One of the excellent points Bart Ehrman makes in his book How Jesus Became God is a point that I’ve also tried to articulate before: the resurrection is not a ‘probable’ historical option. (Unlike Ehrman, I believe it is true – but we are agreed that it could never be called ‘probable’…)
simply looking at the matter from a historical point of view, any of these [other, improbable] views is more plausible than the claim that God raised Jesus physically from the dead. A resurrection would be a miracle and as such would defy all ‘probability.’ Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a miracle. To say that an event that defies probability is more probable than something that is simply improbable is to fly in the face of anything that involves probability. (p165)
While Ehrman focuses on historical problems with the ‘probability’ claim, I am slightly more interested in theological problems with such a claim (as seen in my earlier post); but the point is well made.