Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

In this thread, I plan on arguing for the resurrection of Jesus using the "minimal facts approach" pioneered by Gary Habermas.

Prior to starting this thread, I did a search using the term "minimal facts" to determine whether this topic has been overdone in this forum. Based upon the very limited (almost non-existent) results of that search, I have concluded that the topic will be reasonably fresh for the membership. It is my hope that those who are more familiar with the approach will be patient while new members (and new atheists) are considering the material perhaps for the first time.

The minimal facts approach argues for the resurrection of Jesus based only on evidence that is so strongly attested historically that it is granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the skeptical ones.

Consequently, this discussion will not consider whether the New Testament is reliable nor attempt to prove that it is. The conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead will not depend upon that argument.

Before I present the minimal facts, I'd like to say a few words about the nature of historical evidence. When it comes to historical facts, we can only speak in terms of probability and not absolute 100% certainty. For example, consider the following spectrum:


Very Doubtful      Quite Doubtful      Somewhat Doubtful    Uncertain     Somewhat Certain    Quite Certain     Very Certain
______|____________|________________|____________|_____________|______________|___________|____


We will be seeking to determine whether the evidence for the resurrection moves us to the right or left of the mid-point (uncertain) of this range of opinions.

Additionally, we must keep in mind that the standards of evidence do not require that the case for something is irrefutable. Rather, the standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases and proof that makes the truth of an accusation more probable than not in civil cases. If this is not understood, then the skeptics' demand for proof may be unrealistic.

At this point, I'd like to offer a response to those who are fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." No, extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence...just like any other kind of claim. It is my firm belief that sufficient evidence for the resurrection can (and will) be presented.

The Minimal Facts (4+1)

The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including the skeptic) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the "+1", is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion

Somewhat certain to quite certain.


2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

Some people appear to have believed at some point that Jesus rose and appeared to the disciples.  As to whether the actual disciples is any believed I've got to give this somewhat doubtful because the gospels are contradictory on this point and written sometime after the disciples likely deaths.  So uncertain.

3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed

Somewhat certain.  He says so in his letters anyway. And the changing event he reports is a vision.  Not an uncommon human experience.

4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed

Doubtful.  Much less evidence and if Jesus were wondering around performing miracles and virgin mommy were on board why would he doubt in the first place?

5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

If Jesus were crucified, chances are about zip to nil he had a tomb to be found empty.  So I'd give this a quite doubtful.  Reports to the contrary are after the lifetimes of the witnesses.

Habermus pretty much assumes his minimal facts.  But supposing they were all quite certain.  We have the extraordinary claim that a man rose from the dead supported by several people who claim to see him afterwords, an empty tomb, and a man with a vision.  It's not even close to sufficient to prove anything as unlikely as a resurrection.

[Catholic_Lady]

Very interesting, Randy. Following! :-)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Merriam-Webster against Randy.  Whoever shall prevail?

Considering that Merriam-Webster is not given to pulling facts directly out of their ass for presentation online. Randy may well win.


In the bathroom mirror tomorrow morning, as he thinks about his answers to this thread and convinces himself that they will be the dog's balls.

[robvalue]

I may as well mention (again) that even if Jesus came back to life somehow, that tells us nothing about how or why; and lends no credence to any of his words or supernatural claims about himself. It would just be a very unusual event which we sadly can't investigate. So to a sceptic, ressurection does not lead to Christianity being true.

The magician who just made you think a card disappeared doesn't get to tell you he teleported the card with his mind because you don't have another explanation. Even if he told you beforehand that is how it is done. I believe this is the "truth by cool tricks" fallacy. He still has to provide evidence for his claimed method, not just the predicted result.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The Sadducees were there and they didn't believe in angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, or resurrections. If they weren't convinced maybe the events never happened.

[Cato]

Very interesting, Randy. Following! :-)

Jesus tits, you're not hard to please.

[Alex K]

I lol'd at the title tho

[Longhorn]

This is so wrong I don't even have a lame joke to make ._.

[robvalue]

If he actually showed up again, like he was supposed to, then it would get interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciBru32oDU

[tonechaser77]

The Minimal Facts (4+1)

The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including the skeptic) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the "+1", is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

This is the classic apologetic put forth most often by WLC and Habermas / Licona. It's nothing new and to be honest it has major flaws. To appeal to authority here is absolutely baseless. Just because a scholar says Jesus probably existed doesn't make it true. And despite your claim that extraordinary claims do NOT need extraordinary evidence, this is simply a false delusion to make your case easier to assemble. 

1.) Jesus died by crucifixion. - Not a provable fact. Actually, there has been much doubt raised that a real historical Jesus even existed at all. Now admittedly there is no single claim that disproves a historical Jesus but there are several oddities that when aligned and added up cause enough doubt to make it difficult to even more forward. 

     A.) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, outside of the the books that were written by alleged christ followers that prove he existed. Rattle off your list because I know you've already got it down: Josephus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Lucian, Tacitus, Clement, Ignatitius, Polycarp. Yes it looks impressive at first glance but when you start digging in there's nothing. Take time and research each one (Barker does a great job of this in his book Godless) and you will find each source easily discredited. Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the NT in the entire first century. The argument from silence is quite damning and gives us serious reason for doubt, not a stage to say his existence is a minimally based fact. 

    B.) The NT stories are internally contradictory. Again, not evidence in itself to disprove Jesus but it does give us reason to pause and consider. Reading the bible in a horizontal fashion comparing the stories of the gospels side by side will help illuminate the inconsistencies....some are small but some are glaring. 

    C.) There are natural explanations for origin of Jesus as a legend: Jesus patterned after a story found in the Jewish Talmud about the illegitimate son of Mariam and Pandora the Roman Soldier. Or, growing out of the pre-Christian cult of Joshua. Or, a fanciful patchwork of pieces borrowed from other religions (Pagan mythical parallels are in copious detail, Attis, Mithra, Dionysus, etc) Again, this gives credence for us to consider that maybe the Jesus character is a myth just like the other pagan sky gods that were abundant in that era. 

     D.) The miracle reports make the story of Jesus non-historical. If a miracle is defined as some kind of violation or the laws of nature, by definition we cannot test that. History is the weakest of all sciences and at best only produces an approximation of truth. In order for history to have any strength at all it must adhere to a very strict assumption that natural laws are regular over time. Since the NT contains numerous stories of events that are either outrageous or impossible the story must be considered more mythical than historical. 


Given this information, we cannot even move past the first minimal fact and the remainder of the argument is therefore mute. I would suggest reading Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus, why we may have reason to doubt." He covers an enormous amount of ground using the Bayesian theory of prior probability to show that given the evidence we actually have in hand, including silence, we cannot reasonably say that it is probable a historical Jesus existed.