No it’s not. If you are really interested in the state of historical evidence for the resurrection see chapter 11 of The Christian Delusion.

Please keep your remarks from now on relevant to the topic of the blog. And respond to things I’ve actually said. Unsourced and unargued assertions that ignore everything I’ve already said on the subject are in violation of my comments policy.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most tested hypothesis in history.

You obviously don’t know much about historical scholarship. Historians concede different possibilities and argue from them all the time. Particularly when we are dealing with untested hypotheses (as I believe the non-existence of Jesus is, since it has never yet been properly argued and debated). All responsible historians acknowledge and argue from any near-universal consensus view until they can prove that view incorrect. And that is precisely how I have behaved. Which actually demonstrates my main concern is history.

Richard,

That you are willing to concede the historical Jesus in order to argue against his resurrection and also willing to argue against the historical Jesus is demonstration enough that your main concern is not history.

That’s three hours away (so would entail six hours in a car). Unfortunately I can’t swing that. But if any group there wants to fly me out some day in future, I’d certainly love to speak there.

I don’t see how that book has anything whatever to do with what we were discussing.

It makes no sense to say “You don’t do history, because I refuse to read any book where you do history, until you read my book that doesn’t.”

How about an appearance in Eugene, OR that week? I think I could come up with a sponsor for a discussion if you are interested…

Geoff Barrett

I’ll tell you what, Richard: You read my book and I’ll read yours. How about that?

My book is “The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven.” It’s available online and you don’t have to buy it or sign up for anything. Just as the title suggests, it describes how the Bible teaches that through Jesus Christ everyone is going to heaven when they die. In other words, evangelical Christianity has gotten it only half right. They’re right that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the dead is a whopping big deal, but they’re wrong when they think that only they are going to heaven. Moreover, rank in heaven won’t have anything to do with whether one is a Christian or not. Rather, it will have to do with how morally we lived given the knowledge of God that we had.

It’s about 55,000 words, which I’m guessing is shorter than yours.

So, it seems like a good deal for you: you get to read the shorter book and you won’t even have to pay for it. What do you say?

I was not defending the mythicist position in that debate. I have never debated mythicism. I may do so later this year or next, but always I have maintained that it is a speculative hypothesis, and in debates on other subjects I maintain the common view that Jesus existed, and only that he was not actually resurrected from the dead etc. So you clearly are very confused.

And it’s certainly not true that “if you can’t outline your theory of Christian origins as a myth in a 20-minute, or even 10-minute, opening debate session, then there’s something wrong with your logic,” not only because a debate does not consist only of an opening statement but a series of rebuttals and replies (and it is there that countless complexities arise too numerous to cover in so short a period), but also because to understand why a particular theory is credible, you need to be educated on all the relevant background evidence (e.g. the nature of savior religions before the first century, the history and science of schizotypal cults, the relevant theological background from pre-Christian Jewish literature, the political and literary context, e.g. the fact that ancient biographies were often fictional creations turning things said by the person into imagined stories about them; and so on and so forth). It is impossible to do that in 20 minutes.

For example, my book Not the Impossible Faith (which doesn’t even argue for mythicism–I have yet to publish anything defending that thesis) would take 17 hours to read, and yet contains most of the background information you need to understand why an argument for mythicism has merit (for example, if I just said there were dying and rising gods predating Christianity, you or someone would doubt that, so I’d have to prove it; that alone would take at least 5-10 minutes at a podium; I devote a chapter to it in NIF; and that’s just one of a hundred premises you have to be persuaded of).

Now, if your response is “I’m too lazy and disinterested to find out if you are correct” then why are you even bothering to communicate with me? If you don’t give a shit, go away. If you do give a shit, meet your epistemic obligation and read what I’ve written specifically to educate people. But don’t claim I’m not educating people on historical facts because you won’t read the books I write to educate them on historical facts. That would be a really stupid thing to say, don’t you agree?

Richard, you said:

“Our first [debate] was on my specific theory of the origins of Christianity…”

I listened to your opening statement in this video and you did not present the mythicist position at all. Rather you argued the theory that the apostles, disillusioned by Jesus’ crucifixion, searched the Scriptures and had “prophetic dreams and visions” which they then began to promulgate. Thus your singular theme seems to be against Christ, whether it be a historical one or a mythical one.

“…I listed several alternative theories that are the most commonly proposed by mainstream scholars…”

If you mean mainstream scholars arguing against the resurrection, perhaps. But as Ehrman is making clear, there are no mainstream scholars against the historicity of Jesus.

“Accordingly, it is not possible to learn what I teach about the origins of Christianity from a debate, since that requires a great deal more time than is available in a debate.”

If you can’t outline your theory of Christian origins as a myth in a 20-minute, or even 10-minute, opening debate session, then there’s something wrong with your logic. Sure, your argument in a nutshell would not contain all the nuance and substance, but if the core can’t be pulled out maybe there’s no core there.

“That is precisely what my publications are for.”

I hope you will recognize how self-serving this sounds. “I can’t explain it to you so you’ll have to buy my books.” I am willing to give serious thought to your theory, but if you aren’t willing to put that theory, at least in outline form, on your blog, don’t expect me to buy your books. I don’t have enough money or time to buy books in order to find out what someone is saying. I buy books when I know what someone is saying and want to know more.

Richard, I don’t know how smart you are, but I know you are a lot smarter than I am. If you want me to give serious consideration to your claim of being a historian who wants to get history right you’ve got to do a better job of telling your story and not spend so much effort on trying to discredit someone else’s.