I attended the debate “The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction” between Hector Avalos an William Lane Craig on Feb. 5. I was disappointed to hear no response to a particular question posed to Avalos in the question and answer period. I would like to respectfully and sincerely ask the question of Avalos, myself. For those who did not attend, a quick summary:

Craig affirmed four facts in his case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Christ’s burial, Christ’s empty tomb, Christ’s post-crucifixion appearance and change in the hearts of the disciples.

For these facts, Craig drew upon New Testament documents.

Avalos’ response was not a denial of individual claims but an attempt to discredit the New Testament as a factual historical account. He referred to the New Testament as “stories” that could have been constructed without factual basis. The only evidence he offered in support was chronological separation of the earliest manuscript copies from the events they portray.

Josh McDowell, in his book, “More Than a Carpenter,” states:

“Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. … Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: ‘The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'”

McDowell also quotes Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology at Reagent College.

“There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made.

An honest [person] cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational [i.e., anti-supernatural] bias.”

This says that simply not having the original manuscripts does not invalidate the New Testament. To restate the unanswered question in my own words, “Dr. Avalos, do you have specific evidence to discredit the account of the New Testament and an alternate explanation of its existence?”

Carl Stephen Lebsack

Graduate Student

Electrical and Computer Engineering