Loading...This is just a reminder that on Saturday I’m holding a day-long (!) debate on Saturday on whether Jesus was actually raised from the dead. Tickets are still available.
Here was the original announcement, in case you’re interested.
******************************
I would like to announce a major public debate that I will be having with the well-known conservative evangelical apologist Mike Licona on the resurrection of Jesus. The title is “Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen? Two Bible Scholars Debate the Evidence.” It will be held remotely on April 9th from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 pm EST.
The debate is not directly connected with the blog but is my own thing, done in conjunction with the courses I’ve been recording for the Bart Ehrman Professional Services. There will be a charge for the event. Some of the profits will be redirected to the blog, and blog members will get a discount (see below).
If you have any interest at all, check out the video below.
And if you want to learn more or sign up, here is the link: https://www.bartehrman.com/debate/
For now: more on the debate.
If you are attentive to numbers, you will notice that this debate will be an all-day affair. Seven hours. Pray for my soul! On the upside (for you especially) there will be breaks throughout, including a lunch break.
Debates are almost always frustrating for me, for a number of reasons. One is that it is flat-out *impossible* to build a case for a position in the brief time allotted. If a debate is an hour and a half and I basically have 20 minutes to present my case, ten minutes to give a rebuttal, 20 minutes for Q&A, and then a short closing – it just isn’t enough time. This time there will be enough time to cover LOTS of ground, and I’m not expecting to be repeating myself. Mike and I have debated the topic before, but not like this.
Some of the issues that will come up:
- Did ancient people understand miracles the way we do, as events that violate laws of nature — laws that, unlike traffic laws, really cannot be broken? (Think: The laws of thermodynamics)
- If ancient people understood miracles differently, would they have seen anything inherently implausible about a resurrection? Not a Near Death Experience, but a resurrection, where a person is restored to life never to die again?
- Are the Gospel accounts of the resurrection consistent or confused?
- Are these the kinds of accounts (whatever one concludes about their consistency) that historians would typically trust – written decades later by believers who have heard stories about the event told by others who firmly believed in them?
- Are the accounts based on eyewitness testimony? If so, does that mean it can be trusted? If not, where did the information come from?
- Jesus is reported to have been seen by groups of people at once. If these were hallucinations – how does a group have a hallucination?
- If the disciples actually saw Jesus, why do so many of our sources indicate that some (many?) of them doubted? What’s to doubt, if he’s standing right in front of you?
- If Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, how can we explain the firm conviction of his followers – and then his own brother! – that they saw him alive afterward?
- Is the resurrection the sort of thing that can be proved the way, say, a scientific claim can be?
- Do historians make room for the supernatural in their attempts to reconstruct the past? If not, should we make an exception for religious events since they are by their very nature not natural?
- That is to say, if supernatural events have happened, they would be part of history, no? So shouldn’t they be susceptible to historical demonstration just like everything else in the past?
As you can see, these are different kinds of issues with wide-ranging implications, and many of them are highly significant for the study of Jesus, the New Testament, and the history of early Christianity. Mike and I disagree on all of them.
Interested in seeing us thrash it out? Here again is the link: https://www.bartehrman.com/debate/
To receive $5 off the admission prices as a Blog Member discount, use BLOG5.
Really looking forward to this! I’m on a very personal faith deconversion/ transition right now, and I don’t expect to see a more thorough treatment on the topic for many moons to come. I hope Dr Licona and you have a great time. It means a lot to me that you are both doing this. Good luck!
Will it be available to watch after the event for those who cant make it live? Also, will there be a highlights package?!
Yes, if you purchase a ticket you will be sent the recording, whether you are there or not.
● Do historians make room for the supernatural in their attempts to reconstruct the past? If not, should we make an exception for religious events since they are by their very nature not natural?
● That is to say, if supernatural events have happened, they would be part of history, no? So shouldn’t they be susceptible to historical demonstration just like everything else in the past?
These are the 2 key questions that need to be thrashed out upfront, I would say. Mike together will all Christians, believe that history can adjudicate on miracles and I have never yet seen this issue resolved from the perspective of historicity during a debate or discussion.
Surely the varies professionals bodies, associations and academics who decide what can and should be classed as historical, ave a view on this.
1. Historians never consider violations of natural law to be a probably occurence, since, well, entropy has never yet not happened. 2. Only what probably happened i the past can be shown to have probably happeed. Violations of natural law have never ever been observed to happen. So they can’t be shown to be probable. And no, there is no variation on this point among professional historians, thought Christian apologists do think otherwise.
“1. Historians never consider violations of natural law to be a probable occurrence, since, well, entropy has never yet not happened.”
I’m not sure what entropy has to do with it. I don’t know how well versed you are on the science related to this, but that may not be a route you want to drive down.
“2. Only what probably happened i the past can be shown to have probably happened. Violations of natural law have never ever been observed to happen. So they can’t be shown to be probable . . .”
But the argument is, improbable things happen and if there is a strong weight of evidence supporting it, for example direct eyewitness reports, then it should be accepted even though the cause may not be known. Now, evidence for the claims in the NT are not strong anyway (although Christians disagree with that), but the point still stands from the Christian perspective. How would a critical scholar counter that?
I think for me this holds: Just because people believe that certain things happened in the past and for whatever reasons they choose to accept, that does not mean they are doing history irrespective of what they call themselves.
1. Well, the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy within an isolated system always increases; I’m speaking in short hand. 2. Yes, if very, very strong evidence exists for an improbable thing happen (a 15 seed reaching the final-four, e.g) then that needs to be taken seriously. What the very, very strong evidence for the violation of the second law of thermodynamics being violated is an interesting question. There never has been any strong evidence for it, let alone very, very strong.
BDEhrman April 10, 2022 at 11:29 am – Reply
“1. Well, the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy within an isolated system always increases; I’m speaking in short hand.”
It’s a statistical fact that entropy within an isolated system increases as a whole as time increases, but there can be and are exceptions, most especially at quantum levels of space-time.
I agree with z8000783 that you shouldn’t needlessly risk opening a can of worms. Not that the details support miracles but that few people could explain why they don’t to anyone who doesn’t already know. 🙂
“Violations of natural law have never ever been observed to happen.” The USA military has recently released video of fighter pilots observing objects moving in ways that violate known natural law. The point here isn’t to play “gotcha” but to remind all that there is a group of debunkers who are as imprecise with their thinking as the people they’re attempting to debunk. It looks as if Bart hasn’t updated his dogma as learned from Michael Shermer, who has gone silent on UFOs since the Tic Tac video was released. As for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he has revised his required proof standard to exceed government acknowledgement and now wants an alien to have dinner with him.
And finally when it comes to probability as a tool to discern whether or not something happened at all, that we know anything about Jesus of Nazareth and his followers is as improbable as his having ever walked on water. So we know the name and details of a guy who lived more than 20 times further in the past than Harry Houdini, and yet the “experts” won’t say he was any better than Harry Houdini.
Matt2239 April 10, 2022 at 9:12 pm – Reply
“’Violations of natural law have never ever been observed to happen.’ The USA military has recently released video of fighter pilots observing objects moving in ways that violate known natural law.”
The video presentations are consistent with an unnatural movement of objects, but don’t prove that the blips are in fact objects or that the apparent motion is physical rather than illusions. Competent specialists, including skeptics, have pointed out the inconsistencies and misstatements by the authorities as well as by the wishful thinking publics.
I have a doctor friend who says “the plural of anecdote is not ‘data'”
When will the debate be available to we who won’t be watching it live? We’re looking forward to it.
All the best for the debate!
It will be sent out to everyone who has purchased a ticket; “when” will depend on how complicated it is to convert the recording. I should think withint a few days anyway.
Do you have any posts on the last 7 sayings of Jesus on the cross?
Nope, not directly. It’s a good idea though.
Really excited for this debate! The format will be a nice change from the little 2-5 minute responses to questions that never allow for anything to be thoroughly answered. This is my superbowl for the year, popcorn and beer and a day in a comfy chair!
Just wanted to say I’ve profited from all your debates, but the recent one you had with Jimmy Akin (on this topic)….absolutely fantastic. It was such a pleasure witnessing all those silly apologetics analogies get demolished.
Overall I thought the debate was really great! I must say I was disappointed Mike suggested you tried to deconvert or force doubt in your class, anyone familiar with your classes and books would know otherwise. The random “it may cost you eternity” he threw it was awkward as well, but it was great to get a new perspective and see where they are coming from.
It makes perfect sense Historians won’t accept anything that breaks natural laws, if that was the case how could you ever whiddle down the past to a likely truth when literally anything is possible?!
Looking forward to the debate. What is your view that Paul invented the resurrection perhaps following some psychological experience? His soteriology is utterly dependent on that event – no resurrection – no salvation. And he is the earliest Christian writer to mention it. None of those he cites in I Corinthians 15 have left us an attested personal account. All we have are the canonical gospel texts which all postdate Paul’s writings.
I”d say there’s no way to know what Paul saw or why he saw it; but I’m always reluctant to try to psycholanalyze someone 2000 years ago I’ve never met. (It’s hard enought to psychoanalyze my colleagues I see all the time….)
Thank you for that reply.
However, my question really pertained as to from whom the idea of a resurrected Jesus originated. As I noted Paul’s soteriology is dependent on the resurrection and without it there can be no salvation.
The glimpses we see of a [possibly Charismatic] Jew in Mark preaching in parables, healing the sick, and exorcising demons bears little relation to Paul’s “Jesus Christ, through whom all things come and through whom we exist.” and “Lord of Glory”.
I think one or two of the early followers of Jesus (Peter, Mary, maybe another) thought they saw Jesus alive again; they convinced others, who convinced others, and that was teh start of it.
Thank you once again for that prompt reply.
So in short we cannot actually know. As you have stated there is a tradition about others thinking they saw Jesus alive [not uncommon after losing someone you are love] but the earliest written source [and its soteriological implications] is from Paul.
My own view remains that he is our originator of this event. And as I very briefly commented his own ideas about Jesus are markedly different from a real Galilean Jewish goētēs preaching the End Times and the approaching kingdom of God to his fellow Jews.
Can I put in a request for the comments sections of the blog.
Bart, I never realised you couldn’t see the preceding comments when a reply is made. So when we reply to your last comment we need to copy in some of the previous conservation in order for you to know what has already been said. Naturally, that will then eat into the word limit for the rest of the comment we want to make.
So, on that basis, would it be possible to increase the word limit in replies, please?
Can’t increase the word limit — but I do see the IMMEDIATELY preceding comment you’re referring to. It’s normally pretty simply to summarize: When you say XXX, and then asking the question. That’ll almost always give me what I need.
Dr. Ehrman: I just finished listening to your debate with Mike Licona on Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen? While I thoroughly enjoyed the entire debate and learned so much, I thought your closing was extraordinary. Thank you for all that you said. Your love and care for mankind is evident in all that you say and do.
As to your opponent, I am going to maintain that “if I can’t think of something nice to say, I won’t say anything.” Having been one, I think Fundamentalists make me cranky!
Thanks!
My thanks to Drs Ehrman and Lacona for their content and disciplined endurance in the marathon debate before Easter, 2022. For me, the value of the debate reached beyond its core topic. The debate directed me to think, yet again, about the intellectual consequences of my choice of location in the evangelical/atheist spectrum, about the melting-pot of processes that construct what I deem to be real, and about the implications for personal behavior and ethics imposed by the choice of world-view. For what it is worth, I attached the following comment to the Ehrman Blog’s marketing questionnaire.
Unexpectedly, the Ehrman/Lacona debate in April,2022 turned out to become my best encapsulation, to date, of academic resources and questions about the resurrection. Living in the Australia/New Zealand time-zone, I didn’t attend the live debate, but I have studied the entire recording in fine detail, so my assessment of the debate has not been insouciantly formed. The debate’s comprehensiveness, organization, and the persistent balance between civility and passion, between reasoned evidence and conclusion made the debate a product returning excellent value for the moderate price of attendance.
Thanks!
Have just finished the 6-hour Marathon . . .
Just one point Bart, I just couldn’t believe what Mike said towards the end about what he heard from someone concerning what you say to your undergrad students at the beginning of the course. It almost amounted to slander!
Given the number of times you have told people during debates about what you say to them at the start of the semester, , this was astonishing.
Do you have any idea where that came from or was it simply the last throw of a desperate man?
Well, he heard it from this person so he believed it. What more does one need to say about the value of “eyewitness testimony”? (In a debate on whether the fact that a few people later said they saw Jesus is compelling evidence that he must have been made an immortlal being!)
Yes, of course, and no doubt you will use this in the future and rightly so.
What I don’t understand though, is why Mike would do this. We are not living in the first century when communication across space is almost non-existent. This is the Internet age where the evidence, if it exists, will be abundant and visible to all. How could he possibly think this was worth the risk bearing in mind how easy it would be to prove him wrong?
Have you spoken to him about this since making the video? I certainly feel this needs to be something he should explain and provided the evidence if he has it. Or are you happy just to let it go?
What do you think?
No, actually, I’m used to evangelical Christians saying things about me that just aren’t true. I’ve given up dealing with it. Sometimes, as with Mike, it’s my friends! Some years ago Craig Evans wrote a book (Fabricating Jesus? I can’t remember if it’s that one) where he started out, in the intro or preface, indicating that I had left the Christian faith because I learned that the manuscripts of the NT had so many variations in them. I read that and said WHAT??? Does he think I’m an idiot? I called him up and said “CRAIG! Where’d you get *that* idea???” Unfortunately, I can’t remember what he told me! 🙂 It’s easier to be pilloried than taken seriously…