• I read the transcript of Ehrman’s debate with William Lane Craig on this topic. It took place at College of the Holy Cross in March of 2008. Ehrman’s basic argument was something like: It is impossible to establish a miracle as true. In fact, miracles are, by definition, the least probable of all possible occurrences. Therefore, when we look at the historical data surrounding Jesus and the resurrection, historians must understand the claim that Jesus actually came back from the dead as the least likely of all possibilities. Any naturalistic explanation is more likely.

    By Ehrman’s argument, a miracle can never be established as the most likely explanation of any event, regardless of the evidence supporting it, because miracles are always the least likely explanation of the data. His presuppositions regarding miracles prevent him from even considering them as a possible explanation.

    I hope you enjoy the debate. I will be looking forward to your follow-up post.

  • Bill Pratt

    Ehrman is still using the same argument, it seems. I am going to point this problem out in a future post. Your analysis is right on the money.

    God bless,

  • MAC

    Tim, where did you find the transcript?