Answering Bart D. Ehrman's Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus

The Case Against the Resurrection: Bart D. Ehrman's Objections

Introduction to Bart D. Ehrman

• Bart D. Ehrman is a prominent New Testament scholar and critic of the resurrection of Jesus, having transitioned from evangelical beliefs to skepticism over the years.

• He has extensively debated and written on the resurrection, particularly in his book "How Jesus Became God."

Three Basic Objections to the Resurrection

• Ehrman's objections can be summarized into three main points:

1. The resurrection cannot be established through historical methods.

2. Gospel accounts of the resurrection are too contradictory to be reliable.

3. There was likely no empty tomb since Jesus was probably not buried in one.

Historical Method and Miracles

• Ehrman argues that miracles like the resurrection fall outside what history can establish, stating that historians cannot prove or disprove such events.

• He emphasizes that historians must avoid presuppositions about miracles when conducting historical investigations.

Presuppositions in Historical Investigation

• Historians have specific presuppositions that guide their work; however, some beliefs (like those regarding Christian miracles) are not widely shared and thus cannot form a basis for historical conclusions.

• This leads to a dilemma where historians must suppress personal beliefs about miracles while investigating history.

Challenges to Ehrman's Criteria

• The requirement for widely accepted presuppositions raises questions about how progress can be made in historical inquiry if all historians must conform to common beliefs.

• Critics argue that one does not need theological presuppositions to conclude that a miracle occurred; rather, they should assess evidence based on historical analysis alone.

Conclusion on Historical Evidence and Theology

• Apologists assert that the resurrection is best explained by examining historical evidence without needing prior theological assumptions.

• The argument against using purely historical methods suggests it is inadequate for establishing Christianity's truth without acknowledging a supernatural context or being aware of God's existence first.

The Relationship Between God's Existence and Miracles

The Necessity of God's Existence for Miracles

• Gistler posits that God must exist for miracles to be possible, suggesting a need to establish God's existence before affirming any miracle.

• The argument is critiqued; one does not need to know God exists to recognize the possibility of miracles.

• As long as God's existence isn't disproven, miracles remain epistemically possible; if God might exist, He could perform miracles.

Inferring Divine Causation from Events

• There is no logical barrier preventing us from inferring divine causation for events deemed miraculous without presupposing God's existence.

• Robert Lmer argues that while labeling an event as a miracle implies belief in God, it doesn't negate the event's role as evidence for His existence.

Historical Investigation and Theological Implications

• A corpse best explained by murder can still serve as evidence of a murderer; similarly, a miracle can provide evidence for God despite requiring belief in Him.

• Mike Lakona emphasizes that historical conclusions should not exclude theological implications when investigating events like Jesus's resurrection.

Philosophical Arguments vs. Historical Investigations

• Even if historians avoid discussing miracles, philosophical arguments can still utilize historical data to support claims about events like the resurrection.

• The debate over whether historians can investigate miracles is seen as semantic; regardless of definitions, miraculous investigations are valid.

Establishing Historical Facts Without Divine Causality

• Historians may conclude on events without determining their causes; they can assert what happened without explaining how or why it occurred.

• Man acknowledges it's theoretically possible to argue Jesus was seen alive post-crucifixion without invoking divine intervention.

Contradictions in Gospel Accounts

Challenges with Gospel Narratives

• Man raises concerns about contradictions within gospel accounts regarding Jesus's resurrection, questioning their reliability as historical sources.

• These narratives were written decades after the events by authors who were not eyewitnesses and lived in different contexts.

Examining Discrepancies in Gospel Resurrection Narratives

Introduction to Contradictions

• The gospels exhibit discrepancies, particularly in their resurrection narratives, which raises questions about their reliability.

• A methodological point is introduced: contradictions in peripheral details can support the independence of accounts and enhance confidence in the core events they agree upon.

Historiographical Considerations

• Inconsistencies in minor details do not undermine the truth of significant historical events; this principle applies to gospel narratives as well.

• Historical examples illustrate that differing accounts (e.g., Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War, reports on the Great Fire of Rome, Titanic survivors' testimonies, and JFK's assassination) do not negate the acceptance of core facts.

Analyzing Specific Examples of Discrepancies

• The speaker challenges claims that resurrection narratives are contradictory by examining specific examples provided by critics.

• Questions raised include who visited the tomb first, whether the stone was rolled away prior to arrival, and what messages were conveyed at the tomb.

Addressing Claims of Incompatibility

• For a contradiction to exist, two mutually exclusive propositions must be asserted. The speaker argues that many alleged contradictions may not actually be incompatible.

• Regarding how many women went to the tomb: none of the gospels claim to provide a complete list; thus, no contradiction arises from varying accounts.

Clarifying Details About Events at the Tomb

• Matthew’s account suggests an angel rolled away the stone as women arrived. However, interpretations vary based on verb tense and context.

• The narrative indicates background events (like an earthquake), suggesting that while it appears women witnessed these actions, it does not definitively state they did so.

Resurrection Accounts in the Gospels

The Timing of the Earthquake and Arrival of Women

• The NASB translation indicates that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived at the tomb after a severe earthquake, which was caused by an angel rolling away the stone. This suggests a sequence where the earthquake occurred before their arrival.

• John Wenham argues that while it may seem like the earthquake happened after the women arrived, deeper analysis shows Matthew likely intended readers to understand that soldiers left before they got there. This avoids an incongruous scene with guards lying prostrate as women approach.

• It is proposed that Matthew's account could be interpreted to mean that a great earthquake had already occurred prior to any women's arrival, indicating terrified guards had fled by then.

Descriptions of Angels at the Tomb

• The gospels do not provide a complete list of angels present; however, Mark and Luke describe them as appearing as men, consistent with ancient Jewish depictions of angels wearing white robes. This aligns with traditional representations rather than fantastical imagery.

• There is no contradiction in mentioning one or two angels across different accounts; if two were present, one could still be mentioned without negating others' existence. Critics often overlook this common-sense interpretation when analyzing gospel accounts.

Messages Delivered by Angels

• The angels’ messages to women may have included both reminders about Jesus meeting them in Galilee and instructions to remember his words there; differences in accounts do not imply contradictions but rather complementary narratives.

Women's Communication with Disciples

• The narrative suggests that women did inform disciples about their experiences at the tomb despite Mark’s mention of them saying nothing initially—this can be understood contextually as referring only to their silence on their way back from the tomb.

• Similar instances in scripture support this interpretation: commands given by angels or Jesus often pertain specifically to immediate contexts (e.g., telling someone nothing until reaching another location). Thus, it is plausible they communicated once they reached their destination.

Locations of Jesus' Appearances

• Evidence suggests Jesus appeared to his disciples both in Jerusalem and Galilee; Luke notes disbelief among disciples until his appearance in Jerusalem following reports from women, while Matthew does not detail events between these occurrences but implies continuity in narrative flow without contradiction.

• Travel patterns for ancient Jewish pilgrims indicate it was typical for them to journey from Jerusalem back to Galilee during significant religious observances like Passover, supporting this understanding of sequential appearances across locations.

The Movements of the Disciples After the Resurrection

Appearances in Galilee and Jerusalem

• The disciples returned to their hometowns, specifically Galilee, for about 40 days before returning to Jerusalem for Pentecost. This suggests that there were appearances of Jesus in both locations.

• The movements of the disciples align with known pilgrimage patterns to Jerusalem during this period, supporting a historically plausible reconstruction of events based on a consistent reading of the Gospels.

Command to Stay in Jerusalem

• A challenge arises regarding Jesus' command for disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit, which some argue prevents them from leaving for Galilee.

• The command implies they should not begin spreading the gospel until receiving the Holy Spirit but does not prohibit brief departures from Jerusalem.

Contextual Interpretation

• Luke's narrative shows that Jesus took his disciples out of Jerusalem into Bethany for his ascension, indicating that leaving was permissible.

• A literal interpretation would suggest a contradiction since it would imply breaking Jesus' command just one verse later; however, a contextual reading resolves this issue.

Timing of Events

• There is speculation that Jesus’ words commanding them to stay may have been spoken 40 days after Easter rather than on Easter itself, allowing for earlier appearances in Galilee.

• Luke’s account indicates an ascension occurring 40 days post-resurrection, suggesting discrepancies in timing within his narrative.

Reconciling Apparent Conflicts

• The narratives can be read as complementary rather than conflicting; differences are minor and do not undermine core beliefs.

• Pearson concludes that while some may find these solutions unsatisfactory, they demonstrate that apparent conflicts are reconcilable and represent differences rather than contradictions.

The Nature of Belief in the Resurrection

Visionary Experiences vs. Empty Tomb

• Man argues that belief among early disciples stemmed solely from visionary experiences rather than an empty tomb or physical evidence.

• He contends that visions alone convinced them of Jesus' resurrection and dismisses claims linking faith to an empty tomb discovery.

Doubts About Burial Practices

• Man questions the likelihood of a proper burial for crucifixion victims due to historical practices where bodies were often left unburied or disposed of improperly.

Common Grave Practices

• Victims were typically left on crosses or thrown into mass graves; thus, he finds it improbable that Jesus received any dignified burial treatment given societal norms at the time.

This structured summary captures key discussions and insights from the transcript while providing timestamps for easy reference.

Discussion on Pilate's Actions Regarding Jesus' Burial

Examination of Pilate's Character and Practices

• Pilate is portrayed as a ruler unlikely to break tradition for a Jewish council request regarding burial practices. This raises questions about the credibility of arguments against the empty tomb narrative.

• Scholar Craig Evans argues that there is uncertainty surrounding typical Roman practices for crucified victims, suggesting that assumptions made by critics may be overstated. He states, "In fact, we are not sure how normal leaving the corpse on the cross unburied was in the Roman Empire."

• The argument against mass graves in Israel is highlighted; evidence suggests this practice was more Roman than Jewish, contradicting claims made by critics. There are no archaeological or literary references supporting mass graves among Jews.

Historical Context and Evidence

• Evans provides examples of known crucifixion victims who received proper burials, indicating that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial have historical precedent and should not be dismissed outright.

• A passage from Josephus illustrates that Romans sometimes allowed bodies to be taken down for burial, countering claims that such actions were uncommon or prohibited under certain circumstances. Crucifixion outside Jerusalem had different implications due to local customs and sensitivities.

Insights from Historical Texts

• Josephus mentions that even those sentenced to crucifixion were typically buried before sunset during peacetime, reinforcing Jewish customs around burial rights regardless of one's status as a criminal or victim of execution. This supports the notion that Jesus' burial aligns with established practices at the time.

• Archaeological findings bolster these claims; an ossuary containing bones dated to Pilate’s governorship shows evidence of crucifixion followed by respectful burial, challenging assertions about Pilate's refusal to allow such practices for Jesus. The discovery emphasizes precedents for allowing burials post-crucifixion in Judea during this period.

Evidence of Jesus's Burial

Archaeological Findings

• Skeletal remains were found with an iron spike in the heel bone, indicating a crucifixion. This suggests that burial was permitted for victims of crucifixion.

• The ossuary containing these remains dates to the late AD 20s, coinciding with Pilate's governorship, implying he allowed this individual's burial after crucifixion.

Historical Context and Arguments

• Critics often overlook archaeological evidence when arguing against Jesus's burial, despite it contradicting their claims about early creeds and Gospel reliability.

• General arguments against the burial of crucifixion victims can be overridden by specific evidence supporting atypical cases like Jesus’s.

Gospel Consistency

• All four Gospels agree on Jesus being buried in a tomb, which strengthens their credibility regarding this event.

• Discrepancies in resurrection narratives are often cited as evidence against trustworthiness; however, agreement on the burial should indicate reliability.

Testimony of Women

• Jake O'Connell notes that all four Gospels attest to the empty tomb, suggesting multiple independent sources despite potential overlaps.

• William Lane Craig argues that women being first witnesses is significant since their testimony was not valued in Jewish society, making it unlikely they would be invented as such.

Implications of Women's Testimony

• The inclusion of women discovering the empty tomb supports its historicity; it seems implausible for early Christians to fabricate this narrative if it undermined male disciples’ reputations.

• While some argue overemphasis on women's roles exists among apologists, their presence still provides evidential significance regarding the empty tomb.

Conclusion on Burial Evidence

• The argument that victims of crucifixion could not be buried is countered by historical precedents and specific evidence supporting Jesus’s burial.

• Bart Ehrman's three-point case against believing in resurrection based on historical evidence has been examined and found lacking due to overwhelming counter-evidence favoring Jesus's burial.

Resurrection Narratives: Analyzing Conflicts and Harmonizations

Examination of Resurrection Narratives

• The speaker argues that the perceived conflicts in resurrection narratives have been overstated, suggesting that there are plausible harmonizations for each case.

• Emphasis is placed on the strength of the arguments against the historicity of the empty tomb, indicating that these arguments are not very robust.

• The analysis aims to demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the resurrection accounts rather than accepting them as contradictory.

• The discussion highlights the importance of context and interpretation when evaluating historical texts related to religious events.

• Overall, the speaker seeks to provide a defense for the credibility of resurrection narratives by addressing common objections.