I. Introduction.
Recent posts to this space have had to do with the New Testament (NT) scriptures: the preservation of the Gospel tradition during its oral phase between the Ascension and the writing (“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” May 13, 2024 post); the honesty of the authors of the NT (“As to Their Honesty,” April 23, 2024 post); the historical accuracy of the Gospels (“He is Risen,” March 30, 2024 post); and the integrity of the recovered text of the New Testament (“The Recovery of the New Testament,” February 18, 2024 post). But there is also a recent movement among biblical scholars to advocate for the Resurrection of Jesus on the basis of what is known as “minimal facts” methodology. Liberty University New Testament scholar Gary R. Habermas explains in his just-out book, On the Resurrection: Evidences (B&H Academic, 2024).
II. The New Testament as History.
In recent years, there has developed a near unanimity among bible scholars as to the historicity of most of the facts surrounding the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, as related by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. While only a “strong minority” acknowledge the Resurrection itself, both liberal and conservative scholars have acceded to the rest of the narrative. This is progress, and it will come, if I am not mistaken, as news to most people!
James Charlesworth, for instance, lists twenty areas of consensus among Jesus researchers and states that “In contrast to [Rudolf] Bultmann’s time [1884-1976], it is now being recognized that there is considerable and reliable bedrock historical material in the Gospels.”1 Here Charlesworth is referring to the former insistence on discounting the historical value of any Bible pericope which cannot be verified by extrinsic evidence. And Habermas does not state this explicitly, but he implies that this elevation of the historical status of the New Testament is the result of the application to the Bible of the same criteria which historians employ in evaluating other sources. The fact is that by those standards, the Gospels are by far the very best sources of information about Jesus’ times. Notably, this new-found respect for the NT is an artifact of the last 30 years of Bible scholarship!
That’s what I mean when I say this is probably news to most people: it takes time for expert knowledge to filter down from the universities to the man in the street. Scholars may know the evidence supports the Resurrection while the average person is still stuck in early twentieth-century skepticism. Someone needs to tell them!
Bible scholars now recognize that much of what we know about those times comes from the Bible. Robert Funk, a founder and prominent member of the skeptical Jesus Seminar, states that “a disinterested, neutral observer” could acknowledge that Jesus was a teacher, healer, and exorcist; that the Romans executed him by crucifixion under Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate. He further states that after the crucifixion Jesus’ disciples were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them, as a result of which their lives were transformed.2 Jewish historian Geza Vermes recites many of the same facts, along with others. And E. P. Sanders, who, according to Habermas, “ranks as one of the most influential scholars in the Third Quest for the historical Jesus,” states that it is “not in dispute” that “the resurrection experiences of the disciples provided the motivating force behind the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ and as Lord. . . .”3
III. “Minimal Facts” Methodology.
Habermas identifies twelve facts which “are acknowledged as historical by virtually all researchers who investigate this area.” From that list he distills six that he considers “most essential to the overall research that addresses the historicity of the occurrences in question.”4 In addition, he includes one other fact – the empty tomb – because it is as strong evidentially as the other six facts but “is still not considered as one of the six minimal facts since it does not strictly meet the second standard of being almost unanimously recognized by critical scholars.”5 The empty tomb is accepted, instead, by “only” a “significant majority” of Jesus researchers.6
THE KNOWN OR ACCEPTED HISTORICAL FACTS
Here are the list of twelve facts, followed by the list of six essential facts.
1. Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
3. Afterwards, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having their previous hope challenged.
4. The tomb in which Jesus was probably buried was discovered to be empty very soon after his interment.
5. The disciples reported experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. The teaching and proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection and the subsequent appearances took place very early after the disciples’ experiences.
7. These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief.
8. The disciples’ reports, preaching, and teaching of these resurrection experiences took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried shortly before.
9. The gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
10. The gatherings of the Christian community began at approximately this same time, featuring the first day of the week as a frequent time for worship.
11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic or at least an unbeliever before his conversion, most likely believed and became a follower after he also believed that he saw the risen Jesus.
12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance to him of the risen Jesus.7
And the six “minimal facts:”
1. Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.
2. The disciples afterwards reported experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
3. These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief.
4. The proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences themselves.
5. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before his conversion, most likely believed after he also thought that he saw the risen Jesus.
6. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance to him of the risen Jesus.
+ 1 The private tomb in which Jesus was probably buried was discovered to be empty shortly after his death.8
Habermas writes:
Sanders concludes in an epilogue on the resurrection: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact.” Moreover, numerous alternative theories are unsuccessful in explaining these events in natural terms. For example, he “was not a ghost, or a resuscitated corpse, or a badly wounded man limping around.” Nor was this a case of deliberate fraud or “mass hysteria.” But “we know that after his death his followers experienced what they described as the ‘resurrection’: the appearance of a living but transformed person who had actually died. They believed this, they lived it, and they died for it.”9
Habermas continues:
What makes this summation all the more impressive is that, far from very few of these scholars being conservative, the preceding list includes a Jewish historian who was agnostic regarding the nature of Jesus’s appearances (Vermes), a well-known and well-published atheist New Testament scholar (Ehrman), cofounders of the Jesus Seminar (Funk, Borg), another critical New Testament scholar influenced by the skeptical Second or New Quest movement for the historical Jesus (Perrin), plus a post-Bultmannian New Testament researcher who differed significantly on the nature of the resurrection appearances (Marxsen). And while all of these critical scholars allow historical items such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is a very influential, self-styled “liberal, modern, secularized Protestant” (Sanders) who states more than once that the general consensus among scholars is that Jesus actually did appear in some sense to his disciples after his death. This is simply remarkable.”10
IV. Criteria of Historicity.
Habermas then explains why each minimal fact commands the assent of the scholarly community by recounting the ways in which each fact, respectively, thoroughly satisfies the historiographical criteria by which historians generally evaluate any claim to historicity:
Early attestation
Eyewitness testimony
Multiple attestation
Dissimilarity (A particular saying may be attributed to someone if it cannot plausibly be attributed to anyone else. The very idea that anyone but Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount seems highly unlikely, for instance.)
Palestinian origin (Sayings in the Aramaic language, for example. The raising of Jairus’ daughter and the cry of dereliction come to mind.)
Embarrassment (Frankly acknowledging words or events which place the author or others in a negative light may reflect a commitment to truth-telling. Mark and Peter, for example, are unflinching in describing Peter’s repeated failures.)
Enemy attestation (The Jews to this day claim that the body was stolen, which means the tomb must have been empty.)
V. The Evidence.
Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the ways all the minimal facts satisfy these criteria. Perhaps the central facts of all, however, would be that the disciples had experiences which they were thoroughly convinced were encounters with the risen Christ and that they were transformed as a result of those experiences from cowering fugitives to on-fire evangelists. Why do these fact-claims command nearly universal assent, even among skeptical scholars? A summary of the evidence for those two “minimal facts” may suffice for present purposes.
EARLY ATTESTATION
At 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul writes:
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
6 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.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus occurred two or three years after the Crucifixion. Three years later – but before he wrote 1 Corinthians – he visited Jerusalem and conferred with Peter and James – eyewitnesses – for 15 days. Paul’s purpose in making this trip was to determine whether he and the Jerusalem apostles were preaching the same Gospel. It is thus likely, says Habermas, that the statement which was to become 1 Cor 15:3-7 had been formulated before Paul’s arrival, was given to him at that time, and was later incorporated into his letter. Richard Bauckham concurs: “All scholars recognize here an early tradition that was formulated even before Paul’s own call to be an apostle. . . .”11 And by whom was it formulated? It was formulated by Peter, James, and the other eyewitnesses, and that puts us “on top of the historical events themselves.”12
MULTIPLE ATTESTATION
The appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus is attested at least twice (Luke 24:13-35 and Pseudo-Mark 16:12-13).
The appearances to the Eleven are attested ten times (1 Cor 15:5b, 7b; Matt 28:16-20; Luke 24:36-39; John 20:19-21; and Ign. Smyrn. 3:2b-3); Acts 10:39; Gos. Peter 9:1-10:5; Mark 14:27-28, 16:7; Mark 16:14-20.
The appearance to Paul: 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Acts 9:3-19, 22:1-16; 26:9-18.
Mary Magdalene: Matt 28:9-10; John 20:11-18; pseudo-Mark 16:9-11.
Peter: 1 Cor 15:5a; Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10; Luke 24:34; Ign. Smyrn. 3:2a; John 21:15-23.
James: 1 Cor 15:7a; Gos. Thom. 12; Gospel of the Hebrews 7.
Habermas comments: “If significant contradictory information opposed the minimal historical items in crucial aspects, then they would hardly be accepted by virtually all researchers. Yet, these events are acknowledged as historical precisely because of the literally dozens of pointers to the truth.”13 Further, he encourages the reader, “When considering this exceptionally large number of sources, [to] recall historian Paul Maier’s assertion that ‘many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.'” [Habermas, 289.]
EMBARRASSMENT
Here are a few of the more significant instances in which the impetus to truth-telling was strong enough to overcome the instinct to preserve one’s reputation:
That the leader of the movement should die by crucifixion
That Jesus’ disciples abandoned Him in the garden
That Peter denied Him three times
That the empty tomb was discovered by the women
DISSIMILARITY
That Messiah should suffer and die
ENEMY ATTESTATION
The Jewish leaders claimed the body had been stolen.
As Habermas states, “a stronger case could hardly even be imagined.”14
Many scholars have crossed the threshold of the Kingdom. I am reminded of the similar experience of Simon Greenleaf, the 19th Century’s leading expert on the law of evidence and a founder of Harvard Law, who set himself to refute the Gospel and instead became a follower of Christ. Habermas summarizes:
. . . [A] greater number of critical scholars proceed beyond the disciples’ belief here and conclude that Jesus was truly raised from the dead and actually appeared in some real sense. As noted at the outset of this chapter, eminent researcher E. P. Sanders actually ranks the actual appearances of the risen Jesus as part of the “equally secure facts” and places them among the historical data that are most widely accepted by recent scholars, thereby enjoying widespread critical attestation. Even Alison joins these scholars in acknowledging firmly, “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.” Strauss and many other critics did not confess anything like this – hence the huge difference between “then” and “now”! Such affirmations proceed beyond the normal scholarly recognition witnessed in the past, and at the most crucial junction in Christian belief as well. Not to recognize these developments is to miss a vital cog in the contemporary ethos.15
The Disciples’ Transformations
The impact which their encounter with the risen Christ had on the disciples is also abundantly clear. Both secular sources (Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Josephus, and Mara bar Serapion) and Christian (Clement, Ignatius) back this up. Peter, Paul, James the brother of Jesus, James the son of Zebedee, all were martyred, along with “an immense multitude,” according to the Roman historian Tacitus, who were crucified, torn by animals, or burned alive. Pliny conceded that true Christians could not be forced to recant. “It is no wonder, then,” says Habermas, “that contemporary critical scholars, even including skeptics of several varieties, rarely challenge or doubt that Jesus’ disciples were radically transformed from fearful followers of Jesus or even unbelievers into courageous proclaimers of their faith.”16
As far as the other minimal facts are concerned, I encourage the reader to purchase the book. For present purposes, it is sufficient merely to note that Habermas shows that the nearly universal assent to all of the “minimal facts” is also based on solid evidence. To my mind, the Resurrection would be most powerfully presented on the basis of three minimal facts – the empty tomb, the disciples’ belief that they had seen the risen Christ, and their resulting transformation – together with the fact that there simply is no plausible naturalistic explanation for these events.
Jesus is alive, and if you only believe what is right in front of you, your sins are forgiven, and you have a glorious, eternal future in the Kingdom of God.
ENDNOTES
1Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity press International, 1994), 6. (Cited by Gary R. Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences (B&H Academic, 2024), Kindle Edition, 152.)
2Robert V. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), 32-40, 220-222, 264-71. (Cited by Habermas, 133.)
3E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 3. (Cited by Habermas, 135.)
4Gary R. Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences (B&H Academic, 2024), Kindle Edition, 145, 147; my emphasis.
5Habermas, 148.
6Habermas, 146 n 53.
7Habermas, 145-146.
8Habermas, 148-149.
9Habermas 135.
10Habermas, 145. My emphasis.
11Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2d ed. 2017), 578. (Cited by Habermas, 375.)
12Habermas, 381.
13Habermas, 403.
14Habermas, 419.
15Habermas 434-435.
16Habermas, 528.
Joshualetter 