Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection
The case is decided
It wasCraig.
Craig effectively demonstrated that Ehrman's central objection—that historians cannot establish a miracle because miracles are inherently improbable—is fallacious, as it ignores the explanatory power of the specific evidence and the improbability of alternative naturalistic explanations. Ehrman offered only ad hoc, unevidenced natural scenarios that failed to seriously challenge Craig's positive case. Craig's arguments for the four facts were better grounded in standard historical criteria that Ehrman himself uses.
Why Craig won
- Craig's probability calculus demonstration that Ehrman's argument ignores crucial factors [2527s]
- Craig's point that Ehrman's view is self-refuting because it requires making a probability judgment about God [2836s, 4257s]
- Craig's defense of the four facts using multiple attestation and the criterion of embarrassment [282s-498s, 2960s-3082s]
- Ehrman's failure to provide a historically plausible naturalistic explanation, instead offering fanciful scenarios that Craig easily dismissed [5127s]
Where Ehrman scored
- Ehrman's detailed list of gospel inconsistencies highlighted real weaknesses in the narratives, though Craig showed they are peripheral [1755s-1846s]
- Ehrman correctly noted that Craig dodged direct answers to his three questions, suggesting some discomfort with admitting errors in the sources [5445s]
Closest callWhether the four facts are as historically certain as Craig claims, given Ehrman's plausible points about oral tradition and possible invention; Craig's use of standard criteria ultimately made the stronger case.
Crowd verdict
1 voteThe model called this for Craig. Who do you say won?
Spread the verdict
Receipts attached. The link opens at the deciding moment.
Another case?
Try the next debate.