddit post by Opposed38 who put forth this argument:

The Passion of Jesus is first described in the synoptic gospels, where we have Jesus crying: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?". This is a reference to Psalm 22, in which that is the starting verse. If you look at the Psalm, you already start to see the parallels: "They pierced my hands and my feet" is the most characteristic, because of the crucifixion itself, but when you read the gospels, you see fragments of the Psalm copied exactly as they are!:

Psalm 22:7 - "They hurl insults, shaking their heads" Mark 15:29 - "Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads"

Psalm 22:8 - "He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him" Matthew 27:43 - "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’"

Is it coincidental that, specially in Mark, there would be such a strong parallel? It is not simply a description that fits, it's word for word copied.

As I understand it, there are five Psalm 22 verses that are alluded to in the Gospels. If I missed any, please let me know.

Preliminaries 

Greek and Hebrew belong to separate language families (Indo-European and Semitic respectively), their grammatical structures are naturally dissimilar in many respects. Why is that important? Because the way different languages are constructed, it would be difficult to have a "word for word" copying from what was written in the OT [Hebrew] and the NT [Greek] 

Greek, with its complex system of declensions, conjugations, and cases, relies heavily on word endings to convey grammatical function. The predominant word order is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), similar to English. However, word order can be relatively flexible, and other orders like VSO (Verb-Subject-Object) are also possible.

Hebrew, while also having a complex verb system, is more dependent on word order and prefixes/suffixes for grammatical information. Biblical Hebrew, which is VSO (Verb-Subject-Object), is a common exception, particularly in narrative and poetic passages. 

This would seem to necessitate a change in Syntax - the rules governing the arrangement of words in a sentence to create grammatically correct and meaningful phrases and sentences

In English, a simple example of correct syntax is "The dog barked" (subject-verb), while an example of incorrect syntax would be "Barked dog the" (as it doesn't follow the typical word order).

So the Gospel writers reading this is Hebrew and writing in Greek would have to change, at least some, grammar of the Hebrew for it to make sense in Greek. 

The evaluation of the argument

So, as always, when someone makes an argument from the Scriptures ensure that you look to the data, the actual verses to see what it says. Read it in context to understand the author's point. As Greg Koukl says "...always read a paragraph at least..."  

I think the following will make it clear that the authors definitely did not copy Psalm 22 word for word.

1 . Psalm 22:18 —“they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Jn 19:23–24 - When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things.

Mt 27:35 - And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.

Mk 15:24 - And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take.

Lk 23:34 - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

2. Psalm 22:7 —“All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads”

Mt 27:39 - And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mk 15:29 - And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days

Analysis: None of the Gospel writers quote PS 22:18 word for word.  Matthew comes the closest. 

3. Psalm 22:8 —“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Mt 27:43 - He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.

4. Psalm 22:1—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?”

Mt 27:46 - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mk 15:34 - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me

5. Psalm 22:31—“they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.”

Jn 19:30 - When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.Psalm 22:31— For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet

Luke 24:39 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Analysis:  Not once was there a word for word quote in the NT of and PS 22 verse.  

This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Note: Some say that that Psalm 22:16 should read, “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” However "like a lion," and "they have pierced" are very similar in Hebrew: כּארי verses כּארוּ. And the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading.

Conclusion: As I said, there is no instance where PS 22 was copied word for word in the Gospels. The ideas in PS 22 verses were certainly used by the Gospel authors in their own words.

So is there a better explanation for the use of PS 22 other than some sort of fakery?

Yes. Jesus knew the OT and taught it to the Apostles, who also mostly likely read the Scriptures daily. And most likely Jesus taught this Psalm in regard to his death. So, the Gospel writers had that teaching blazing in their hearts and minds when they realized what happened and was said during the crucifixion, thus fulfilling PS 22. So, they wrote down what they heard and saw. No fakery or forgery needed to explain the allusions to PS 22 in the Gospels.

Addendum

There are Jewish writings which associate this Psalm with a future event and Messiah.

Commenting on this Psalm, Rabbi Rashi [Shlomo Yitzchaki] says, ‘They (meaning the Jewish people) are destined to go into exile and David recited this prayer for the future.’ So this would mean that the Psalm does have a future application.

Rashi’s commentary on this verse was: “Why have You forsaken me?: They are destined to go into exile, and David recited this prayer for the future.”

The famous Midrash from the eighth-century, Pesikta Rabbati, places some of the words of Psalm 22 on the lips of the suffering Messiah. In fact, the Midrash explicitly states that: “it was because of the ordeal of the son of David, that David wept, saying: “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.” (Ps. 22:16)

According to this Rabbinic Midrash, King David described the future suffering and death of Messiah Son of David in this Psalm.

The following rabbinic Midrash which was written prior to the Masoretic text:

“During the seven year period preceding the coming of the son of David, Iron beams will be brought low and loaded upon His neck until the Messiah’s body is bent low. Then He will cry and weep, and His voice will rise to the very height of heaven, and He will say to God: Master of the universe, how much can my strength endure? How much can my spirit endure? How much my breath before it ceases? How much can my limbs suffer? Am I not flesh and blood? …During the ordeal of the son of David the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ephraim, My true Messiah, Long ago, ever since the six days of creation, thou didst take this ordeal upon thyself. At this moment, thy pain is like my pain. At these words, the Messiah will reply: ‘Master of the Universe, now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master.'” [Midrash Pesikta Rabbati, 36:2]

The Midrash goes on to clarify:

“Ephraim, our true Messiah, even though we are thy forbears, thou art greater than we, Because thou didst suffer for the iniquities of our children, and terrible ordeals befell thee. For Israel thou didst become a laughingstock and a derision among the nations of the earth; And didst sit in darkness, in thick darkness, and thine eyes saw no light and thy skin cleaved to thy bones, and thy body was as dry as a piece of wood; and thine eyes grew dim from fasting, and thy strength was dried up like a potsherd (Psalm 22:16), All these afflictions on account of the iniquities of our children.” [Pesikta Rabbati 37:137]

The discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts

The critics claim discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts and this should be cause for one to doubt the truthfulness of the Resurrection.

The argument usually goes something like this post found on Reddit — I'll post it here in full below in blue: 

These are not minor discrepancies, such as “which color was Jesus' cloak?”, “were there angels or shining men at the tomb?” or “did Jesus ride on a colt or a donkey?”, these are factual discrepancies, in sense that one source says X and the other says Y, completely different information.

Tomb Story:

1. When did the women go to the tomb?

Synoptics: Early in the morning.
John: Night time.

2. Which women went to the tomb?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, and Joanna.

Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary of James, and Salome. [1]
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Joanna.
John: Mary Magdalene and an unknown person. [2]

3. Did the disciples believe the women?

Matthew: Yes.
Mark: No. [3]
Luke: No, except Peter.

4. Which disciples went to the tomb?

Luke: Peter.
John: Peter and Beloved disciple.

Sequence of Appearances:

5. To whom did Jesus appear first?

Matthew: The women as they fled.
Mark: Mary Magdalene while inside the tomb.
Luke: Two disciples (one of them Cleopas). [4]
John: Mary Magdalene while inside the tomb.
Paul: Peter.

6. Afterward, Jesus appeared to?

Matthew, Luke, and Paul: The Twelve. [5]
Mark: Two disciples (one of them Cleopas).
John: The Ten (Thomas wasn't there)

7. How many of the Twelve were present when Jesus appeared?

Synoptics and Paul: All of them. (11) [5]
John: The Ten (Thomas wasn't there).

Notes

1. the original Gospel of Mark says that multiple women went to the Tomb, but the Longer ending mentions Mary Magdalene alone.

2. At first seams like Mary Magdalene went alone to the Tomb, but in John 20:2 she says:

So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and “we” don’t know where they have put him!”

3. The original Gospel of Mark ends with the women silent, because they where afraid, but I considered the Longer ending in this case, where the Disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene

4. When the Two disciples went to say to the Twelve that they've seen Jesus, Peter already had a vision of Jesus, Mark says that after Mary Magdalene Jesus appeared directly to the Two disciples, but Paul says that Peter got the vision first, I preferred to give priority to Mark, but that's another conflicting information.

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

5. The Twelve and “All of them” (as Paul says) in this case is the Eleven, cause Judas Iscariot was already dead, the Twelve described by Paul means the name of the group, it's like saying: “I met the Justice league” but Batman wasn't present. 

End of quoted post

Review and Response

What is a discrepancy? According to Webster's it is the quality or state of disagreeing or being at variance or an instance of disagreeing or being at variance.

This is closely related to the term “contrary”: either of two terms (such as good and evil) that cannot both be affirmed of the same subject; though both may be false they cannot both be true; incapable of  harmonious coexistence or are logically incongruent

Since the phrase “completely different information” is used, I assume that what is meant is these accounts are incapable of association of harmonious coexistence. 

So are these 7 discrepancies/contradictions incapable of harmonious coexistence or are logically incongruent?

1. When did the women go to the tomb?

Read the passages

Matthew 28:1-10
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Mark 16:1-10
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.

Luke 24:1-10
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has [a]risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

John 20:1-3
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.

1 - When did the women go to the tomb, answered:

First note that John does NOT say “night” he says “dark”: Original Greek: σκοτία; Definition: Darkness - source

John 20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark,

Matthew 28 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. So it was still dark.

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb.

So what is the difference between, “while it was still dark”, “as it began to dawn”, and “at sunrise” if they all have the idea of darkness or darkness breaking? Answer: None.

Excursus 

I just want to point out that here are differences in accounts of Alexander the Great's campaigns. Some historians like Plutarch and Diodorus providing more anecdotal and philosophical perspective. Arrian focused on a more factual military chronicle, often drawing from sources like Ptolemy's memoirs which could sometimes exaggerate his own role in events; this can lead to discrepancies in the portrayal of battles, motivations, and Alexander's character across different accounts. 

Some accounts might portray Alexander as having a more harmonious relationship with his commanders, while others could highlight tensions and conflicts, particularly with figures like Cleitus. Some accounts suggest Alexander was driven by a desire to conquer the known world, while others emphasize his pursuit of divine status and cultural unification.

Each account might present a slightly different perspective due to the author's emphasis, bias, geographical location, or social status. But no historian says these differences equate to contradiction, and the whole Alexander the Great story, or the bulk of it, is a myth.

If historians don't dismiss the  Alexander the Great story as myth, why do critics try to use this standard with Jesus? 

If the critic is unaware, they should educate themselves and judge the Resurrection accounts with the same historical standard.

If the critic is aware, then this is just a blatant double standard fallacy — Judging similar two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. It invaldates their argument and seriously undermines their intellectual integrity. 

2 - Which women went to the tomb, answered

Matthew mentions two women by name. Mark mentions three by name. Luke mentions at least three by name but describes more. John only identifies Mary Magdalene. 

Note that Matthew doesn't say that there were only 2 women; Mark doesn't say that there were only 3 women; John doesn't say that there were only 1 woman.

When examining the number of women present at the tomb of Jesus, the four accounts could all be seen as accurate representations of what really happened if the group of women included the following people:

• Mary Magdalene
• Mary the mother of Jesus,
• Mary the Mother of James (and Joseph),
• Salome, and
• Joanna.

This group would account for the women mentioned by all four authors. All the authors speak of a group and some authors identify specific members of this group based on their personal perspective, purposes, and audience.

The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions of the women to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have confidence in the reliability of these accounts.

Another factor for accuracy and authenticity: In a culture hesitant to accept the testimony of women in civil and criminal hearings, the authors of the Gospels offered women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. 

Here is Josephus on the credibility of women: But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex. . . . (Antiquities, 4:219)

If this is a late fictional account, one might wonder why the authors didn’t insert Peter and the other male disciples or at least Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathia. They would certainly have made the account more credible to the first hearers. Instead, all the authors describe women as the first eyewitnesses. This “negative information” makes the account more credible. Women weren’t described here to make the narrative more convincing (they actually hurt the account), but were instead described because they happen to be the true first witnesses.

Of course this isn’t in and of itself proof that the resurrection happened. It does, however, make it very unlikely the story was fabricated.

5. To whom did Jesus appear first?

Read the passages

Cleopas and another

13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles[a] 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.. Luke 24:13-31

Question: Where in the verse does it say that Jesus first appeared to Cleopas and another? 

Answer: It doesn't

Cephas

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve 1 Corinthians 15:4-5

Question: Where in the verse does it say that Jesus first appeared to Cephas?

Answer: It doesn't

The two Marys

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Matthew 28:1-9

Note: Both Mary's met Jesus after they departed... from the tomb [vs 8-9] - but the text doesn't say anything about this being a first appearance; so was there a prior appearance? 

Mary Magdalene

9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. Mark 16:9

Note: Here Mary Magdalene is clearly portrayed as the first to see Jesus post-Resurrection 

11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. John 20:11-14

Note: We get a little more detail about Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus prior to departing the tomb, she saw Him but didn't recognize Him. 

So Mary Magdalene first saw Jesus at the tomb, then after departing, both Marys saw Jesus. The other passages say that others saw Jesus but none say nor imply that they were first. 

Thus, there is no contradiction about whom Jesus first appeared to post-Resurrection 

*************************************************

Note: this is a work in progress, I will address all 7 "contradictions" in the near future. 

The Bible Verses A Game of Telephone

What is the Telephone Game?

The telephone game It involves a brief narrative that someone whispers to the next person in line who then whispers this to the next person, and so on for several people. Then, the last person recites out loud what he or she heard, and everyone has a good laugh for how garbled the story got. If a group of similar people in the same context can’t remember and accurately pass on a saying, how can we trust decades or centuries of faulty memory?

The critics say that memory is faulty and cannot be trusted over a long period of time. This means the Bible almost certainly has many errors and embellishments that were introduced during the time gap between Jesus' life and the first writings of the Gospels and what we have today.

But the transmission of scripture is not at all like the telephone game.

First, the goal of the telephone game is to see how badly the story can get misrepresented, or at least the accuracy is unimportant, while the goal of New Testament copying was by and large to produce very careful, accurate copies of the original.

Second, in the telephone game there is only one line of transmission, while with the New Testament there are multiple lines of transmission.

Third, one is oral, recited once in another’s ear, while the other is written, copied by a faithful scribe who then would check his or her work or have someone else do it.

Fourth, in the telephone game, only the wording of the last person in the line can be checked. However, for the New Testament textual critics have access to many of the earlier texts, some going back very close to the time of the autographs.

Fifth, even the ancient scribes had access to earlier texts, and would often check their work against a manuscript that was many generations older than their immediate ancestor. The average papyrus manuscript would last for a century or more. Thus, even a late second-century scribe could have potentially examined the original document he or she was copying.

Bur wasn't the Oral Tradition like the Telephone Game?

Oral tradition has very little in common with the telephone game. 

In the game:

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

• there are no controls over the message, 

• there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.

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

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

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

• 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 apostles supervised and corrected the spread of the message.

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

Believing in Yahweh...

 ... and not obeying Him is exactly what the devil does. 

The Judgment of the Canaanites was not Genocide

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

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.

That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above? 

ebed & amah

ebed is the Hebrew word translated slave or servant

Parts of Speech Noun, Masculine

Etymology From the verb עבד ('abad), to work or serve.

Definition

1. slave, servantslave, servant, man-servant
2. subjects
3. servants, worshippers (of God)
4. servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc)
5. servant (of Israel)
6. servant (as form of address between equals)

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/ay/ay-b-d.html

'amah is the Hebrew word translated slave or servant

Parts of Speech Noun. Feminine

Definition

1. maid-servant
2. female slave, 
3. maid handmaid, 
4. concubine 
5. of humility (fig.)

abad

The verb עבד ('abad) means to work, to serve or to be a serf. Since working or serving is a common activity in any culture, this verb is deployed almost 300 times in the Old Testament. Curiously enough, this verb has the power to take meaning from whatever comes next. If the story tells of "dressing" vines, the Hebrew literally reads "working" vines. When a field is tilled, the Hebrew reads that the field is "worked".

The Hebrew idea of "working" can also mean "working something," and that something determines the kind of work that's done. When Jacob "works" Laban, he's not trying to change his mind, but simply serving him (Genesis 29:15). This verb can even be used to indicate putting someone to work, or even enslaving someone (Exodus 1:14).

The difference between a worker and a boss was back then the same as now: if you get to keep the money your labor generates, you're a boss or a free person. If you get some kind of compensation for your labor (now called a salary, then called your purchasing price, but really the same thing) but the actual proceeds of your labor go to someone else, you're an עבד ('ebed).

HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament makes the observation that, "When service is offered to God, however, it is not bondage, but rather a joyous and liberating experience (Exodus 3:12, Psalm 22:31)". Similarly, when YHWH himself is performing work (עבד עבדת, Isaiah 28:21), he is obviously not enslaved but rather thoroughly engaged. Likewise, the 'suffering servant' described by Isaiah (Isaiah 52-53, see Matthew 20:25-28) is not simply a slave of oppressive kings and their regimes, but rather a devotee to freedom and wisdom.

The compass of this root is so wide that every now, and then it results in a pseudo-contradiction: the Israelites formed no עבד (slave force) but did work as עבד (personnel, same word) to Solomon (1 Kings 9:22).

In Aramaic parts of the Bible, our verb עבד may simply mean to make, do or organize (Daniel 3:1, 5:1, 6:10).

Since our verb is so rich in meaning and so ubiquitous in use, there are quite a few derivatives:

The noun עבד ('ebed), generally means 'servant' or 'worker'. Often this word occurs in the singular but multiple individuals are implied (1 Samuel 18:22, 2 Samuel 14:31), in which case it refers to personnel or describes a unified and autonomous service-detail. Contrary, our word in plural (עבדים, 'workers', or עבדי, 'workers of') does not simply denote a bunch of workers, but emphasizes the non-unified character of slaves within a labor force, in which each individual has to do what he's told and not follow internal, autonomous policies (Genesis 50:18). When Jeremiah exclaims that עבדים (slaves) rule the Israel, he basically equates his countrymen with beasts of burden (Lamentations 5:8). The famous term 'house of bondage', as reference to Egypt, significantly uses this plural word (house of 'mindless slaves'; Exodus 13:3, Joshua 24:17, Jeremiah 34:13), but when the Lord speaks of his servants, he commonly and evenly significantly uses the singular (my 'autonomous personnel'; Isaiah 65:8-13).

Our noun occurs almost 800 times in the Bible.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains that this noun basically means slave, and that in Biblical times slavery was not "so irksome". Of course, HAW was produced for the US market, where slavery is associated with centuries of lively trade in abducted and elsewise horribly mistreated people, so the word "irksome" doesn't quite cut it. And עבד ('ebed) should generally not be translated with our word slave, but rather with the milder and more accurate "worker" or "subject," depending on the context:

 * When עבד ('ebed) means "worker" in an economic sense, it usually denotes someone who has (how shall we put it?) found himself forced to voluntarily put himself under a binding contract, to become someone's property and serve that person for a price (much like most of us do today). Such contracts were limited to six years (Exodus 21:2) and husbands and wives could not be separated (Exodus 21:3). A worker could be appreciated so much that he became his master's heir (Genesis 15:2), or his son in law (1 Chronicles 2:35). But workers stood lower than their owners on the social ladder, and they were certainly not equal before the law. This may seem archaic and unfair, but in our own societies we charge ridiculous amounts of money for a "fair" trial to make sure that the 'ebeds among us never get one. Different wording; same effect.

 * The word עבד ('ebed) may also directly denote a lower rank, without economic consequences. It may denote a chief's subjects (Genesis 26:15), a king's subjects or officers (Exodus 8:3, 1 Samuel 19:1), even tributary nations (2 Samuel 8:2), or vassal kings (2 Samuel 10:19).

 * Most often, the noun עבד ('ebed) denotes a religious devotee (or subject or worker). HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains that all Semitic people referred to their religious workers as servants of this or that deity, and in the Bible this practice is manifested in the phrase עבדי יהוה ('ebedy YHWH), or servants of YHWH (2 Kings 9:7, Isaiah 54:17). Several Biblical heroes are specifically called עבד ('ebed): Abraham (Genesis 26:24), Isaac (Genesis 24:14), Jacob (Ezekiel 28:26), Moses (Exodus 14:31, Joshua 18:7, 1 Kings 8:53). And sometimes a whole group is deemed such: prophets (2 Kings 9:7, Zechariah 1:6), or the whole of Israel as the עבד ('ebed) of YHWH (Psalm 136:22, Isaiah 41:8, Jeremiah 30:10).

 * The word עבד ('ebed) occurs suffixed with the ך (kaph), meaning 'your' in the "polite address of equals or superiors" (as BDB Theological Dictionary puts it): עבדך ('ebedek), meaning literally your servant (Genesis 18:3, 1 Samuel 20:7, 2 Kings 8:13). This phrase may seem a bit overly humble but it's in fact precisely the same thing as saying "yours truly" or "at your service". It's opposite would be אדני (adonai), meaning 'my lord'. This latter term exists in German and Dutch as the ordinary word for sir or mister (mein Herr or meneer) but the term עבדך ('ebedek) has no modern equivalent. Still, its prevalence in Hebrew texts demonstrates that עבדך ('ebedek) was simply the formal equivalent of 'I' and 'me'; a polite way of referring to oneself within a statement to someone addressed as 'sir' or 'mister'.

Other derivatives are:

1. The noun עבד ('abad) means work (Ecclesiastes 9:1 only).
2. The much more common feminine noun עבדה ('aboda), meaning labor (Exodus 1:14, 1 Chronicles 27:26) or service (Genesis 29:27, Ezra 8:20).
3. The feminine noun עבדה ('abudda), denoting the collective performance of household servants (Genesis 26:14, Job 1:3 only).
4. The feminine noun עבדות ('abdut) meaning servitude, bondage (Ezekiel 9:8, 9:9 and Nehemiah 9:17 only).
5. The masculine noun מעבד (ma'bad) meaning work (Job 34:25 only). [source]

Deuteronomy 23:15-16—Does the Mosaic Law Forbid the Return of All Runaway Slaves?

“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. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16

Three Views

1. This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel 
2. This law applies to perpetual servants/slaves within Israel 
3. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters

Pros and Cons 

Pros for [1]: This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel

a - Some think verse 16 (shall dwell with you, in your midst) indicates that a foreign servants/slaves who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie, New International Commentary on the Old Testament)

b - ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law would be distinctive (Merrill, New American Commentary, 312; Block NIV Application Commentary, 544).

c - The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign servants/slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, 245).

d - This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, 100)

Cons for [1]

a -  Israelite-born escaped servants/slaves would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.

b - Block cites not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (Block NIV Application Commentary, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.

c - The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.

d - The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but is not decisive.

Pros for  [2] This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners servants/slaves within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

Cons for  [2] 

a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves, 

b, Six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.

Pros for [3]. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters (Wright, 
New International Biblical Commentary).

a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign servants/slaves 

b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign servants/slaves is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” Deuteronomy 15:7-8  This law would put pressure on the system of servanthood/slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the servants/slaves. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.

c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery/servanthood in Israel was to be of such a nature that no servant/slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition. This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.

The decisive factor in favor of position 3 is that the law itself does not specify that it is limited to foreign servants/slaves.

Exodus 21:20-21 Beating Your Slave

Note: the English word "slave" comes from the Hebrew ebed or amah -see here for insightful details 

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21:20-21

Is the verse speaking about possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract?

Possession by ownership doesn't make sense. If the slave is his property [possession by ownership], then why is he punished if he kills his slave? [i.e. must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result]

But if this is possession by debt contract, then this does make sense. Certainly it provides no provision for killing, but the 2nd half makes sense since if a worker is out of action for 1–2 days then the owner has one less worker for that time. Any fine would be on top of the lost revenue from the non-working servant. And this seems to be an incentive not to impose corporal punishment willy-nilly, as the owner stands to lose financially.

And this makes significantly more sense when one considers the Anti-Return Law of DT 23:15-16

 
Reading the "slavery" verse with the contextual lens of indentured servitude makes considerably more sense

Note: Even a free person could be physically punished:

“If there is a dispute between men, and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight". Deuteronomy 25:1-3

Physical punishments for crimes or injuries, including floggings, branding and even mutilations, were practiced in most civilizations since ancient times.

Question: Why are you allowed to beat your slave as long as they don't die?

Based on the larger Old Testament context, it is safe to assume that slave masters were not allowed carte blanche authority to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. For instance, 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 Exodus 21, slave owners are limited in what they can do: if the master goes too far and the slave dies, the master will be punished. If the Old Testament Law is followed consistently, then the punishment for the slave owner might even include the death penalty for murder. 

Of course, if a master beats his slave and the slave is unable to work for some time, the master has punished himself by losing the work he might have received from the slave. The implication here is that it is in the master’s best interest not to be too severe. 

cod3man Defends Unsupported Presumptions, and Claims No Need to Defend the Idea that the Old Testament Condoned Chattel Slavery

Who is cod3man? A Reddit poster, and moderator of three two anti-Christian Subreddits r/DebateReligion, r/DebateAnAtheist, & r/askanatheist.  [I don't see cod3man listed as a mod for DebateReligion even though it's listed on cod3man's profile page......] 

Note: cod3man tried to preemptively bar me from critiquing his views here. Quote: you do not have my permission to reproduce my comment or any portion on your blog. 

Fortunately, there is the fair use doctrine which can be summarized as under the fair use doctrine of the US copyright statute it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes for purposes such as commentary criticism news reporting and scholarly reports [emphasis mine]. I'm clearly critiquing his comments, so I’m on the solid ground. Apparently, cod3man only wants to discuss on Reddit, where opposing views can be suppressed by downvotes.

cod3man makes this statement, "Lichtenstein is a successful country without any military spending". And this statement "Lichtenstein exists". cod3man claims that statement one needs to be defended, and the other does not. Then cod3man boldly makes this statement: we don't need to defend the Old Testament condones chattel slavery.

I'll add statement 4: the Old Testament exists since it is analogous to "Lichtenstein exists".

cod3man's logic is that statement 1 "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" needs to be defended and two "Lichtenstein exists" does not.  If that's true, then the "Old Testament condones chattel slavery" and the  does and "the Old Testament exists" does not.

Why? Because "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" is the core idea, as is Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The author is supposed to focus upon the key or fundamental idea, as it's the reason the subject matter is in discussion.  So it must be defended. 

cod3man states a premise being taken as obvious doesn't mean you can't challenge it. 

How does one do this? By critically examining the data and proposing a better explanation. Which is what I've done with all my post about the Old Testament and slavery. cod3man obviously disagrees with my conclusions, but one should argue from the data, not assert that your view is "obviously" true and needs no defense. That's irrational, unreasonable and illogical. 

So why does cod3man have a problem when I do this if the Old Testament/chattel slavery idea can be challenged? Why not argue from that data instead of asserting that it's obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery? cod3man might be correct, but that needs to be shown via the data and not just asserted

It doesn't make any sense on one hand to say it can be challenged, on the other hand say it needs no defense. If something is challenged, then there is a need for it to be defended.

cod3man it is obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery anyone who reads it plainly comes to that conclusion. 

One of the many problems is that we assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious context is what the text itself means to say. Like when critics see the word "slavery" they immediately think "chattel slavery",  but that isn't supported by the text nor the historical/social context. 

If cod3man thinks that the context shows that Channel slavery is the best understanding of the ntext, then it needs to be argued for that from the data from the start. Why go through the rigmarole of saying it's "self-evident" or "obvious" when you know you have to argue from the data?

My guess is that it's a bluff. Either critics are too indolent to do the work, or they have done the work and know the argument can't be made. So they try to bluff and bluster....

cod3man: All the scholars who study the OT say that [the OT condones chattel slavery]

First that's incorrect:

There is Paul Copan. 

There's Kushner, The d'rash commentary, edited by Harold Kushner in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary p457 -  Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.

There's this entry from 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.

I could go on, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a "count the scholars on your side, and who has the most wins" - it what's the best explanation from the data. What's the argument from the data, cod3man?

cod3man: The only people who deny it are people like you, who have strong external motivation to do so.

First, to assume that those who say the Old Testament equals chattel slavery do not have strong external motivation is simply false as everybody has biases including experts, including scholars, including atheists. They do not have some sort of innate ability that frees them from all bias.

Are we to think cod3man an avowed atheist, moderating 2 discussion boards promoting/defending atheism is not biased against God or Christianity? 

Second, it doesn't matter; it's what the data says but what we can infer as the best explanation of the data. I know that I've said this over and over, but it's true. What is the best explanation of the data

Let's look at the argument from an atheist scholar who has argued that Exodus 21:16 concerned only Hebrew slaves. Let's not assume that this expert is correct just because he's an expert. Let's examine his argument. 

Joshua Bowen wrote the book that alot of atheists and other critics reference. 

The full argument can be found here: Bowen's Argument Concerning Exodus 21:16 Examined

Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]

So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] in Ex 21:1 means that Ex 21:16 is about Hebrew slaves.

The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16. In fact, after being used in verse 1, it's not used again in all of Exodus 21.

Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.

However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] Following Bowen's logic are these speaking of a Hebrew ox and a Hebrew fire? 

This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all persons - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc

So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses.

Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever and "when a man". And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave)

Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 1, the fact they are not used elsewhere, this strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in Exodus 21.

Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population? If there are specific laws for free Hebrews concerning these matters, where are they? 

No, The best explanation is that verse 12 tacked off onto other topics that included all Hebrews.

As I said, give me an argument from the data, not what a scholar says, or what the "consensus" is

Why don't you just reply on Reddit?