Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Guest]

A debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman at College of the Holy Cross.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... script.pdf

Interesting debate, about 38 pages if you print it out.

[Guest]

Yes, that was a good debate

I agree with Craig that Ehrman's methodology excludes him from even the possibility of changing his mind. This, in my observation, is a very common mistake among many liberal scholars these days. They develop a methodology which simply can't speak to the issue (not necessarily a bad thing), but they then refuse to invite other fields as meaningful partners in discussion (which is obviously problematic). What good is being a historian if is bars you from even entertaining philosophy, theology, mathematics, etc when making conclusions? I prefer a much more holistic approach. But even granting the former approach, it seems to be the liberal scholars have narrowed their methodology far too far with an anti-supernatural bias. It would be impossible, for example, for Ehrman to believe in any miracle. One's methodology should not negate the possibilities.

[Guest]

Matt,

I did think Ehrman had a good point about miracles being rare; that's why they are callled miracles. The word miracle is badly overused for everything from the birth of a child to finding a good parking spot at the mall during the Christmas shopping season!

[Guest]

I'd agree with that. I thought both men did a good job representing their positions.

[Guest]

Hi, Matt,

This, in my observation, is a very common mistake among many liberal scholars these days. They develop a methodology which simply can't speak to the issue (not necessarily a bad thing), but they then refuse to invite other fields as meaningful partners in discussion (which is obviously problematic). What good is being a historian if is bars you from even entertaining philosophy, theology, mathematics, etc when making conclusions? I prefer a much more holistic approach. But even granting the former approach, it seems to be the liberal scholars have narrowed their methodology far too far with an anti-supernatural bias. It would be impossible, for example, for Ehrman to believe in any miracle. One's methodology should not negate the possibilities.

I would affirm the value of holistic engagement - but for what it is worth, the topic for the debate was "historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus," so it is appreciable that Ehrman clings to disciplinary parameters in light of that topic.

It seems that Craig is not a historian by discipline, whereas Ehrman takes professional historical discipline seriously, so it may be that each party entered the debate with fundamentally different notions of what the discussion really ought to involve.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Fair enough

I've always found that to be the downside to debates. Usually the 'rules' eliminate the possibility of actually addressing the most important issues.