You can download the videos from that page, and there is even a PDF.
There are 5 videos.
The first video is an introduction that highlights the importance of the resurrection in Christian belief.
The second video talks about how historians piece together what happened in the past using evidence.
The third video talks about “historical bedrock” – the parts of a historical document are accepted by most scholars.
The fourth video talks about how to answer objections from Internet web sites.
The fifth video talks about how to answer objections from scholars.
(I think they switched the order of the fourth and fifth debates, but I am going off of the PDF summary)
Mike has debated Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman, so what you are getting here is a Christian historian’s perspective on how to debate the resurrection. If you want to see something you can really use in a hostile encounter, then you need to prepare yourself with Mike Licona’s material.
Here are some highlights from Mike Licona’s review of Ehrman’s new book Forged. Ehrman’s book contends that some of the New Testament books are forgeries. These include Acts, the two Epsitles bearing Peter’s name, and six of Paul’s Epistles.
The gist of Licona’s assessment is that Ehrman repeatedly brings up partial information and dismisses arguments that disagree far too quickly.
Ehrman appear[s] to take a different approach, assuming all of the 27 are guilty of false attribution until nearly unimpeachable evidence to the contrary can be presented. Evidence of this approach can be seen when the evidence for traditional authorship is dismissed too quickly or when arguments against the tradition authorship are strikingly weak….Unfortunately, because many of Ehrman’s readers will go no further than reading Forged, they will fall prey to some very poor arguments….
An example of partial information that ends up misleading:
In chapter five, Ehrman turns to some of the motive behind ancient forgeries. In the cases presented in this chapter, the Christians were responding to their conflicts with Jews and pagans. After discussing some of the literature he writes, “the authors intended to deceive their readers, and their readers were all too easily deceived” (159). Although Ehrman is correct, it is likewise noteworthy that none of the literature he cites became canonical. Ehrman fails to mention that….
…In a book where he is identifying deceit, it’s ironic that Ehrman himself engages in misleading his readers. In a technical sense, he’s correct: the reason we have the present literature in the New Testament is because a theologically orthodox group won the theology war. However, the impression Ehrman leaves his readers is that the only things distinguishing the literature that made it into the New Testament from the literature that did not is the results of a vote….
But sometimes the winners deserve to win [for historical reasons]….
Read the rest. Mike Licona is my favorite resurrection scholar.
Could there be any new and promising approach to the question of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection? Yes, answers Michael Licona. And he convincingly points us to a significant deficiency in approaching this question: our historiographical orientation and practice. He then carefully and effectively applies his principles and methods to the question of Jesus’ resurrection.
This book is sure to become required reading for anyone exploring this field, as Michael Licona has made an extremely significant contribution to scholarship in this area.
The book is $27 dollars on Amazon, but you probably won’t need another book on the resurrection. I try not to buy books by people who haven’t debated anyone on the other side, but that won’t be a problem with Licona. He’s debated everybody on the other side – like Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and Shabir Ally. He’s battle-tested.
I took a look at the endorsements, and I recognize tons of historians.
Here’s one:
“Licona has tackled his subject energetically, with near-obsessive thoroughness. He concludes that if one approaches the sources without an a priori commitment to the impossibility of resurrection, the ‘Resurrection Hypothesis’ is the interpretation that most adequately accounts for the evidence. Thus, the book boldly challenges the naturalistic presuppositions of post-Enlightenment historical criticism. At the very least, Licona has shown that the usual naturalistic explanations of the resurrection tradition are, on the whole, weak, speculative and often tendentious. “I am not aware of any scholar who has previously offered such a thorough and fair-minded account of the historiographical prolegomena to the resurrection question. Furthermore, Licona’s discussion of the ‘bedrock’ historical evidence is appropriately nuanced and carefully modulated, not claiming more than can be supported by the consensus findings of qualified scholars. This lends credibility to his conclusions. Licona has presented a fair and vigorous case for his position. No doubt many readers will be unconvinced by his arguments, but no one can accuse him of naivet? or of ignoring counterarguments. “This study spans fields that are too rarely brought into conversation: New Testament studies and historiographical theory. Licona is to be commended for this undertaking and for producing a study that has both wide range and significant depth.”
—Richard B. Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament and dean, Duke Divinity School
If you’re looking for a book on the resurrection, this might be a good one. Seems like it will cover everything.
.
WINTERY KNIGHT 