Craig, Ehrman; Debate Historical Evidence For Resurrection- A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman.pdf

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman

College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts

March 28, 2006

Introduction

Students, faculty, and staff, and guests from the Worcester-area community, I am delighted to

welcome you to the Hogan Campus Center at the College of the Holy Cross. My name is

Charles Anderton and I am a professor of economics here at Holy Cross. On behalf of the

sponsoring organizations – the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture and the Campus Christian

Fellowship – I warmly welcome you to this evening’s debate. The question before us tonight is

one of enduring interest for Christians and many non-Christians: Is there historical evidence for

the resurrection of Jesus? Supporting the affirmative position will be Dr. William Lane Craig,

Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

Supporting the opposing position will be Dr. Bart Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished

Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill.

During the debate, I ask that you respectfully consider the viewpoints of the debaters. Please

refrain from any applause, comments, or actions of support or criticism. A question-and-answer

session will follow the formal part of the program and provide an opportunity for interaction

between the debaters and the audience. Please note that the debate and the question and answer

session will be audio- and video-taped. I also ask that you please turn off your cell phones.

The moderator for this evening’s debate is Dr. William Shea, Director of the Center for Religion,

Ethics and Culture here at Holy Cross. Dr. Shea received his Ph.D. in 1973 from the Columbia

University School of Philosophy. He has taught at Catholic University of America, the

University of South Florida, and Saint Louis University. He has also served as president of the

College Theology Society. Dr. Shea has published more than 50 essays and articles in scholarly

journals and he has written and edited numerous books including: Naturalism and the

Supernatural ; The Struggle Over the Past: Religious Fundamentalism in the Modern World ;

Knowledge and Belief in America: Enlightenment Traditions and Modern Religious Thought ;

Trying Times: Essays on Catholic Higher Education in the 20th Century ; and most recently his

book, The Lion and the Lamb: Evangelicals and Catholics in America . Please welcome Dr.

William Shea.

Moderator’s Remarks

Good evening. Debate is an ancient form of discourse that combines elements of information,

education, hoped-for conversion, and entertainment. The Greek philosophers, the “sophists,”

were accomplished at debate, and the Platonic dialogues and Aristotelian dialectics were refined

literary forms of debate. The Christians took over the literary form of debate and debated

philosophical and theological issues without end. The medieval universities were crowded with

students and professors who wanted to argue. Some medieval Christians thought that if only they

could best spokespersons from the Jewish community in debate, that they would convert the

masses of Jews to the Christian Gospel. At one famous debate in 13 th century Spain, a

Dominican friar challenged a noted Rabbi to debate whether or not Jesus was the messiah. The

Rabbi hesitated to debate, knowing that if he won the debate by giving good reasons why Jesus

was NOT the messiah, he and his fellow Jews would lose anyway, and that is exactly what

happened: the Rabbi won the debate, the Friar lost, and Christians burned Jewish homes and

businesses. I hope that after tonight’s debate none of you will burn down Talbot Divinity School

or the University of North Carolina.

My personal favorite debate took place in Cincinnati in 1834 when Alexander Campbell, the

founder of the Protestant denomination The Disciples of Christ, debated the Catholic bishop of

Cincinnati, John Purcell, on the question whether the Catholic Church was the anti-Christ and the

Beast from the Sea. That debate lasted for six days, and took six hours each day and was printed

in a volume covering 500 pages of closely printed text. Both of those men lived many years and

neither one of them ever stopped talking. You are safe tonight, I hasten to add, because we are

working tonight under very tight talk-guidelines. And here they are:

Professor Victor Matheson will time the speakers by holding up cards.

Each speaker will make a 20 minute opening statement

Each speaker gets 12 minutes for a first rebuttal.

Each speaker gets an 8 minute second rebuttal.

Each speaker draws a conclusion in 5 minutes.

Then you may applaud – and not before.

You may then ask questions of each speaker, for a total of 30 minutes.

We may then applaud again.

Dr. Anderton will make a final statement.

We applaud again, and then go to our homes peacefully, burning nothing on the way.

The two speakers do not know one another except by name and reputation. They have not

practiced with one another. This is a serious argument; it is not a meeting of the World Wrestling

Federation. They are debating a serious question, namely, just what kind of literature are the

New Testament books and to what uses can they be put? They are both well established scholars,

authors and speakers.

William Lane Craig has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a

doctorate in theology from the University of Munich. He studied at the Catholic University of

Louvain for seven years. He has been research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of

Theology for the past ten years. He has written and edited over thirty books, including one titled

Assessing the NT Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus , and two volumes of

previous debates, one with Gerd Lüdemann of Göttingen University in Germany and one with

John Dominic Crossan of DePaul University.

Bart Ehrman is James Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of

North Carolina. He received his doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1985, and he

has been at North Carolina since 1988. He has written 19 books, of which my favorites are his

introductions to the New Testament and early Christian Literature, and his recent book on the

DaVinci Code.

Dr. Craig will make the first statement, followed by Dr. Ehrman.

Dr. Craig’s Opening Statement

Good evening! I want to say how grateful I am for the invitation to participate in tonight’s

debate. I’ve really been looking forward to discussing the issues with Dr. Ehrman this evening.

In preparing for this debate, I had quite a surprise. I was amazed to discover how much our life

stories are alike: as slightly marginalized teenage boys with some passing acquaintance with

Christianity, both of our lives were turned upside down when at the age of 15 or 16 we each

experienced a spiritual rebirth through personal faith in Christ. Eager to serve him, we both

attended the same college in Illinois, Wheaton College, where we both even studied Greek under

the same professor. After graduation we both went on to pursue doctoral studies.

Thereafter our paths radically diverged. I received a fellowship from the German government to

study the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Ferdinand Hahn

at the University of Munich and at Cambridge University. As a result of my studies, I became

even more convinced of the historical credibility of that event. Of course, ever since my

conversion, I believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of my personal experience, and I

still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that

Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive. But

as a result of my studies, I came to see that a remarkably good case can be made for Jesus’

resurrection historically as well, and I hope to show tonight that the resurrection of Jesus is the

best explanation of certain well-established facts about Jesus.

Sadly, Dr. Ehrman came to radically different conclusions as a result of his studies. In his most

recent book he poignantly describes how he came to lose his teenage faith. I’m not sure, based

on Dr. Ehrman’s writings, whether he still believes in Jesus’ resurrection or not. He never denies

it. But he does deny that there can be historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He maintains

that there cannot be historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Now this is a very bold claim,

and so naturally I was interested to see what argument he would offer for its justification. I was

stunned to discover that the philosophical argument he gives for this claim is an old argument

against the identification of miracles which I had studied during my doctoral research and which

is regarded by most philosophers today as demonstrably fallacious. So as not to steal Dr.

Ehrman’s thunder, I’ll wait until he’s presented his argument before I show where the fallacy

lies.

For now, I want to sketch briefly how a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection might look. In

constructing a case for Jesus’ resurrection, it’s important to distinguish between the evidence and

the best explanation of that evidence. This distinction is important because in this case the

evidence is relatively uncontroversial. As we’ll see, it’s agreed to by most scholars. On the other

hand, the explanation of that evidence is controversial. That the resurrection is the best

explanation is a matter of controversy. Now although Dr. Ehrman says that there cannot be any

historical evidence for the resurrection, we’ll see that what he really means is that the

resurrection cannot be the best explanation of that evidence, not that there is no evidence.

That leads me, then, to my first major contention, namely:

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical

hypothesis :

o Jesus’ burial

o the discovery of his empty tomb

o his post-mortem appearances

o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Now, let’s look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely

accepted by historians today.

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.

We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been

collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial

account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a

very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator

Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an

extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’

crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind

Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter.

Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some

of which are extraordinarily early.

2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely

to be a Christian invention.

There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian

eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament

scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost

inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is

right by Jesus. 1

1 Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1994),

2: 1240-1.

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph

of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the

burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” 2

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of

his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to

the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent

sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles

(2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4).

Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the

Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a

Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the

discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male

disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than

men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the

chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for

them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an

Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the

biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” 3

Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and

groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such

appearances occurred.

2 John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.

3 Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien – Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-50.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: