Critical Paper B- KV

.docx

School

St. John's University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2200C

Subject

Arts Humanities

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfessorCrabMaster1348

Kaylee Janet Vassallo March 6 th , 2023 Theology HON 1050C Prof. John J. Fitzgerald Is There Good Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The question of whether there is good historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is a contentious one that has been debated for centuries. In their debate on this topic, William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman presented two different perspectives on this issue. Craig argued that the evidence for the resurrection is strong and compelling, while Ehrman challenged the reliability and logic of the gospel narratives and the Pauline letters, which are the primary sources for the resurrection claim (23). Craig based his argument on numerous lines of evidence, including the empty tomb, post- mortem appearances of Jesus, and the rise of Christianity in a hostile environment (5-7). He contended that the empty tomb is the most straightforward explanation for the fact that the body of Jesus was not found in the tomb, and that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples are best explained as genuine encounters with a risen Jesus. He also pointed out that the rise of Christianity in the face of persecution and opposition is strong evidence that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Ehrman, on the other hand, challenged the reliability of the gospel narratives and the Pauline letters as historical sources. He pointed out contradictions, discrepancies, and theological biases in the texts, and questioned the ability of the eyewitnesses to accurately report what

happened (8). He also emphasized the need for critical skepticism and caution in evaluating extraordinary claims, especially when they involve supernatural elements (7). One of the key issues in the debate was the role of evidence in the historical studies. Craig argued that the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection is reliable, based on their credibility as honest and sincere witnesses, their willingness to suffer for their beliefs, and their consistency in reporting the same basic facts about the resurrection (5). Ehrman, however, questioned the ability of the eyewitnesses to accurately remember and report what happened, given the human weakness and the influence of cultural and theological factors on their testimony. Another important issue was the conditions of legitimacy for evaluating the historical plausibility of the resurrection. I believe that Craig had posed the more reliable reasonings and evidence for the main question here. The only thing that was steering me away from Craig was his religion. Earman is agnostic, meaning that he doesn’t believe in God (14). It’s hard to hear someone out when there speaking on a topic that themselves don’t even have any personal knowledge of. Yet all the points he had pointed out were the most logical ones. Ehrman had made it clear that he believes there is no evidence at all pertaining to Jesus’ resurrection. This I disagree with tremendously. As a Catholic, The Holy Bible itself had enough evidence to explain and prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He mentions a lot about how scientists cannot show that miracles have happened (17). In the reading it states, “In truth, there’s no contradiction here at all because we’re talking about two different probabilities: the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge and the evidence versus the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge alone. It’s not at all surprising that the first may be very high and the second might be very low. There’s no contradiction at all. In sum, Dr. Ehrman’s fundamental argument against

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help