Minimal Fact

He has devoted a large part of his career to the topic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and most likely has done more than any other scholar to defend its historicity. 2] In his research on the resurrection, over a two year period, Habermas tracked down more than twelve hundred publications dealing with the resurrection of Christ. Each source was published between 1975 and 2005, with the vast majority of them being written by critical scholars. [3] He found that the last twenty years have produced more than forty different suggestions favoring about a dozen different alternative explanations for the account of the resurrection of Jesus. [4] In his research, he has developed the “Minimal Facts” method of apologetics in defending the bodily, factual resurrection of Christ.

Habermas calls his method the “minimal facts” method because in it he uses only those data that satisfy at least two major standards: each event must be either; exceptionally well attested to on multiple grounds; and the event must be recognized as historical by the majority of scholars who study this subject, especially when they oppose the conclusion that is nonetheless warranted. [5] In the end, he posits that the resurrection can be trusted to be true based upon only those few facts that meet these two standards.

The essence of his approach is to use only those facts whose historical reliability enjoys almost universal agreement among scholars. As one example; quoting Reginald Fuller, Habermas points out that Jesus’ disciples belief that they had in fact seen the risen Jesus is one of the indisputable facts of history, and explanations that do not rise to the level of adequately explaining the cause of this rather than just examining it as an event are short of relevance. [6] Using such core facts, he develops the case that the resurrection is a solid historical event because only a bodily resurrection can adequately explain these facts as accepted.

He sincerely asks critics to apply the same standard to the Scriptural accounts as they do to other historical “facts” that are generally believed to be true in history. Habermas presents five minimal and well established facts to consider for the resurrection: Jesus died by crucifixion; His disciples believed that His resurrection and appearances were real whether they were or not; Paul’s life was changed radically from dangerous opponent to leading proponent of the resurrection and the Christian faith; the skeptic James was converted because of the belief in the resurrection; and the tomb was empty. 8] With these fact, only a bodily resurrection can logically fit the data.

Habermas understands that nothing can be proven historically with a 100% certainty, but he is certain that the resurrection can be shown to be established as a true historical event with a very high degree of certainty. [9] Since such convincing data for the resurrection can be established utilizing the minimal amount of knowable facts of history, scholars should not invalidate the resurrection by referring to minor discrepancies in the New Testament and concluding that the whole of the reports of the Bible are inaccurate. 10] Contemporary critical scholars do not consider the reliability of the New Testament wholesale even though they conclude it is inaccurate as a whole because of their questions on individual passages. They criticize individual passages, isolating passages from the whole. [11] Habermas argues that rather than focusing on what ‘could not possibly be known’ about the facts of the reports of the New Testament, critics should examine that which even they admit can be known.

Such facts are enough to prove that a bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the data. While they still have questions about other points of the report of the New Testament, the minimal facts remaining and without reasonable dispute are adequate in themselves to show that Jesus died and later appeared alive in body to his followers. [12] Such a view may also work on their doubts concerning those “troubling” passages as well, since they are mostly based on a denial of the miraculous as unreliable eporting. In Habermas’ view, this approach is more effective than the use of the Bible alone, since the evidence is effective even for the skeptics who disbelieve the Scriptures. [13] He contends that this is not just a good method for hard cases, but rather that the strongest argument for the resurrection of Jesus is one which can be based on the minimal historical facts alone.

In other words, if one utilizes only those facts which are agreed upon by all parties to be historical, even by skeptical scholars, there is still enough data to show that Jesus rose from the dead in body[14] and that data will be the most accurate, undeniable and convincing. Few scholars, even rather critical ones, doubt that the resurrection as reported by the earliest witness was imagined; in other words, it is agreed that they indeed had a visionary experience.

However, this vision as an hallucination or spiritual vision fails any attempt to explain the data as recognized by scholars. The facts favor a visual, real, experience of the risen Christ. [15] This is not just an opinion of critics, it is the conclusion required from the best facts. Though scholars perform standards of examination to determine the reliability of a passage of Scripture, seldom can one find a list of these principles, due in part to some standards being preferred over others by individual scholars. 16] Habermas assembles a list of those criteria most generally agreed to by Biblical critics when examining a passage for historical accuracy:

Early evidence is strongly preferred to later contributions; whenever there are sources with eyewitnesses there is preference; attestation by more than once source; discontinuity of the quotation, meaning it could not have possibly come from another source; the presence of Aramaic words or other indications of Palestinian origin; coherence to other facts that are established; disparaging remarks about the author, indicating truthfulness and a lack of obfuscation; and finally, enemy attestation, especially when it is not in their own best interest to do so.

It is with these generally acceptable standards that the minimal facts speak to the truth of the resurrection. Considering Habermas’ appeal to use similar standards for the Bible narrative as are used for other historical narratives, he has asked critics to consider that the New Testament is supported by more than 5500 copies and partial copies in Greek and other languages, while most classical Greek and Roman texts have fewer than 10 each. [18] Though it does not prove the truthfulness, it does show the record accurately reports what the authors wrote.

Furthermore, these New Testament copies are from much earlier sources than are the classical texts. With this, and with the confirmation of 18 extra-biblical records, it is considered that the Biblical texts are 99. 99% accurate to history and without differences between copies that would affect doctrine. [19] Likewise, when considering the age of the Biblical narrative and its sources from the time of the events they are reporting, one finds that the earliest Christian creed, as most critical scholars agree, dates from around 32-35 AD and is recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-ff and meets all the demands of reliability that could be made of a text. 20] This evidence shows an early, indeed contemporary, report that eyewitnesses believed that Jesus rose from the dead in body.

Appeals to extra-biblical texts for a merely spiritual resurrection of Jesus fail in that these texts, including the gnostic texts that are often claimed to be more ancient, are all of much later dates, they do not demonstrate pre-gospel traditions in their texts, and they lack any eyewitness testimony. Further, these texts still affirm Christ’s death and later ‘appearances. ’[21] There is also no escape in weakly claiming that “something” happened (while avoiding what that something may have been) that changed the lives of the witnesses and evading the resurrection because of general historical or epistemological questions.

There are enough facts of history to adequately demonstrate the literal resurrection as an historical event by the minimally accepted data of virtually all scholars. [22] Habermas realizes and admits that no one will ever come to saving faith through the argument of facts or by “reasoning. ” Knowing that only God can bring salvation, he sees value in proving answers to the questions of those who doubt and perhaps try to seek trough their doubts, or for Christians trying to build upon their certainty in faith. [23] Despite his call for a “minimal facts’ method, Habermas demonstrates that there an incredible amount of evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

Because the resurrection is this center of Christian faith (I Cor. 5:12-20) there is much relevance in this vast source of data concerning factual doubt when considering the Scriptures. [24] In light of this embarrassment of riches, Habermas also suggests one take a look at the resurrection from a different angle. The resurrection is the single most important event in history and is central, foundational, to Christianity. As such, it is unlike any other miracle reported in the Bible for its significance and its promise of future redemption for all mankind. It is any coincidence that the most convincing data and most convincing arguments can be made for the resurrection apart from any other report of the miraculous in the Bible?

Habermas thinks it is more than coincidence that the central event of the Bible, the central event of history, has also the status of the central point of convergent data to prove its historicity. [25] An even more interesting application of the minimal facts method to the apologist lifting up Christ as Lord, one can still show that Jesus was conscious of His own deity. Thus, there is no reason to distinguish the ‘historical Jesus’ from the Jesus of the historical church. [26] Not every skeptic is convinced that Habermas has a rock solid method and believe they see error in his research and perhaps even obfuscation in his argument. John Loftus, as a atheist writer, blogger, and public speaker, has a problem with the minimal list of facts, citing that not everyone agrees with all of these “facts. ” Skeptics such as Hugh J.

Schonfield (The Passover Plot) and Robert Price disagree with Jesus dying as a fact. He claims it is also not agreed that James was a skeptic at the time Jesus died, or that he was converted as the result of Jesus appearing to him, claiming that there is no evidence of either. The empty tomb has a number of scholars on both sides that doubt it, including Dale Allison and many liberal Christian scholars; something that Loftus points out that Habermas admits and yet includes anyway, thus betraying to Loftus that this is not a minimal facts approach at all. Habermas feel justified to include it, Loftus argues, because he discovered that roughly 75% of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as historical fact.

Loftus contends that this is merely an argument from consensus and that it includes mainly evangelical works on the subject because they’re more interested in researching the resurrection than other traditions would be. [27] The argument from consensus is weak. Wouldn’t the majority view of researchers carry some weight with Loftus if they agreed with him that there was no resurrection? Agreement of peers in research is a cornerstone of research and agreement. Loftus points out that Habermas has, in his lectures, quoted from Annette Gordon-Reed, a law professor of New York Law School, when she said of historical and legal cases, “The evidence must be considered as a whole before a realistic and fair assessment of the possible truth of [any] story can be made.

Loftus argues that since Christian scholars do not agree with the skeptics, Habermas simply sets skeptical objections against the total data aside when dealing with the resurrection, isolating and treating separately the claims of Jesus’ resurrection from the general trustworthiness of the Bible, just as he wants to isolate and then treat separately the claim Jesus arose apart from other miracle claims in the ancient world. [28] In his blog postings, a hostile Loftus overstates the case, misunderstands the points, and seems to willingly ignore some points, but not all of his criticism is wrong. It may, however, fall short of a defeater for the minimal facts method when properly understood as not a proof, but a probability enhancement.

Habermas ignores the fact, in Loftus’ view, that a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead, but should not be discounted, because: Improbable things happen all the time. Non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection might all be improbable, and yet better explain the evidence, since a miracle can still be far less likely to be true than those other improbable explanations. Unless Habermas can show Loftus that his “improbable” explanations are more improbable than a miracle (and he maintains that Habermas never does), Loftus concludes that Habermas’ argument can’t even get off the ground. [29] This may be Loftus’ best objection, and its defense speaks more to presuppositionalism than to historical apologetics.

There indeed may be a weakness with the minimal facts method when applied to the field of apologetics against the popular opinion of postmodernism regarding “facts. ” In a world of internet, vanity publishing, and public access cable, the public is exposed to a plethora of opinion dressed as fact. Bloggers continue to propose “fact” filled defenses against the minimal fact method of apologetics. An uncritical public takes the alternate “facts” to be settled when famous bloggers record them, if the hundreds of comments on those posts are any indication. In 2010, one blogger who doubts that there is any extra-biblical evidence at all for the existence of a real Jesus, much less a resurrection, contacted Dr. Habermas to ask about his research. The blogger, Tony Davis, was struck by Dr.

Habermas’ openness when to Davis’ doubts and questions, Habermas wrote: “Of course I realize that tracking scholars across a spectrum of views does not ‘prove’ anything about the events themselves. Therefore, and this is very frequently missed, what I am doing here is more of stating my methodology than that of demonstrating any ‘proven foundation. ‘  But I think knowing the scholarly ‘lay of the land’ is a good starting place for a discussion of the key issues related to Jesus’ death & resurrection. After all, if even skeptical scholars agree with a basic outline of data, then that is a fair ‘common ground’ approach to the major questions. “[30]

Then Davis makes a good observation about the minimal facts method; that if some figure approaching 100% (or even 90% or 80%) of his “scholars” all have degrees in theology then the outcome of the study is a self-fulfilling prophecy. [31] Arguably, even the most critical of liberal theologians are still favorable to the historicity of the Bible report. This is a point of view that evangelical Christians and atheists or agnostics might not understand about each other when they consider how a liberal critic approaches the historicity of the Bible, or even questions of Faith. Considering Habermas’ own standard that the event or saying must be recognized as historical by the vast majority of scholars who study this subject,[32] Davis’ objection has some warrant.

What would an historian who is not concerned with the Biblical narrative at all conclude from the same data? However, would critics who do not study the resurrection have a valid opinion at all, since they are not giving the subject scholarly thought? This is perhaps why Habermas considers only scholars in the field, as those outside the field have only the opinion of the resurrection as would any layman. This question would be a valid research topic for future papers. Habermas quotes Richard Swinburne as he concludes, “alternative hypotheses have always seemed to me to give far less satisfactory accounts of the historical evidence than does the traditional account.

Here is where the apologetic best fits the listener. It is not the facts that will convince, it will be the call of God on their heart moving through the doubts and objections. The facts will only open doors to those whose houses are welcoming to the truth revealed. As an apologetic method, the minimal facts approach avoids the fallacy of trying to prove too much, as well, it is disarming to those skeptics that assume Christians will only quote scripture to prove their point in claims of the resurrection of Jesus. [34] It should become a valuable apologetic tool in the evangelist’s tool box, but not the only one.