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.