This was the topic of a debate that took place on our campus tonight here at Midwestern.
The participants in our debate included Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman.
Mike is a New Testament historian, author, and Christian apologist. He also serves as the Apologetics director at the North American Mission Board, an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. He has written many works, including The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus and Paul meets Mohammad.
Bart is a New Testament scholar, textual critic, and an expert on early Christianity. He claims that his research demonstrates that not only was the Biblical text unintentionally altered by scribes, but sometimes was done intentionally for a variety of reasons such as to make them more uniform and bring them into conformity with changing beliefs. (source)
Interestingly enough, Erhman has appeared on The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. It is a hilarious episode and I have linked the scene with him and Colbert at the bottom of this post. Definitely worth the time to watch. Hilarity ensues.
On to my thoughts about the debate. I always appreciate how Licona presents the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He presents his case not based on biblical inerrancy, but on historical evidence and the standard discipline of history. (He is an inerrantist, which he states when he speaks.) He gave a compelling series of reasons why a historian should be able to trust the fact that Jesus did in fact have a bodily resurrection from the dead. His evidence included the fact that no other theory of what happened can adequately explain the bedrock facts. The bedrock facts that a majority of scholars can agree on are: Jesus was crucified, his disciples thought that they saw him after his death, and Paul claimed to have seen Jesus in His resurrection body as well. Simply put, no other explanation can account for these facts, besides the notion that Jesus was in fact resurrected from the dead. Of course many details followed.
Erhman began by, predictably, trying to invalidate the reliability of the Bible. When he was through with that, he began to attack Licona’s statements (as is expected in any good debate!). He began to say that Licona’s bedrock facts were weak and that many other explanations could make the evidence fit.
Regardless, the debate was lengthy and amazing to watch. I would love to put more details down, but I am very tired. Suffice it to say that to declare a winner of the debate would be tough to do, partially because Licona’s voice was going out on him from the start (hmm, I wonder why…). It was a shame that he was difficult to understand because I feel that he would have had much more to day if his throat/voice would have held out.
Last, I went to Denny’s afterward with Andrea and a couple of our friends from seminary and an old college buddy… BEN WOODS! It was good to see him again after so many months! He is at Hannibal LaGrange (spelling?) College and studying Biblical Studies. It is always good to hang out with Ben, and his friends were absolutely amazing to be around. Funny, quirky, and they laughed at my jokes, which makes them awesome in my book.
HLC…. because HLG is just ridiculous.
Toof-nasty out.
Bart Erhman on The Colbert Report
Best quote from the whole video….
Colbert: “Agnostic? Isn’t that just an atheist without balls?”
I also am currently involved in a debate on the resurrection, and have an invitation to appear on Premier Christian Radio to discuss it.
The debate is at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/
Paul, of course, believed he had gone to Heaven.
Why should we accept the word of a religious lunatic, especially as we know that early converts to Jesus-worship simply scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse.
By: Steven Carr on February 29, 2008
at 1:30 pm
‘Paul claimed to have seen Jesus in His resurrection body as well.’
No he didn’t.
In fact, even when trying to describe a resurrected body, Paul cannot find one tiny, tiny little bit of anybody’s personal experience to use.
By: Steven Carr on February 29, 2008
at 1:31 pm
I appreciate your comments, Steven.
I would love to hear about why you feel this way. Honestly, I would love to get a cup of coffee and talk to you about it, but since that’s not possible, we can continue to dialogue on here.
Again, thanks for commenting here on my humble corner of the internet.
-Ryan
By: Ryan on March 1, 2008
at 9:32 am
Feel what way?
I was simply reporting a fact that Paul does not use one bit of anybody’s personal testimony when attempting to describe what a resurrected body was like.
By: Steven Carr on March 1, 2008
at 1:15 pm
I say “feel this way” because there is clearly some reason you have chosen to attack orthodox Christian doctrine. Clearly you believe your viewpoints are intellectually, logically, or scientifically superior. Maybe you have ties to an ultra-conservative branch of Christianity that has upset you, I am not sure. I am more concerned about why it is you have taken such a strong stance against the church. It is one thing to disagree (even vehemently) with Christian doctrine, but it’s a different one to spend your own God-given energy to try to unconvince others.
Curious.
By: Ryan on March 1, 2008
at 10:28 pm
Why should people not say what is true and what is false? Why should we put up with 2,000 years of lies and deception.
I have never had ties to any branch of Christianity.
By: Steven Carr on March 2, 2008
at 3:45 am
Fair enough. It was not an answer to my question, however. What in your life has given you the desire to try to persuade committed faithful Christians from the doctrines they affirm?
Affirming what is true and what is false is a different matter, altogether. In fact, it’s a matter that I love discussing because the Truth is the Truth and it will stand, and it has stood, against all odds.
I appreciate your continued discussion.
By: Ryan on March 2, 2008
at 1:33 pm
I don’t think the issue at hand is necessarily the persuasion of the committed faithful from their beliefs which are faith based. But the fact that the faithful often make attempts to coopt legitimate academic study to suit one’s doctrinal assertions. This is what I observed when I attended this debate. Licona paid lip service to a number of principles designed to make himself sound objective in his assessment of the evidence/lack of evidence, but in the end he relied heavily on his faith and the faith of others as ‘proof’ for the resurrection.
I think it’s important to note that there is no requirement in Christian faith that says ‘If the bodily resurrection of Christ happened, then it MUST be proveable with historical evidence’. I think Ehrman is absolutely correct in his assessment of the objective historical evidence, along with his incorporation of our modern understanding of human psychology and phenomenological experience. To claim my own or any one else’s subjective experience as historical evidence is a misnomer, since such experiences can not necessarily be proven. Licona relies on the subjective experiences of Paul and Jesus’ other followers as proof of the resurrection. When in fact, the only thing that they are proof of is that these people had subjective experiences. Does the fact that there is no historical evidence of the resurrection mean it did not happen. Absolutely not, and Ehrman was very clear and deliberate in pointing this out.
Licona’s perspective in this debate is much like that of believers who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. While Darwinian evolution (like any scientific theory) does not yet fully explain every single fact about our biological history, it does provide a framework for understanding, and is capable of generating testable scientific hypotheses about those things that we do not yet fully understand. As such, we have a much greater understanding of our and other species biological history. Science as a discipline holds to certain standards of practice that provide us with an ability to understand the natural world around us. Since many people of faith recognize that our understanding of the natural world has some implications regarding a reading of certain portions fo the bible as literal history, they are faced with the necessity to change their doctrinal assertions, or to ignore scientific standards. They then start bending the rules of scientific inquiry in order to state that science does in fact support their doctrinal assertions. This is how we end up with faith based pseudo science such as ‘Intelligent Design,’ which has absolutely no scientific basis, but rather a theological basis. Problem is, that to bend the rules of a particular discipline simply to fit one’s faith, makes that discipline useless as something distinct from theology. It thus loses it’s capacity to explain with any modicum of objectivity, and instead simply becomes an opinion.
I do believe that when presented with contrary evidence, people of faith must be logical and flexible enough to acknowledge the limitations of their theological understanding. A prime example is the traditional religious understanding of the Earth’s age to be 6 to 10 thousand years, when the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is much much older than that and that life has been on this earth for much much longer than that (anyone with doubts should consider where the oil used to fuel their cars or the diamonds on their wives fingers came from). At times, this may even require a reworking of certain doctrinal assertions in order to accomodate observed fact. There is nothing within the Christian faith tradition that suggests the Bible need be literal history in order to it’s theological implications to be true. Finally, when a particular discipline doesn’t provide objective evidence to support their faith claims (such as those discussed in the Licona/Ehrman debate), they should simply say, “well my belief is based on faith, rather than objective facts, yet if objective facts are ultimately produced that disprove my belief, then I need to undertand that theological assertion in a different way (i.e., figuratively rather than literally, or spiritually rather than physically).
By: Aaron on March 4, 2008
at 1:38 pm
Wow. That’s a heck of a comment. That’s more like a thesis. I appreciate your comments, however long they are!
I do disagree however that the committed faithful should have to understand their theological convictions in a different way because science suggests otherwise. They wouldn’t be faithful at all if they changed positions on theology with the ebb and flow of science.
Committed faithful use the Bible to correct theology, not science. To suggest that science should correct theology, or Scripture, is to ask the faithful to STOP being faithful.
Christians share their faith because we believe those who do not put faith in Christ are separated from God eternally. My question is, what motivation do people have for trying to unconvince the committed? Why journey to correct what you see as an ignorant, unscientific viewpoint? Again, to ask Christians to let science correct their faith or theological assertions is asking them to discount their faith, since their faith is what produced the assertions.
I don’t mean to sound like a closed-minded evangelical, as I wrestle with issues in my own mind when science and Scripture seem to crash. Example: in Joshua, God makes the sun stand still. Science says no way, but is the God I believe in powerful enough to do this? Of course! This is a faith standpoint. If I allow science to “correct” this standpoint, I have to discount the notion that God did that. To do this is to deny his omnipotence, and to deny his omnipotence is to put faith in a god other than the God of scripture.
By: Ryan on March 10, 2008
at 3:23 pm
My point is that while the faithful can and should maintain their faith, many of the doctrinal assertions that are made are not essential to the faith. I think we can all agree that there is an objective reality, and that from time to time we can know certain things about that objective reality. There was a time when christian theology required belief in a flat earth. This belief needed to change in the face of indisputable facts. The reason for correcting theological assertiona that are not reflective of objective reality is because an understanding of the facts requires such a change, or else we’re living in a fantasyland.
I’m not telling you not to have faith. matter of fact, I for one have my own beliefs that are faith based. What I’m telling you is that a true scholar and theologian must not make a mockery of theology by ignoring objective reality. There is value in knowing objective reality (i.e., correcting beliefs that aren’t consistent with reality) wherever we are able to, this has allowed humanity to accomplish many great things in medicine, transportation, communication, physics, and will hopefully enable us to continue to improve our lives and the lives of others around the world. However, to change the rules of how we define historic or scientific evidence simply to accomodate certain theological assertions (not faith but those things tangential to faith), makes it impossible to discover anything about objective reality, thus sending humanity back into the dark ages. To hold firm to theological assertions that are not consistent with reality would be tantamount to saying, “I believe the earth is flat, despite the fact that we know otherwise”. I also want to reiterate that there is nothing in christian faith requiring it to be proveable through any academic discipline. This is why it is faith rather than science, history, psychology, or math.
Returning to the licona ehrman debate; licona’s ‘historic’ evidence relies on the fact that people at various points (i.e., the disciples, Paul) in time had faith that they encountered jesus after his death. Ehrman’s assertion that a person’s faith is not evidence is valid since at this point in time, there is no historical evidence that the resurrection happened.
By: Aaron on March 11, 2008
at 8:37 am
The MP3 audio of this debate can be found Here.
By: Brian on June 22, 2008
at 3:00 pm