Bart Ehrman Responds to William Lane Craig on the Resurrection

- SPECIAL THANKS

As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:

Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf

- CONNECT

SOCIAL LINKS:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

- CONTACT

Or send me something:

Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND

------------------------------------------

[johnparsons]

One guy saying 500 people saw something is exactly equal to one guy saying he saw something.

[IanM-idor]

Elvis Presley died and many, many people claim to have seen him since

[tensecondbuickgn]

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled - Mark Twain

[markevans]

I was a bit disappointed with the repeated “groups of people” seeing the resurrected Jesus. There are claims that groups of people saw him. Along with claims of all sorts of zombies wondering about. But no one from those groups of people wrote it down? Seems like something that would leave more of an impression on a community.

[oneilximon]

I’m from Nigeria, and last night, my Uncle was talking about dead bodies who get possessed by spirits and then move to another town to start a new family until someone living in that town recognizes them, and then they disappear to another city to repeat the cycle. As an atheist I find this laughable, but the man and many others believe this nonsense.

So I think when Alex talks about a man walking in, touching and interacting with people after death, it’s not really something new to my hearing.. we hear this nonsense all the time.

[AndrewDavidWright]

Even though I’m a believer, I absolutely appreciate this engaging discussion. Any believer or non-believer should engage this video or others like it. One should always allow themselves to be challenged.

[oldmanfran]

One of the best Devil's Advocate you could have asked for. No strawmaning the position and letting the arguments speak for themselves. Brilliant

[lonzoformvp]

When I re-read the gospels I was surprised with how simple Mark's account was. It's so brief and I didn't get any idea from it that Pilate was somehow enthralled by Jesus like he was in John

[BassStevie]

Such a great discussion. Alex you do a brilliant job of taking the positive case.

[jackiemontgomery]

Here's the TLDR version for the Resurrection being a legend.

1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7.

2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection _narrative_ existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8.

3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17.

4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven!

5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story.

Now for the longer version. Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend? The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows:

- Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

- Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. There is no evidence an appearance _narrative_ existed at this point.

- Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details.

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

- Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated.

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

- John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations for invention.

Even if you dispute the dating of the sources, you still have to reconcile the mass of differences, contradictions and explain why we should believe this is reliable eyewitness testimony when it doesn't look like that at all.

If you want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then you should start by providing other examples from multiple authors describing the same event from history that:

1. All diverge in fantastic detail like the gospels do.

and

2. Scholars still regard them to be reliable historical documents.

I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that look like the gospels do will either be legends themselves or their testimony too questionable to be considered reliable.

[boxingjerapah]

It's incredible that we are still talking about ancient myths today as though they might be real.
People thought they saw Elvis after he died too. Can we just grow up as a species? Please.

[siddave]

apparently the gospel authors also knew the kind of dreams pilate’s wife used to have…

[Petticca]

The fact is, these are in no way well established facts.

And somehow we have grown adults, educated people, arguing about the 'undeniably' history, of an _obvious_ fiction, "Mark".

The fact that at least two more writers, "Matthew" and "Luke", came along later and added even more fantastical elements, to the story, which actually contradict each other and create an origin story that can not be reconciled with the things we do know about historical goings on at the time, push this entire concept of arguing about some 'well established' "facts" into purely farcical territory.

[stephenpappanastos]

I love Alex o Connor. He challenges the atheists the way atheists expect Christian’s to be questioned. Good stuff

[BarelloSmith]

I am no Christian so I don't have a horse in the race, but it surprises me that he didn't bring up the fact, that one of the only physical evidences of a crucifixion we have at all, is a nail in a heel bone found in a TOMB in what is now Israel from around the time Jesus supposedly lived. So apparently at least one person was burried there after he was crucified, which means that there is very good reason to believe that he wasn't the only one.

[tonyburton]

Alex, watched you play the most polite devil's advocate in this whole series. 👍

[chrisdsouza]

There is no combination more exquisite than Ehrman as interviewed and O'Connor as interviewer ❤

[jamespeterson]

I love Bart Ehrman's ability to challenge ideas that are considered true by association. Even Alex seem to fall into the trap of agreeing that Jesus was crucified then accepting narrative of things like the burial in a tomb. It's such an important, but difficult, way to think to have to examine each part of a statement as its own factual claim and not one combined fact.

[RojirigoD]

I remember reading books in the library about the cases of vampires in Eastern Europe, and testimonies from people who had recently lost their relatives saying that they appeared to them after death and said affectionate things to them (people they knew all their lives) and the sadness of losing them added to anemia or other diseases seemed to be an explanation of why this type of hallucinations. Dead mothers, brothers, husbands appeared after they were dead, then they got sick. When they commented on that, it was believed that the hallucinations were vampires and they got sick because the vampires were making them sick. Very superstitious peoples performed exorcisms, decapitated corpses, buried them upside down, among others to avoid cases of vampirism.
I remember reading the translation of a letter from the Catholic Church complaining that superstitious ignoramuses decapitated and desecrated corpses for this type of cases.

[mtken]

Glad to see how Alex's not in the echo-chamber.
Also interesting to see how two skeptics go on a productive interview without being too skeptical about everything.