The Wood/Loftus Debate On The Resurrection

David Wood and John Loftus debated the resurrection on April 20. A video of the debate is now available. Wood won the debate by a wide margin, and I won't attempt to summarize the many good points he made. You can watch the debate yourself to get Wood's side of it. Here are several problems I noticed with Loftus' portion of the debate, among a lot of other problems that could be mentioned (the references in parentheses are to minutes within the YouTube video linked above):

- Loftus appeals to radical skepticism on issues like the textual transmission of the New Testament documents, sometimes even suggesting that all we can do is speculate about the text beyond some small fragments (30; 37). He brings up the possibility that Paul was lying about what he reported on issues like the resurrection (1:55), without interacting with the evidence to the contrary, including what Wood had cited earlier in the debate. Loftus sometimes proposes radical skepticism on issues like the text of the New Testament and Paul's honesty. I've only given a couple of examples here, but Loftus resorted to that level of skepticism frequently. As Wood pointed out, skepticism like what Loftus is proposing wouldn't just undermine our knowledge of ancient Christianity, but also our knowledge of ancient history in general, as well as much of what we think we know about more recent history. Yet, Loftus repeatedly made claims about ancient history that seem inconsistent with the skepticism he so selectively applies elsewhere. He cites the number of Jews in the ancient world (44), claims that all of the gospels were written 40 years or more after the events in question (1:26), suggests that he knows the order in which the gospels were written, etc. Think of what Loftus would have to know about ancient history, the reliability of the texts he's depending on, the honesty of the sources he's trusting, etc. to justify such conclusions. Much of the skepticism he applies to Christianity is highly irrational, and he doesn't make much of an effort to apply that skepticism consistently.

- He kept appealing to our experience that people don't rise from the dead, sometimes commenting that we'd need a lot of evidence for Jesus' resurrection to overcome that experience (31, 2:03). But Christians don't claim that Jesus was an ordinary person who rose from the dead by natural means. How would looking at whether people in general rise from the dead give you any significant odds for whether Jesus would rise?

- Loftus approvingly quotes Bart Ehrman's claim that miracles are by definition the least likely explanation of the facts (1:47). He provides no reason to accept that definition. And if he's assuming naturalism in order to justify the definition, then it's only as good as the naturalism he's assuming. He provided no reason to believe in naturalism.

- In response to Wood's point that sources like the Gospel Of Peter and the Gospel Of Judas come from later centuries than the canonical gospels, Loftus mentions that some scholars date Luke and John to the second century (1:01). But that doesn't address the other canonical gospels, and it's a false comparison between the mainstream dating of the non-canonical gospels and a small minority's dating of Luke and John. For some evidence that Luke was written no later than the 60s, see here. For the scholarly consensus regarding Luke's first-century dating, see here.

- Loftus comments that "maybe" one or more of the resurrection witnesses recanted (1:08). He raises the possibility that Paul lied about the resurrection (1:55). On both those subjects, see my series on the death of the apostles here. My article on what ancient non-Christian sources said about these issues would be a good place to start.

- Loftus kept appealing to the alleged evolution of the resurrection accounts, meaning that they gradually grew over time (1:46). But Wood offered counterarguments that Loftus kept ignoring, such as the presence of more resurrection witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15 than in any of the gospel resurrection accounts. The material in 1 Corinthians 15 predates the gospels.

- He appealed to Matt McCormick's argument about Lourdes, regarding the supposed rarity of miracles in Roman Catholic circles (1:34). See my response to McCormick on page 123 of the e-book here.

- Loftus says that Isaiah 53 is "clearly" about Israel and argues for that assertion by telling us to "look at Isaiah chapter 49, verse 3" (38). But Isaiah 53 itself distinguishes between the Suffering Servant and Israel, not only in verse 8, but also in a variety of other ways. Multiple figures in Isaiah are referred to as a servant of the Lord, including Isaiah himself (Isaiah 20:3), so we can't just assume that Israel is in view every time the terminology is used. You have to look at the details involved in a given case, and the details of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 suggest that an individual who's distinct from the nation of Israel is being addressed. See here. As I argue in the post just linked, the alignment of Jesus' life with the Suffering Servant prophecy would be significant evidence for Christianity even if we assumed that the passage is about Israel. Such an unlikely typological fulfillment would be highly evidential. But the passage isn't about Israel.

- Loftus says that there's no Old Testament prophecy of the resurrection, and he says that Wood would agree on that point (38). But the reference to an extension of life in Isaiah 53:10, after the Servant is referred to as having died and in a context in which the soul was believed to survive bodily death, is best explained by a resurrection.

- According to Loftus, the opening of Luke's gospel indicates that Luke would have included an account of guards at Jesus' tomb if Luke believed what Matthew reported about the guards (40). But there's nothing in Luke's opening that suggests an intention of being exhaustive, and the idea that such a short document was an attempt at being exhaustive is ridiculous. See, for example, how Acts 1 includes material about Jesus' resurrection and ascension not mentioned in Luke 24. Acts 20:35 cites a saying of Jesus not recorded in Luke's gospel. Luke's "we" material from Acts 16 onward can't be exhaustive. Luke had to have known far more about his time with Paul than he records in Acts. He was being highly selective.

- Loftus' response to Craig Keener's material on miracles was shameful. He doesn't seem to have read much of Keener's work (1:29), yet he suggests that Keener is dishonest and tells us that "all he [Keener] did" was travel around and listen to stories. Supposedly, Keener's two-volume work on miracles consists of "just people's stories" (1:23). In another context, Loftus suggests that only believers allegedly see things happen like the healing of amputees (1:47). Actually, Keener gives accounts of his own experiences (collecting other people's stories isn't "all he did"), provides a lot of medical documentation (not "just people's stories"), and cites hostile corroboration for some miracles (not just the testimony of believers). You can find many examples in my series on Keener's book here.

- Another scholar whose work Loftus misrepresents is Richard Bauckham. He repeatedly refers to Bauckham as "Richard Bauckman" and gets the title of his book wrong, then misrepresents Bauckham's arguments (1:26).

- Keep in mind that Loftus' poor performance in this debate came after he'd lived so long, with so much of an education and so many books published, and had spent so much time opposing Christianity as such a prominent skeptic whose work has been endorsed by so many other skeptics.