Recommended resource: Mike Licona's book on the historical method and resurrection evidence

Q&A — responding to 'twisted wrench' who wants physical signs today

Winger recommends Mike Licona's 'The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historiographical Approach' as a scholarly source for the consensus historical facts about Jesus. He directs readers specifically to the 'historical bedrock' chapters for the data on scholarly agreements about the baptism, crucifixion, post-resurrection appearances, and related facts.

Ehrman's telephone-game argument as a debate tactic used selectively against less-informed audiences

Mike critiques Ehrman's rhetorical strategy.

Q&A: Do the Gospels contradict each other? Mike's strong stance on harmonization

Q&A follow-up on Gospel contradictions from the same atheist questioner.

Jewish practice of marking and remembering spiritual leaders' burial sites

Why Jesus's grave would be noted and remembered

Upcoming guest: Mike Licona to discuss the Jesus Myth movement

Announcements at end of stream

Guest introduction: Dr. Mike Licona, historical Jesus scholar with PhD from University of Pretoria

Guest credentials and background

Scholarly consensus: Jesus mythicism is not a live discussion in academic New Testament studies or history

Mike Licona characterizes the state of scholarly opinion on mythicism

Licona published a critique of the Keith/Le Donne volume in the Bulletin for Biblical Research, arguing scholars are too pessimistic about the criteria

Licona's scholarly engagement with the debate over historical criteria

John Dominic Crossan in debate with Licona affirmed the use of criteria — demonstrating that most historians still rely on them

Licona's debate with Crossan as evidence of continuing scholarly use of criteria

Licona's book Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? required classicist review to avoid errors in Plutarch material — illustrating disciplinary boundaries

Personal example of the importance of disciplinary specialization

Matthew 10:16-24 uses Olivet Discourse language — either Jesus repeated similar words or it shows the connection between the disciples' temporary mission and the church's ongoing mission

Responding to why Matthew 10:16-24 contains Olivet Discourse wording not found in Mark 6 or Luke 9 parallels

Four things to know before historical investigation of Jesus: (1) Historical investigation is limited — historians intentionally bracket inspiration of Scripture. (2) Failure to confirm ≠ denial it happened. (3) History is probabilistic — the best verdict is "extremely likely," never 100%%. (4) Scholars are people with biases — Bart Ehrman rejects miracles by methodology, not evidence ("as a historian you're not allowed to posit miracles").

Framework for historical investigation of Jesus

Argument 2 — Multiple attestation: Mike Licona found 19+ passages across Mark, M (Matthew-only), L (Luke-only), and John independently attesting Jesus's death/resurrection predictions. Historians consider TWO independent sources "pay dirt" — this has far more. Jesus's prayer in Gethsemane (knowing he'll die) is in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and Luke 22 independently.

Argument 2 — multiple independent attestation

A controversy exists in NT scholarship over whether gospel authors used "literary devices" from Greco-Roman biography that allowed them to change facts. Dr. Lydia McGrew argues against this; Mike Licona argues for it.

Introduction to the literary devices controversy with Dr. Lydia McGrew

The external evidence (compositional textbooks, Plutarch) is far weaker than claimed. The textbooks never explicitly say "it's acceptable to change historical facts." Plutarch's differences may just be mistakes, not intentional literary devices. Licona admits attributing devices to the Gospels that aren't even found in the textbooks or Plutarch.

Critique of the external evidence for literary devices

Defining Inerrancy: How can we biblically define inerrancy? Even the writers of the Chicago Statement seem to hold slightly different views on harmonization (according to Mike Licona).

Q&A question: Defining Inerrancy