Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection 

I’m slightly incredulous that Craig doesn’t see the irony when he uses words like “fanciful” or “improbable” to describe Ehrman’s naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Like... he’s claiming that a supernatural being raising his son (who is also himself) from the grave is somehow less fanciful?

Anyone else get distracted by the creepy dude standing in the doorway?

Elvis died. Thousands saw him alive afterwards.

Funny how in Dr. Craig's RU-vid page, the comments are turned off

I'm not sure I see the point in this debate as both are approaching it from completely different fields.

I like these debates. Dr. Ehrman always shows himself to be a person commited to finding the truth, he is not afraid to change his mind when evidence to the contrary persuades him to this change. What I always see on the other side is an attempt after attempt to hammer the only opinion again and again. I see a huge lack of flexibility, reflection, lack of the benefit of the doubt. Sort of a stuck mentality. However, I agree and support Craig's claim that a personal spiritual experience can be extremely powerful. We can all argue about the source of this experience. However, its very real and in and of itself seem to open up certain unknown side of reality.

To be honest this debate could have been so much better. They didn’t even get to debate at all because they never could agree on what counts as “historical.” The entire debate was WLC giving arguments, Bart not tearing them down but rather labeling them as a category mistake, and that was the tone for the entire debate.

BART: I've studied EVERY text from the first 500 years. WC: I have a list of 4 things.

Professor Ehrman, your are damn good! Must be frustrating to debate someone who just repeats his own arguments and never considers anything else!

WLC: "The majority of NT scholars agree with my 4 facts." BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian." WLC: "You're views are in the minority among NT scholars." BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian."

Craig is basically Ray Comfort with a thesaurus... That might sound flippant but if you listen closely to what they both say it boils down to the exact same argument from personal experience: "No evidence can convince me I'm wrong because my god has personally contacted me and confirmed that I'm right."

People do not rise from the dead. The fact this is being argued and believed by many in the United States does not bode well for our nation's future.

Craig strawmaned Ehrman When Ehrman said “ historians cannot access god , therefore cannot day what god did “ Craig claimed that meant, Ehrman couldn’t say that the resurrection did not happen . Ehrman was not saying the resurrection didn’t happen He was saying it could not be shown that it did , with the historical evidence.

Bill still shuffling papers. He's always filing his taxes during these debates.

1:07:10 I cannot wrap my head around why WLC thinks 1 Corinthians 15 attests to an empty tomb. Why does he say that it acts as a summary of the stories of the Gospels, when the Gospels were written afterwords, which may have themselves filled in the gap and included the empty tomb narrative after Paul’s letter? It seems that Paul’s letter is logically consistent with there being empty tomb, but it is equally consistent with it not having been true and the Gospels adding on that piece later. Further, I think we would expect certain things if the empty tomb were true- we would expect Paul to mention it, we would expect early Christians to identify and venerate the tomb

Thanks. It's always amazing how interesting your debates and lectures are to me. It's never been a topic of personal interest to me but rather a topic of personal interest to others in my life who routinely pestered me about it! Anyway, it's a big help. 👋😏

Was Buddha born through a slit in his mother's side? It's not impossible. It's not even improbable - we do C-sections all the time in the modern day. The question isn't whether or not it's possible or even probable. It's whether or not it actually happened and if we have enough evidence to say whether or not it's likely that it happened as it was reported to have happened. There are accounts of miracles and virgin births all throughout history, including accounts from witnesses to the events. And yet, the only miraculous accounts that WLC accepts as real are the ones that form the basis for his religion. Wasn't he so lucky to have found the one true religion in all the world? And it just happened to be the dominant religion in his culture! Wow!

Hi...Prof DR Bart D Ehrman. I am from Indonesia, I leant so much from you. Please keep up the good job. You are very smart person. Thank you.

Pythagoras is rolling in his grave.

Aside: Craig REALLY likes to stack the deck and shift the burden of proof with his whole "he must tear down ALL of my arguments and make his own positive case." Usually he hides behind "atheism is actually a denial of god claims" but he can't do that with Ehrman.

William Lane Craig's argument in a nutshell: I cannot think of any reason why it wasn't a miracle so it must have been a miracle. I cannot think of any reason why William Lane Craig hasn't been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings so he must have been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings.

The two debaters seem to have argued from two diametrically opposite sides. Bart claimed that you can't impose theological interpretations to prove the historicity of some NT events. Craig claimed that the historical veracity of the NT assertions ( the specific evidence/E that he used for his calculus) indicate that a supernatural ressurection of Jesus is the most likely explanation, which if true, augments the value of the theological proposition, namely that God exists. At this point, they should have focused the debate entirely on the authenticity of the 4 ''facts'' that Craig presented, and suspend any explanation of them, until and if they have a common basis.

For those who say "Debater 'A' is horrible and Debater 'B' is great misses the whole point of two people coming together to discuss opposing points of view. I respect both men who are involved in this debate and I thank them both for participating.

Bible: Claims that there was an empty tomb, that Jesus Ressurected from the dead and that there were eye witnesses Debate topic: What is the Historical evidence to support these Biblical claims? Craig: These Biblical claims

Is it me or is Craig grasping at straws -- pulling in an algorithm to explain a fact that does not require mathematics -- and splitting hairs? In the equation used to determine probability, "Y" would have to be FACTS, otherwise their probability is just as bad as the ultimate probability being calculated.

If you are looking for intellectual honesty, Ehrman is Supreme!

Hey WLC worshippers: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. It now follows: Everybody who dies stays dead. Jesus died. Jesus is still dead.

The core problem with Craigs thesis (including the Statistics formula) is that the basis for his assumptions are mostly theological so when you start with this assumption you cannot come up with a historical solution to the problem being studied: the historicity of the resurrection

"If I believe that the ocean is full of invisible unicorns and the ocean is the color of invisible unicorn pee, how can that NOT be the most likely explanation?" WLC

The workings of the individual human mind will never cease to confound me.

Dear Zeus, it is painful to listen to WLC.

Isn't Craig's probability calculus the same methodology that really good used car salesmen use to sell lemons.

Ehrman demolishes Craig's arguments for the third time and Craig stands up and says I don't think he answered my arguments. When his arguments aren't facts in the first place. What a dumbbell

Sorry, Dr. Craig, but the "best explanation" of the story of the resurrection is that it's a story --- just as the best explanation of the story that Hanuman flew from Sri Lanka to the Himalayas is that it's a story.

The biggest problem with Dr Craig's proposition, is that the 4 Gospels are simply Gospels which were actually accepted as Orthodox, there were many beliefs about Jesus around that time. Many even believed that Jesus did not get physically resurrected.

"we dont have access to string theory or parallel universes either" I feel like he doesnt truly understand what he is implying. If all he says is that God is a possible theory thats awaiting validation then welcome to the atheist group. Can someone clarify it as Im pretty unfamiliar with historical evidence. Are 5 sources from the same group considered 5 different sources in historical sciences? It seems like a ridiculous idea but I dont see people call Craig out on it. I wouldnt trust a peer reviewed paper if it was tested by only one interest group 5 times

William Lane Craig is to New Testament scholarship as Lee Strobel is to journalism. He builds a straw man on stupid evangelical talking points and calls it Christ resurrected based on the facts.

1:53:40 Craig says he doesn't believe that Muhammad flew to heaven because there isn't any evidence. I almost laughed out loud at the irony

How can Craig claim to have a PhD and debate at such a banal level?

Ehrman's incredulity about Craig's "statistical probability of the resurrection" is classic Bart.

WLC dismisses Apollonius as myths and legends post-Jesus deliberately constructed to compete with Christianity, using the same reasoning Noah's Flood is a myth and legend constructed to compete with the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh.

Why does Craig speak in such absolutes, saying a “fact” has been “established” (like Jesus’s burial in a tomb)- when he really means probable (or plausible) claims that are supported by not-infallible historical evidence and weakened by some opposing information (like the commonality of unmarked mass graves)? Also- “any later legendary account would Certainly have made make disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb [as opposed to women]”. False, no this is not certain, for perhaps women and slaves would more often add spices to the dead body than men did, so it makes for a more believable story to have women find the empty tomb than male disciples. And perhaps the male disciples had skipped town, so Mark accommodated that in his story. And perhaps Mark was trying to indicate a message. Craig shows his hubris when confidently stating that Certainly it would have been men that found the tomb empty if the story were made up.

As a former 26 year fundamentalist christian Craig lost me at "experience equals evidence"...rubbish! Many Christians claim experiences that turned out to never have happened for a fact. I have been a personal witness to this. This is the exact problem in the church right now, believing in a faith blindly at the get go without understanding the historicity or evidence behind it. He believed it first to be true then studied the material that has complemented his beliefs, probably on a confirmation bias with maybe a few challenges along the way. Whats even more bizarre is Craig's argument on probability, Bart is correct with what he is saying. My sibling has an honors degree studying history and agrees supernatural events such as the Resurrection cannot qualify as a historical event because its simply supernatural, and shes a conservative christian! If so we would have to consider the claims of Islam and every other supernatural event that holds value. Ehrman is the only bible scholar i actually like listening to, he knows his shit, backs it up in his debates and isnt afraid to have to change his mind! He did it before when he was in Craig's position and believe me its not easy, especially when you loose people in your life for it. Happy i found out about him!

I think a good way to see the debate is that, there is definitely a Historian Jesus, but there hasn´t been found a body, so you have 2 options: option A, there are other explanations for that, like the body was taken etc etc. You have historical evidence to take that option. Option B God resurrected Jesus from the death, you have historical evidence to take that option. but neither you can prove or disprove one from other. You have to take a decision to wich you have evidence to support you.

i got secondhand embarrassment with him trying to calculate historical probablity lool

I'm so happy to have come across a debate. I'm a big fan of both.

Why does Craig insist on using the word "Know" every time he speaks of how Christians "know" that jesus is risen. Why even debate these idiots. at least get the terms correct. It is impossible to prove, therefore you don't know. You guess. You have faith.

Bart is very honest

How can we know that the Gospels have independent sources for their reports of certain events?

Not only does Craig generally say stupid things, he almost never retracts his arguments even when their falsity is clearly explained to him. He is an eloquently stubborn goon.

A miracle is by definition the least plausible explanaition for an event. Hume made this point a few hundred years ago, and it`s still the best put down argument for the resurrection.

I find it telling that Dr Ehrman has the good will to allow comments on his channel while WLC disables the comments to this very same debate on his channel.

The easy (and plausible) explanation for why a member of the Sanhedrin would choose to bury Jesus is that, according to Jewish law, an unburied body is an affront to God. It doesn't matter whether the Sanhedrin liked Jesus or didn't like him; they would not want a Jew to go without a burial. The problem with the fact that multiple people have had visions of Jesus is that, well, people have visions. Multiple people have had visions of Mary, Buddha, and various other historical and religious figures. If the existence of people claiming to have visions supporting their religions, then pretty much all religions are true. Finally, empty tombs are rather common; resurrected people, not so much.

I’m a Christian and have Been watching quite a few wlc debates recently during quarantine I thought this was the first one he clearly lost.

I’ve been watching a series of Dr.Craig’s debate. He definitely has some smart and convincing arguments but it frustrates me so much because he never answer the opponent’s questions directly. And also, that’s not how probability works...

William Lane Craig will take his rightful place as the greatest performing illusionist of all-time. Nobody can magically pull as many items out of their tight ass as Craig does, and with so little effort.

Bart really knows what he's talking about

We need better footage than that. It's a really interesting feud, but you can't watch it.

Does WLC EVER go second in a debate? I've yet to see it. He likes to go first so he can try to set out what the other side needs to do to "win".

When I was a fundamentalist Christian, I spent the better part of 7 years training to be an Apologist -- William Lane Craig was one of my heroes. And then I read Dr. Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted" -- and I realized (a) how duped I had been by Christianity peddled as fact, and (b) how depraved, nonsensical, and fallacious Apologists like Bill are. Thank God for Bart Ehrman! (pun, see?)

And look, comments. No comments on the Christian channels. Look, fellow believers, you are not going to bring people to God by denying another human beings agency. Discussion must take place.

I like how Dr.Erhman had to preface his intro with « I’ll rebut his points with my next speech » because otherwise Craig would do his slimy « but note how my opponent didn’t rebut X and Y argument », as if it was caused by anything other than the shameless gish gallop he likes to do.

What?! Craig is defending his deity and not just the deistic deity if the Kalam? Well, this is the second Christian apologist I have seen defend Christianity instead of just a deistic deity. That means the Christian apologists have go the message that they need to step up and defend what they actually believe.

I find it amazing just how Craig maintains that God is an all powerful intelligent designer and fine-tuner. Throughout the old testament, God directed that things be written down so that they wouldn't be forgotten. He was so zealous about this that he personally wrote stuff down, namely the Ten Commandments. Given this point about writing stuff down, God sent Jesus to earth to perform the most important task since he created Heaven and Earth. Yet, neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (which is responsible for bringing things to people's memory), the angels nor any other member of the heavenly hosts, directed or reminded(?) Jesus to choose a scribe to write down his life story and all that he said and did. Come to think about it, was there ever a bigger blunder? That colossal omission has cost untold millions and maybe even billions of innocent people their lives. We haven't heard a word from Jesus on the matter. Craig is making a fortune off of Jesus' heavenly failure, however. Speaking of being omnipotent, Jesus said in Mat. 28:18 that all power in heaven and earth have been given to him. Did anyone tell the Jews about this? I guess God retired and so the Jews had better look for a replacement. That being the case, I have to wonder, why is it that he, Jesus, has taken no action to correct his mega blunder. All he has to do is think of it and the world will have a heavenly correctly printed bible. Muhammad and Joseph Smith got stuff. Then, the two hundred plus error-filled versions we are having to deal with can be recycled into something better and more useful. I would ask Craig, isn't it time we be treated to our own miracle? We should be sick and tired of shouting over Moses' and Pharaoh' multiple miracles and Joseph's (Mary husband) virginal dreams.

I m chritians and i believe in jesus ... erhman does make s a lot of sense .. he is a chalenge for chritianity in a good way ! A good test for our faith

It's impossible to debate history with apologetics lol

The probability of finding a way of calculating Pr(R/B&E), which is the probability of resurrection, is lower than the probability of resurrection itself which is extremely small

Did the cameraman fall asleep during the Q&A?

mr ehrman your closing was as good as it get great job

I keep looking for a good debate from WLC as he seems to be so highly regarded. I'm yet to find one. If anyone has a link please share. Unless you think his math/probability material is good, in which case don't worry about it.

@ 1:49:40 Classic Ehrman. "Im sorry but I can't believe we are having a discussion on the statistical probability.....of resurrection of Jesus...of God. A room full of academics would howl us off the stage....maybe in the school that you teach at...: Bart's humanity and genuine nature are priceless. WLC is about the best apologists can offer. Bart is essentially telling him what I say to all my friends who are religious.....It is a matter of faith. Once you step outside of faith and try to "prove" things related to that faith, even a very smart person can appear like an idiot. On the flip side of this, I often wonder about how strong is the faith of believers who feel they need to perform gymnastics to "prove the Judeo/Christian, Hindu, or Muslim god is true"

Thank you for your honest in studying New Testament, Prof. Bart Ehrman. Your works are valuable source for any person who seek the truth.

I wonder what Dr Ehrman thinks of the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. I read that one possibility is that Jesus may have gone into a coma and then got revived subsequently.

very nice speach Prof. Ehrman , much appreciated, I prefer the explanation of the historian, not an supernatural assumption

I love the ammo you give me when I deal with Christians.....or any religious beliefs....thanks for the videos

46:39 change "Jesus' Resurrection" for "alien abduction", better yet: "supernatural abduction". In order to disprove that... (paste Craig's argument here).

William lane Craigs demeanor grosses me out. Oh yeah, and he makes his money by being intellectually dishonest while claiming he is reasonable.

10:50 How do we know that the disciples had Every predisposition to disbelieve Jesus’s resurrection? Perhaps there was group think, forming a group identity, positive reinforcement among these believers that reinforced the belief/mass hysteria as they reinterpreted the OT messiah. 1:31:00 Ehrman explains how they found reason to believe Jesus would be vindicated via resurrection. It sounds too strong to say they had Every predisposition to not believe Jesus rose. And did Jesus predict his resurrection to them?

anybody who has studied basics of probability must be laughing at the formula

I was shocked when Craig tried to use mathematical formulas to argue for the resurrection. That is beyond silly. I imagine most of the audience felt the same way.

I like WLC's "facts" lol It's like finding out there's no land of Oz and then wondering where the yellow brick road leads to.

"Paul tells us Jesus appeared to one guy, then Paul tells us Jesus appeared to another few guys, then Paul tells us Jesus appeared to a shit ton of dudes. So, OBVIOUSLY, a billion people saw that Jesus was risen from the dead, and so we can believe what this one guy said."

This video is also on Dr. Craigs channel, but the comment section is disabled. I wonder why he did that😂

Why is it so hard to think that God (the one that created the universe) could walk on water, rise from the dead etc.?

Ehrman: “Hume was talking about the possibility of whether miracle happens. I’m not talking about whether miracle can happen; I don’t accept Hume’s argument that miracles can’t happen. I’m asking ‘suppose miracles do happen, can historians demonstrate it?’ No they can’t demonstrate it.” (Video time 1:15:55) Hume: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish” (“An Enquiry of Human Understanding” Section 10 “Of Miracles” line 91) So Ehrman was wrong. His argument is Hume’s argument. Hume’s argument was not metaphysical but rather epistemological. He was not arguing that miracles can’t happen, he was arguing that we can’t know that they’ve happened. And they were both wrong for the same reason, the reason Craig gave. The probability of an event is based on the background evidence for those kinds of events versus the specific evidence for that specific event in question (see Baye’s theorem). For example, suppose one of my two sons stole a cookie from the counter. Which one stole it? You don’t know because you have no evidence from the specific event in question. But now I tell you that one is 1 year old old and the other is 4 years old. Based on your background knowledge you conclude the older one probably did it because 4 year olds can usually walk and climb while 1 years olds are usually just learning to walk. Background evidence is essential to establishing the probability of events. As for miracles, both Hume and Ehrman take it for granted that miracles are the most improbable events i.e. that the background evidence for miracles is extremely low. But this is an essential part of determining an event’s probability and so Hume and Ehrman must give a strong argument as to why they rate the background probability of miracles so low that no amount of specific evidence for a miracle claim could overcome it. They do not give such an argument. That is why they both fail to establish their claim that miracles are inherently unprovable historically. This is basically what W L Craig was saying.

I think Bart D Ehrman should consider the acts of the apostles seriously

Does WLC math apply to Islam, Mormonism, Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Are we not going to take a notice to some blatant comments who actually didn't watch the whole video? Dr. Ehrman argues mainly what makes this "historical" in the basis of category, then Craig defends. That's what actually happens. They both agree in their recent interview that the debate was just about the acclimation of that history being "a history". "it was a good discussion" - Craig & Erhman.

I find Erhman’s counter arguments incredibly dishonest. Craig is not arguing that he has conclusive evidence for the resurrection. Rather, Craig is arguing that the Resurrection is the best plausible explanation that we have. Ockam’s Razor

Bart wins the debate hands down. Craig's arguments are almost comical since they are not based on history or reason

1:40:24 Why is it that William Lane Crackpot considers the question of biblical inerrancy only a theological consideration and irrelevant to the topic at hand, but the implausibility of the resurrection is somehow replete with authoritative historical evidence?

WLC; How probable is it that Merlin moved the stones to Stone Henge?

Dr Craig does not look good here.

I love how no one claps after Bart destroys Dr Craig after Bart's first dissertation...proof he just destroyed Dr Craig... Dr Craig's uses the bible as his source. The source itself is inconsistent...

I did the probability calculation for the resurrection of Jesus using Craig's formula. I heard that a result of a probability calculation cannot be 0, so I took a limit of it and my result is... the probability tends towards 0. :D Although I would like someone to do the calculation and show how it's actually done, I'm pretty far from being sure about how it's done.

Painful. As a fan of Dr. Ehrman's work, this was painful to watch. WLC took and held the initiative for the debate at the very beginning by presupposing 4 "facts" that were to be taken as given and shifting the argument to their logical interpretation being the resurrection hypothesis. Unfortunately, Bart was not consistent nor overly coherent in his responses and vacillated between addressing the premises and the conclusion and unnecessarily made himself vulnerable with a weak line on methodology. He really should have spent his time establishing that the 4 premises of WLC were not in any way sound, established historical facts and, rightly, insist WLC defend them as reliable, historically accurate events. Bart tacitly gave more credibility to these narratives than he needed to by concocting alternative explanations instead of the direct approach of challenging WLC to cite any evidence from outside the Christian tradition to support his assertion of 1) the honorable burial, 2) the empty tomb, 3) the post-mortem appearances and 4) the disciples sudden belief in his resurrection. Of course, it was a debate 16 years ago and Bart has improved considerably over the years in engaging with evangelicals. WLC is a master debater and rhetorician who I respect as thoroughly learned on the internal logic of protestant Christianity. If you want to learn about protestant, evangelical theology, I can think of no one better to turn to. But when WLC steps outside of theology into science and history, we need people who can step through his polished debate tactics and expose the shortcomings, factual errors and hidden assumptions he artfully masks over. I don't know if there has been a "rematch" debate between the two in recent years but I would love to see one!

Craig made points to which Ehrman did not answer. You can tell someone that their hypothesis is wrong, but if you do not provide your own along with proof/evidence, your ideas fall flat. And trying to trick Craig into answering if there was inerrancy within scripture was a good try, but as soon as someone answers that there will be many questions to follow until there is one he cannot answer; when this happens he is caught in his trap. I believe it was smart not to go down that rabbit hole. All in all, this was a well laid out debate.

This probability calculus is pure nonsense - I just took random numbers for checking - 0,01 for "evidence of resurrection" and 0,9 for "evidence of not resurrection" - 0,01/ 0,91= 0,011 - WTF! - You can only increase the probability - never decrease. Even if you take 1 for "evidence of not resurrection" result still ~ 0,01.

1:28:48 Ehrman should have spent more time disputing the historical premises in Craig’s argument. He’s a better historian than philosopher. And I like his exposition of his counter-explanation of the family stealing his body. I think he does well to dispel Craig’s objections to it (1:29:36), and shows that not all plausible naturalistic explanations of his four premises (which Ehrman disputes the certainty of) have been exhausted.

Some of the comments surprise me since on the principal point-the interpretation of historical probability--Craig is clearly correct (and Ehrman appears somewhat in over his head). First of all, Ehrman is mistaken in his claim that his argument (that a miracle is “by definition” the least likely occurrence, regardless of the evidence) is not Hume’s argument from the 18th century because, according to Ehrman, Hume instead argued that miracles are impossible. Ehrman evidently has not read Hume. In fact, as Craig pointed out, Ehrman’s argument is exactly Hume’s argument. Craig is also correct that in this debate Ehrman reveals himself as uninformed on the theory of probability. This point was somewhat obscured by Ehrman’s erroneous assertion that Craig was trying to prove the resurrection of Jesus’ mathematically by means of Bayes’s Theorem. Actually, Craig specifically said that he does not think Bayes’s Theorem can be used because the antecedent probability of the event cannot be assigned a numerical value. Craig rather said that Richard Swinburne of Oxford University has so used Bayes’s Theorem. But Craig was clear that he himself uses inference to the best explanation, which is standard historical methodology. However, the logic of Bayes’s Theorem still applies even if Bayes’s equation cannot be employed. To determine the probability that an event has occurred in the past we must deal with two distinct probabilities: First, the antecedent probability of such an event occurring (what I think Craig calls the “probability relative to background knowledge”) and second the probability that the event actually has occurred given the evidence. A simple example: If I have a deck of cards, the antecedent probability of drawing any particular card is one out of fifty-two. But after I’ve drawn a card and have the evidence that the seven of diamonds is sitting face up on the table before me, the probability of my having drawn the seven of diamonds is effectively one hundred percent. And it would still be effectively one hundred percent even if the antecedent odds had been a million to one. After all, I have to draw some specific card. Only if the antecedent odds were zero would we have to dismiss the possibility that the event occurred. And here we can see Ehrman’s fallacy. He takes into account solely that antecedent probability of a miracle, which he decides beforehand is zero. For only if the antecedent probability is zero can we conclude that regardless of the evidence, the occurrence of the miracle cannot be affirmed based on historical evidence. But there is no basis for saying the antecedent probability is zero, except for what Craig aptly calls Ehrman’s “methodological atheism.” And methodological atheism is a philosophical assumption on Ehrman’s part for which he gives no argument. In a case like this philosophical pre-commitments influence our evaluation of the historical evidence, and Ehrman seems blissfully unaware of his philosophical assumptions.