Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona Debate the Resurrection

On Saturday 16th April 2011 - 02:30 am, Bart D. Ehrman and Mike R. Licona join as guests with moderator Justin Brierley on radio show "Unbelievable," a weekly program aired on UK Premier Christian Radio from the London studio. The debates intentional theme was "Is There Biblical Evidence for the Resurrection?" mounted on Bart Ehrman's book "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are." Ehrman book reveals which texts were forged in the name of Jesus's disciples and considers how the deceptions of an unnamed few have prevailed for centuries. Mike Licona new book at that time of the debate was "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach", where Licona carefully applies his principles and methods to the question of Jesus' resurrection. The debate careens among different topics as the conversation escalates into scholarly challenges.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.

Michael R. Licona (Ph.D., University of Pretoria and M.A. in Religious Studies from Liberty University) is a New Testament scholar, Christian apologist and historian. He currently officiates as an associate professor in theology at Houston Baptist University. Licona is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature.

Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman, Michael R. Licona and Justin Brierley. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman, Michael R. Licona or Justin Brierley is strictly prohibited.

[endofscene]

I'd like to see Bart debate Mike (or anyone) about whether Jesus would recognise Evangelical Christianity as his own teaching :)

[davidbartig]

What? Hold up! Licona first says that people relating the Jesus story orally had a tradition of accuracy. Then he goes on to say when they finally got around to writing the story down, there was "elasticity" WTF!

[jonahconner]

150 years of scientific evidence aren't enough for them to believe in evolution, but four anonymous and contradictory gospels written decades after the events are all they need to believe in the resurrection.

[skibo]

Mike's claim on the accuracy of oral traditionmegaphone. I am African and 3 of my grand parents I got to meet, told historical stories very differently, most times only the moral take away is the same. The difference between the recitation of Torah and verbatim recitation of numerous events in the new testament is that the Torah was a book they revisited over and over again as a point of reference. They studied it for a long time before being bestowed the honor of Ben Torah. But these events like sermon on the mountain, etc happened just once. What's the chance that these different individuals will remember them verbatim? Fairly slim, and What's the chance that they all had the same take away from the same sermon? Slim. I even doubt these huge number people heard his sermon effectively with no mass communication technologies like megaphones. So no Mike.

[SERay-xhwu]

Bart's comment at 48:45 "My view is that Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize today's Evangelical Christian as a Christian. Because Evangelical Christianity is so far removed from anything Jesus ever preached." This statement is unequivocal truth! Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi statement, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” A good book that illustrates the current mindset among the spiritually meaningful but institutionally removed is written by Dan Kimball, "They Like Jesus but Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations". Although written in 2007, the book's content is still very relevant.

[darkdragonite]

“you’re doing an ad hominem argument here”

No he isn’t. lol. He’s saying the resurrection of Jesus isn’t a historical fact. It’s a matter of faith.

[pyliao]

The accuracy and precision of "oral tradition" rely on "exclusion of personal opinion and selection."

Meanwhile, the "elasticity" which Dr Licona tolerates completely contradicts the fact that personal opinion needs to be excluded in order to have an accurate oral tradition.

[oxenbarnstokkriii]

this isnt a debate... this is a world class scholar embarrassing a sunday school teacher. If you dont know who is who - thats a problem.

[jonfromtheuk]

side note : The debate topic was actually "is there GOOD evidence for the resurrection", it's a very importantly distinction, they may well be SOME evidence, found in some ancient anonymously written text written by people who's job it is to show that it happened, but that it is not contemporary, not unbiased to the subject matter, non eyewitnesses ( not that eyewitness testimony is reliable anyhow) and written by people who were not from the area or fluent in the language the stories emanated from. and written 35-60 years after the pro-ported events

48 minutes = slam dunk ( but paraphrased)
ML = The vast majority of people in the society of Biblical Literature believe my side of the story
BE = that's because the vast majority of Biblical scholars are Christian
ML - Oh just c'mon thats simply not true
BE name them 
ML - names two out of thousands of possible 
BE - eh? TWO people you have just specifically cited to bolster your point, both identify themselves as being Christian? Do you accept that?
ML - cough - they aren't real
BE- if Jesus and the disciples had a look at the average Christian they would would be horrified.
ML - squirms and tries to deflect the conversation
JB - have to take a
judge for yourselves who has the stronger argument

[bobmudge]

Practically the first thing Licona said was he wants to prove the resurrection. That’s not how the process is supposed to work.

[mkprr]

Interesting discussion but I wish they had spent more time arguing for and against the evidence behind each position. Instead, Most of their disagreement came from how they used the word history. Bart uses it in its dictionary 1st form: "The study of past events". His complaints revolve around what is and isn't accepted in the formal study of history. Micheal seems to be using the second dictionary definition of the word: "the whole series of past events." But he only touched briefly on why the accounts could be considered reliable. They kept talking past each other because of this disagreement on how to use the word history and we didn't get much meat out of the discussion. It was still great to listen to though.

[rayjr]

My favorite part is when Licona states he’s a skeptic and second guesses everything!! Hahaha hahaha

[merlinnj]

Many people claim to have seen Elvis after his death. Does that mean he never died or rose from the dead?

[danvee]

We need Bart to keep us, believers, in line. Too much nonsense. It is back to believers to do something good for society as a whole. Embrace big causes for the needy.

[Wadidiz]

Thanks for your lectures. I really appreciate them since I finally decided to have a deeper look at my Revolutionary Kosmik Kowboy Hero from an attempted historical perspective. You and I have been on a similar journey. Great food for thought. How 'bout this: a physical resurrection without being zapped alive by God? Ye Olde Swoon Theory. I know it might be a stretch, but Jesus apparently lived a healthy life. Walked all over the place under open skies, ate a Kosher "Mediterranean" diet, got a lot of positive feedback, probably felt great--in other words, he was most likely very fit and had a lot endurance. And if he was a carpenter, that's getting paid to work out. What if he survived crucifixion? Maybe the Roman centurions--or whoever they hired--were in a hurry to join all the festivities of the largest party of the year in Jerusalem? Thought, "He looks dead to me."? (My understanding is that the crucifiers avoided arteries--maybe use tourniquets--so the crucified wouldn't bleed out quickly and thus prolong the torture and humiliation through asphyxiation.) Didn't I read somewhere that Pilate was surprised by how quickly Jesus died? Maybe in the coolness of the burial cave--or wherever--he woke up? Maybe lived a day or two longer and freaked out some disciples, thus giving credence to divinity? Such has happened before--in real-time history--right? (And not that this would make a gigantic difference...)

[Tamlinearthly]

Objection: We don't know that Paul was ever "Jesus' foe" and then converted. We just know that he said that's what happened. You don't think that maybe Paul, a born salesman if the Roman Empire ever saw one, didn't know that a dramatic conversion story like this was good for pushing his church? Just a little?

I of course can't prove that Paul lied about anything. But neither can anyone else prove that he was truthful. To believe him is a matter of faith. And faith is not evidence.

[jonfromtheuk]

tight spot for Mike at 48 mins - he gets challenged and then tries to swerve but changing the subject. Duly noted.

[davidfigueroa]

This guy Licona is an example of the flaws of an apologetic.
No consideration for historical facts.
"Elasticity" he's says.. oh man.

[vanessadesire]

Don’t people understand that miracles happen?? Geez

[wossislein]

Bart Erhman is so dishonest. Sells himslf as agnostic but infact does not give room for God's existence. When it serves him, he claims every scholar agrees with him; when cornered he claims all those scholars are Christians even if some of them aren't, strictly speaking, Christians. Debates and discussions are about winning arguments to him.