Critical Paper B- KV
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
St. John's University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2200C
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ProfessorCrabMaster1348
Kaylee Janet Vassallo
March 6
th
, 2023
Theology HON 1050C
Prof. John J. Fitzgerald
Is There Good Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
The question of whether there is good historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is a
contentious one that has been debated for centuries. In their debate on this topic, William Lane
Craig and Bart D. Ehrman presented two different perspectives on this issue. Craig argued that
the evidence for the resurrection is strong and compelling, while Ehrman challenged the
reliability and logic of the gospel narratives and the Pauline letters, which are the primary
sources for the resurrection claim (23).
Craig based his argument on numerous lines of evidence, including the empty tomb, post-
mortem appearances of Jesus, and the rise of Christianity in a hostile environment (5-7). He
contended that the empty tomb is the most straightforward explanation for the fact that the body
of Jesus was not found in the tomb, and that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his
disciples are best explained as genuine encounters with a risen Jesus. He also pointed out that the
rise of Christianity in the face of persecution and opposition is strong evidence that the disciples
genuinely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Ehrman, on the other hand, challenged the reliability of the gospel narratives and the
Pauline letters as historical sources. He pointed out contradictions, discrepancies, and theological
biases in the texts, and questioned the ability of the eyewitnesses to accurately report what
happened (8). He also emphasized the need for critical skepticism and caution in evaluating
extraordinary claims, especially when they involve supernatural elements (7).
One of the key issues in the debate was the role of evidence in the historical studies.
Craig argued that the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection is reliable, based on their
credibility as honest and sincere witnesses, their willingness to suffer for their beliefs, and their
consistency in reporting the same basic facts about the resurrection (5). Ehrman, however,
questioned the ability of the eyewitnesses to accurately remember and report what happened,
given the human weakness and the influence of cultural and theological factors on their
testimony. Another important issue was the conditions of legitimacy for evaluating the historical
plausibility of the resurrection.
I believe that Craig had posed the more reliable reasonings and evidence for the main
question here. The only thing that was steering me away from Craig was his religion. Earman is
agnostic, meaning that he doesn’t believe in God (14). It’s hard to hear someone out when there
speaking on a topic that themselves don’t even have any personal knowledge of. Yet all the
points he had pointed out were the most logical ones. Ehrman had made it clear that he believes
there is no evidence at all pertaining to Jesus’ resurrection. This I disagree with tremendously. As
a Catholic, The Holy Bible itself had enough evidence to explain and prove the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.
He mentions a lot about how scientists cannot show that miracles have happened
(17). In the reading it states, “In truth, there’s no contradiction here at all because we’re talking
about two different probabilities:
the probability of the resurrection on the background
knowledge and the evidence versus the probability of the resurrection on the background
knowledge alone. It’s not at all surprising that the first may be very high and the second might be
very low.
There’s no contradiction at all.
In sum, Dr. Ehrman’s fundamental argument against
the resurrection hypothesis is demonstrably fallacious” (18). Ehrman’s argument was proven
false and that was a big thing that steered me more towards Craig. Everything Bart had
mentioned, besides when he said, “So if we allow for the possibility of Jesus, how about
allowing the possibility for Apollonius?” (33). This was something that questioned the way I had
thought about him at first because it is something I hadn’t even thought of myself with the
miracles and the belief in Jesus himself. Everything else Bart had mentioned had not much
explanation and he liked to rephrase certain things in a way that would cancel out the questions
he was asked, instead of providing an actual answer.
Overall, the debate showed that the question of the resurrection of Jesus is not only a
historical but also a philosophical and theological one, and that it requires a nuanced and
interdisciplinary approach to be sufficiently focused on. While both speakers acknowledged the
difficulty and doubt of the evidence, they differed in their interpretation and evaluation of it,
reflecting their different philosophical and theological perspectives. Finally, the question of the
resurrection remains a matter of faith and belief, but with William Lane Craig providing enough
explanation towards this and the reasonings, he tends to be the more superior author here against
Bart D. Ehrman. Craig used the conditions of multiple evidence, embarrassment, and reason to
argue that the resurrection account is historically credible, as it is supported by multiple
independent sources, goes against the cultural expectations of the time, and fits well with other
known facts about Jesus and his teachings. Ehrman, however, criticized these criteria as
inefficiently harsh and prone to subjective understanding, leading to his not so strong arguments
towards the amount of evidence from the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help