Just the Facts Ma'am: The Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus
What is the Minimal Facts Argument?
One of my favorite arguments for historical Christianity is known as the Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus. This argument is primarily the work of historian and philosopher, Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University, as well as Dr. Michael Licona of Risen Jesus ministry. The Minimal Facts Argument makes the case for the Resurrection of Jesus using only information agreed upon by virtually all historians of all religious persuasions who have specialized in the life and times of Jesus, regardless of their worldview. The argument doesn’t assume the Bible is supernatural or inerrant (although there are strong reasons to believe it is both), so it can be shared with people of all different religions and worldviews.
There are dozens of facts that could be used to make this case, but I like to use just four facts that are easy to remember using the acronym CASE, as we make our CASE for the Resurrection.
C = Crucifixion: Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Virtually every historian on earth who has specialized in studying the life and death of Jesus will agree that Jesus was killed by crucifixion.
A = Appearances: Jesus’ disciples believed they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead. Non-Christian scholars don’t believe Jesus actually rose from the dead, but they do acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead.
S = Skeptics: Paul, an enemy of Christ, and James the brother of Jesus, a skeptic, both became followers of Jesus after what they believed to be resurrection appearances. It wasn’t just Jesus’ friends and initial followers who were convinced; early skeptics and even enemies of Christ were convinced that Jesus was the risen Lord.
E = Early: Jesus’ resurrection was proclaimed very early on after his crucifixion, beginning in Jerusalem where the events themselves took place.
Based on these facts, we can make the case that the best explanation for the evidence is that Jesus rose from the dead, both literally and bodily. Although several naturalistic explanations have been proposed to explain the facts, every single one has been refuted and effectively put to rest by Christians and non-Christians alike. This leaves us with the explanation that was accepted by the early Christians and has been passed on for 2000 years – that Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead.
Of course, lay people (and the occasional scholar) still propose some of the now-debunked naturalistic explanations in conversation and debate, so it’s important to know how to respond to these claims. However, first it’s important to point out that the only so-called problem with the explanation that Jesus actually rose from the dead is that it requires a miracle. But is this a problem?
Are Miracles a Problem?
If an Intelligent Designer exists, then miracles are not a problem at all. That's why I like to share the Cosmological Argument early on in my conversations with non-Christians. Once we've shown evidence that a timeless, space-less, immaterial, personal, powerful designer exists, or could exist, then miracles are no longer a problem.
In reality, everyone who acknowledges that the universe exists believes in some sort of miracle. While Christians believe the universe came into being through an Intelligent Designer, atheists believe the universe came into being by no one and nothing. This, however, is still a miracle! But the Cosmological Argument shows that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is actually more in line with the science than the alternative.
What Makes a Minimal Fact Reliable?
If the miracle of a resurrection is the best explanation of the facts given above, this raises the question, “Why should we accept the minimal facts? Or, stated in other words, “What are the criteria for reliability?”
There are criteria that have been used for centuries to help us know whether something is historically reliable. In order to reject the minimal facts, someone would have to explain why they reject these criteria or the why the reject the evidence for each of the minimal facts, and that has proven very difficult for those who don’t like the idea of a resurrected Jesus. So what are these criteria? Let me give you a few.
Multiple Attestation
First, there’s multiple attestation. This means claims that have been recorded by multiple sources are considered more reliable than claims recorded by only one source (though keep in mind that any extant source from 2000 years ago is remarkable because papyrus disintegrates easily, and persecution of Christians resulted in the burning of countless manuscripts.)
For example, if an event is recorded in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul’s letters, that’s at least four unique sources for the event. The reason it may not be five independent sources is because information that is common to Matthew and Luke likely came from one source, referred to by scholars as Q.
With regard to the minimal facts, the crucifixion and appearances are multiply-attested both inside and outside the Bible, by Christians and non-Christians, Jews and Greeks, historians and lay people.
Early Attestation
Another criterion for reliability when evaluating a piece of information is early attestation. In other words, information found in earlier sources is considered more reliable than information that arose later.
With regard to biblical sources, the consensus is that Paul’s letters predated the Gospels, Mark was earliest Gospel, and John was last Gospel.
When discussing the evidence for the resurrection, we have shockingly early attestation. First Corinthians 15:3-7 proclaims the death, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus and is dated to around 30-33 A.D. This puts it within six months to three years of the resurrection itself, depending on whether one accepts the earlier (30 AD) or the later date (33 AD) for the crucifixion and resurrection.
Enemy attestation
A third criterion is known as enemy attestation. In other words, if your enemies agree with you on a fact, and especially on a fact related to your rivalry, then it's considered more reliable. We have that in the case of the resurrection as well.
When the disciples began proclaiming a resurrected Christ, the Jews didn't say, “The body isn't missing! We threw him in the common grave” or “The birds ate his flesh from the cross” or “His body is right here where we put it, in the grave of Joseph of Arimathea.” No, they responded, “The disciples must have stolen the body!” In other words, they admitted the body was missing. This is evidence that the tomb was, in fact, empty. Although the empty tomb isn’t one of our minimal facts, it’s agreed upon by about 75% of scholars and has strong evidence to support it, not the least of which that it was discovered by women. This leads us to our next criterion.
Embarrassment
Information that embarrasses those making the claim or potentially hinders their case is considered more reliable than information that presents them in a good light or bolsters their case.
For example, women first witnesses to the empty tomb and to the resurrected Jesus. Women weren’t considered reliable. Their testimony wasn’t permitted in a court of law. This was a stumbling block to early hearers. But this is strong evidence for the reliability of the message today because the disciples likely wouldn’t have made up something that hurt their case during their own time and culture.
Dissimilarity
There’s also the criterion of dissimilarity. If a belief or expectation wasn't common before the event in question or it wasn't common after the event, then it's more likely the event happened.
For example, Jews didn't refer to coming Messiah as Son of Man, and the early church didn't refer to Jesus as Son of Man, so Jesus likely really did refer to himself as Son of Man as recorded in Gospels.
With regard to the minimal facts, the Jews weren't expecting a bodily resurrection back to earth immediately following his death. They believed that all Jews would be resurrected to heaven at the end of the age. Therefore, it isn't likely it's something they would have claimed of Jesus unless it really happened.
Alternative Explanations
I mentioned earlier that many naturalistic explanations have been proposed to explain the apparent resurrection of Jesus, but that those alternatives been successfully refuted. So, what are some of those alternative explanations that you still might hear occasionally to explain what happened to Jesus?
The Swoon Theory
Over the years, some people have proposed that perhaps Jesus passed out on the cross but never actually died. After some rest and recovery in the tomb, he reappeared to his followers, who mistakenly thought he had risen from the dead.
There are several problems with this theory. First it is a problem from the Minimal Facts Argument because it rejects the C – Crucifixion. Historians agree Jesus died by crucifixion, and they have excellent reasons for doing so.
Perhaps the strongest reason is multiple attestation. The crucifixion of Jesus is probably the single most attested fact in all of ancient history. It’s as certain as anything from history can be.
Next, historical attestation affirms the effectiveness of Roman crucifixion. Whenever anyone has undergone a full Roman crucifixion, they have always died. The Romans were experts at this, and if they failed at their job, they themselves would have been killed.
Additionally, a whipped, crucified, speared man wouldn’t be confused with a resurrected man. If Jesus had passed out on the cross, regained consciousness in the tomb, rolled the tomb away on the third day after profuse bleeding alone in the cold tomb, he wouldn't have looked like the resurrected Lord. He would have looked like a man in desperate need of immediate medical attention.
An Invention of the Disciples
Another debunked theory is that the disciples invented the resurrection to be famous, powerful, or wealthy.
This is a problem from Minimal Facts Argument because it rejects the A – Appearances. The disciples really believed they saw the risen Christ. This fact has stood the test of time due to its multiple attestation, early attestation, and enemy attestation.
In addition, as Gary Habermas says, “liars make poor martyrs.” The disciples were willing to suffer and even die for their claims, and unlike modern-day martyrs, they were in a position to know for sure whether they made up the story or really saw the resurrected Christ. This is very different from Muslims who trust Muhammad’s word, or even Christians today who trust their parents or the Bible. They knew whether or not they had made up the story, and yet every one of them was willing to lose everything for their claim. (Note: Not every one of them was actually martyred, but the point is they were willing to lose their life for what they knew to be true. There is no evidence that even one of them ever recounted, even in the face of tremendous threat and danger).
Finally, it’s worth noting that it wasn’t until 300 years later, after Constantine became Emperor, that there were opportunities for personal gain in this life by becoming a Christian. Jesus’ disciples wouldn’t have done this for the money, the fame, or the power because there was none to be had in the days of the pagan Roman Empire. They knew they would be hated and persecuted, and yet they embraced this life for the sake of Christ.
The Hallucination Theory
Popular in 1990s and advocated by historians like Dr. Gerd Ludemann, the Hallucination Theory posits that perhaps Jesus’ disciples only thought they saw the resurrected Jesus when in reality they were all having hallucinations.
This is a problem from the Minimal Facts because it rejects the S – Skeptics. Paul, an enemy of Christ, and James, a skeptic, became Christians when they believed they saw the resurrected Christ. Dr. Ludemann and others get this idea from grief-based hallucinations, but Paul, in particular, would not have had a grief-based hallucination involving Jesus. He wasn’t friends with Jesus. He boasted of killing Christians. He was proud of it. He certainly wouldn’t have grieved Jesus’ death.
The criterion for trusting Paul’s conversion includes multiple and early attestation. It is recorded in Acts, written by Luke; in Galatians, written by Paul; and in 1 Corinthians 15 as part of a creed that Paul received from Peter and John. Both of the last two sources are extremely early attestation by any standard, though by historical standards all three sources are remarkably early.
Yet another problem for the Hallucination Theory is that hallucinations occur in the mind. They’re not group events, and they’re not contagious. They’re like dreams. Groups of people cannot gather together and have the same dream at the same time. The resurrection appearances occurred over 40 days, to different groups of people, of different sizes, with different relationships to Jesus, and in different states of mind. The largest group to interact with the resurrected Jesus at once was 500 people! This is very unlike any hallucination ever recorded.
Myths that Developed Over Time
Yet another naturalistic theory to explain the supposed resurrected is that this was a myth that developed over time. This theory is a problem from Minimal Facts because it rejects the E – Early. Jesus’ disciples were proclaiming his resurrection very early on following the crucifixion. The strongest evidence for this comes from 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which is exceptionally early attestation of these events.
As mentioned earlier, scholars believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is an ancient creed dating back to within 1-3 years of the crucifixion, if not earlier. Paul begins 1 Corinthians 15 with,
“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you…. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Cor. 15:1, 3-8)
Based on the language and format, it was almost certainly a creed formulated by some of the first Christians as an easily memorized and shared proclamation of the most important Christian message. Paul added on, “and last of all he appeared to me….” But why do scholars believe this goes back to within 1 to 3 years of the crucifixion?
First Corinthians was likely written in 54 or 55 AD, but here Paul reminds them of this creed which he has already taught them when he was with them. Paul was with them when Gallio was Governor of Achaia (Acts 18:12), which we know from archaeology was in 51 and 52 AD. It’s believed that Paul received this creed when he spent time with Peter and James, recorded in Galatians 1:18. If work backwards from 52 when Paul was in Corinth, and we account for all his other travels that he records before that but after visiting Peter and James, and we leave two years for travel time by boat, this brings us back to between 30 and 33 AD. The crucifixion itself took place in either 30 or 33. So you can see this doctrine of the resurrection, which is in the creed, was being proclaimed very close to the events themselves.
“Something happened!”
When I meet people non-Christians, I like to ask, “How do you account for the facts agreed upon by virtually all scholars of all religions surrounding Jesus’ death and appearances? Most people haven’t even thought about this question and have no response. Others repeat one of the debunked naturalistic explanations above. But others are truly informed on the subject, and their answer is my favorite: “Something happened!”
One problem with this response is that it isn’t an explanation. It’s a cop-out. This is a rejection of the conclusion, not the reliability of the evidence, and it is a perfect opportunity to challenge our friends to look into the single most important questions they’ll ever need to answer: What happened to Jesus of Nazareth?
Conclusion
The best explanation for the facts agreed upon by virtually every scholar of every religious persuasion and worldview who has studied the evidence is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. If someone wants to dispute this, they must deal with the evidence, including the criteria for historical reliability, and offer some reason why this explanation falls short or provide a better explanation for the facts.
Recommended Resources
• The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
• The Knight and Rose Show, episode 1, Easter: Making the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (YouTube, Apple, Spotify, etc.)
• Debate on YouTube: William Lane Craig vs. James Crossley
• Risen Indeed by Gary Habermas
• The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas
