I just listened to the debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier on "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" My opinion is that, on this topic, Carrier is way out of his league. I think he should not have agreed to debate Bill on this subject. He simply does not have epistemic access to the information Craig has. (You can listen to the debate here.)
Way back in 1971 Bill was my campus ministry leader at Northern Illinois University, and I was a philosophy major. At that time Bill was digging deeply into many issues, to include the existence of God, the nature of the Christian scriptures, and historical Jesus studies. When I went on for my Ph.D Bill completed two Ph.Ds - one with the great German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. Having used Pannenberg's metaphor theory [as applied to the historical resurrection of Jesus] in my doctoral dissertation at Northwestern U I thought of the amazing opportunity Bill was given to have Pannenberg himself as his mentor!
Multiply those early Christological studies in the 1970s many times over and one sees what great scholarship in a focused area looks like. Bill has spent a near-lifetime on this subject, studying with and debating the major figures in the area. Carrier has not. As I listened to this debate I found myself thinking of Bill as totally within his element and Carrier like a fish out of water.
Bill gives a strong inductive argument for the resurrection of Jesus. "Inductive" means "probableistic." I find it (still) persuasive. And, it's the same argument Bill gives every time he debates this topic (with refinements added, improvements made). To me Carrier appeared unprepared for this, which he should not have been given that Bill's presentation is out there in public. When Bill argues for the resurrection he uses the biblical documents historically. In his first rebuttal to Carrier Bill says, "I know Richard tonight wanted to debate the general reliability of the gospels. I'm really sorry he's decided to pursue that tack despite our agreement that that wouldn't be the topic tonight." Precisely. And, this is common knowledge to anyone who's listened to Bill's Jesus-resurrection argument. It does not depend on any theological doctrine of "inerrancy." As do no strictly historical arguments for anything. I found myself wondering if Carrier actually grasped this point, or understood that one can actually lay aside theological beliefs and make a purely historical argument. (For the most part, that is. Both Carrier and Craig make historical claims and thus face the problems of historical understanding through the filter of their own prejudices.)
