The resurrection of Jesus is probably one of the most well-known stories from the New Testament,

but how do historians deal with this miraculous event?

Should it be discounted in its entirety, or can it be investigated using the historical method?

Today, we're talking about what historians can and can't say about the resurrection.

We also have our bonus segment at the end,

which this week is Outsmart Bart, where questions from our listeners test the limits of Bart's

biblical knowledge. Welcome to the Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman. But before we get into

the scholarly response for what historians can say about the resurrection, how did your evangelical background shape the way you first thought about historical evidence for the resurrection?

Well, when I was an evangelical, I was very much in the apologetic mode.

I thought that we could, you could demonstrate on historical grounds that Jesus was raised from the dead,

that it was the most likely explanation.

Because no other explanation actually made sense,

and if no other explanation made sense for the data that we had,

that there was an empty tube, that people claim they saw Jesus and various data that there's no

other really satisfactory explanation therefore probably Jesus was raped from the dead on just

on purely historical grounds interesting I have heard that series of of statements before

it is always a little surprising

when people say that

the best way to explain all of these data points

is that someone came back from the dead.

Yeah, well, we would argue it

and we would just, you know,

...