Analysis of Gary Habermas' Minimal Facts Approach

In his book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Christian apologist Dr. Gary Habermas details his groundbreaking and compelling historical methodology for analyzing the evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus.[1] Calling this historical methodology the “minimal facts approach,” Dr. Habermas uses “only historical facts that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even skeptics.”[2] The “strongly attested historical data” used in the minimal facts approach is composed of “historical claims” that equate to a “strong probability of certainty.”[3] These historical claims regarding the resurrection of Jesus that equate to a strong probability of “historical certainty” are evaluated upon “five historical principles” that formulate an effective scholarly assessment for determining historical likelihoods.[4]

The five-fold criteria that the minimal facts approach is built upon consists of testimonial factors that point toward an authenticity of historical occurrence. Firstly, scholars look for the presence of “multiple, independent sources” detailing a certain historical evident that is under scrutiny.[5] Within in these multiple, independent sources, scholars examine the source material for three distinct historical qualities that provide “strong support” for the subject of the investigation at hand.[6] These three distinct historical qualities that provide strong support for a historical events legitimacy are “early testimony, enemy attestation, and eyewitness accounts.”[7] Any evidence for a historical event that matches these three historical qualities is considered by scholars to be far superior then historical evidence that is corroborated with “later testimony, attestation from friendly sources, and secondhand or third-hand accounts.”[8] Finally, scholars deem any “embarrassing admissions” that could “weaken the position” of the assertions made about a historical event to be genuine, since “people don’t usually make up details” like that.[9]

In the minimal facts approach put forth by Dr. Gary Habermas, he describes five events within the resurrection account that meet the aforementioned criteria.[10] The first fact in the minimal facts approach is that “Jesus died by crucifixion,” which is a portion of evidence that has multiply and independently attested accounts that are early, from enemies, and from eyewitnesses.[11] The second fact Dr. Gary Habermas considers in his minimal facts approach is that the disciples not only “claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them,” but that they demonstrated that they “really believed it” as well.[12] Not only are the claims by the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead considered by scholars to be authentic, reliable historical evidence shows that the disciples were willing to endure “imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom” for their belief in the resurrection.[13]

Two additional facts featured in the minimal facts approach that have a elevated degree of historical certainty are the “sudden conversions of the church persecutor Paul and the skeptic brother of Jesus named James.”[14] These deniers of the resurrection, upon having claimed to see the “appearance of the risen Jesus,” abandoned their opposition and skepticism toward the church and became devoted Christians even to the point of martyrdom.[15] Finally, while Dr. Habermas acknowledges that “not all but a majority of scholars” view this fact of the resurrection as true, the empty tomb meets the five historical principles of authenticity and is consider to be a component of the minimal facts approach.[16]

Personally, my opinion regarding the minimal facts approach is overwhelmingly positive for numerous reasons. First off, with the resurrection as the foundation on which the Christian faith rests, I agree with Dr. Habermas’ adamant position on the necessity for providing convincing evidence for it. Since our faith is “in vain” if “Christ has not been raised” and that “belief in the resurrection is a requirement for salvation,” conveying the legitimacy of its occurrence succinctly is paramount (1 Corinthians 15:14).[17] Secondly, since the minimal facts approach consists of biblical and non-biblical sources, an apologist can present compelling evidence for resurrection to the skeptic that does not believe in the Bible.[18] This is incredibly important to my personal apologetic approach and encounters since some skeptic have the tendency to discount evidence from the Bible. Finally, acknowledging that we cannot provide “absolute historical certainty” of any historical event, including the resurrection, I concur with Dr. Habermas’ ambition to offer the strongest evidence possible.[19] In my view, it is important to determine which direction the evidence points as well as how genuine the evidence is that is compatible or contrary to that direction. The minimal facts approach espoused by Dr. Gary Habermas effectively compiles and conveys evidence that “we can ascertain with a reasonable amount certainty” in favor of the resurrection’s occurrence.[20]

The question of legend as it pertains to the resurrection requires a clear and well-researched answer in order to maintain the integrity of the New Testament as a legitimate work of history. As the apostle Paul writes in his first letter to the church in Corinth, if the resurrection of Jesus was just a myth and never occurred than our “faith is futile” and the “sting of...sin” is still upon humanity (1 Corinthians 15:17, 56). If the resurrection were a legend rather than a genuine moment in history, the entire reality of Christianity as it relates to the world would be utterly meaningless. With the resurrection as a legend, Christianity would be no more than a fabricated story used to teach moral values. For these reasons, to maintain the historical credibility of the New Testament a thorough analysis of the evidence for the resurrection as well as the evidence should be conducted.

Striving to dispel the accusations of legend and myth-making related to the New Testament accounts of the resurrection, numerous apologists have assumed the objective of demonstrating the close proximity of the New Testament writings to the events they record. In his book The Case for Christ, apologist Lee Strobel questioned New Testament scholar Dr. Craig Blomberg on the dates of the writings of the Gospels in relation to Jesus death and resurrection.[21] His interviewed revealed that the writings of the Gospels are dated to be around only “thirty years or so” after the death and resurrection of Jesus.[22] Accounting for the dating of the book of Acts as being “no later than the year AD 62,” the book of Mark is considered to be written “in the late 50s or early 60s” with the books of Matthew and Luke following close behind.[23] Not only are the Gospels considered to be early accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, the presence of “creeds, confessions, and hymns from the early Christian church” also testify to the resurrection.[24] These creeds, confessions, and hymns recorded in Paul’s epistles, which are dated be written “in the late 40s to 50s,” predate the biblical books they are detailed in.[25] Noting that Paul received these creeds after “meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem” for the first time in “about AD 35,” it is ascertainable that the “fundamental belief in the resurrection” was already circulating “within two to five years of the events themselves.”[26]

Having analyzed the evidence for an early belief and recording of the resurrection, it is imperative to determine the merit of the claims that the resurrection was developed as a legend. As Dr. Gary Habermas details in his book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, there are two primary theories regarding the claims that the resurrection was a Christian legend: “the embellishment theory and the non-historical genre theory.”[27] The key issues plaguing these theories are that the Resurrection “can be traced back to the real experiences of the original apostles” and that “the accounts of the resurrection were meant to be understood as historical rather than mythical.”[28] For these reasons, both of the previous theories that claim that the resurrection was a legend are “unable to account for the conversions of Paul and James as well as Jesus’ enemies consideration of the resurrection as a real event.”[29] Analyzing these legend theories reveals that the they lack the historical credibility that the Gospels and epistles of Paul enjoy.

As previously noted, the writing of the New Testament documents is close to the resurrection of Jesus. This close temporal relationship is important since it significantly decreases the chance of legendary developments and dispels accusations of the sort. As Dr. Craig Blomberg states in his interview with Lee Strobel for The Case for Christ, the minute “amount of time” between the resurrection of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament makes the theory of legendary development “almost a nonissue.”[30] The significant decrease in the chance for legendary development to occur is precisely the reason why it is important that the resurrection testimony be dated back to the years immediately following the crucifixion of Christ. Likewise, the recognition of creeds is establishing an argument for refuting the legendary development objection to the resurrection because it demonstrates that the resurrection was tenet of the Christian faith from the very beginning. The creeds, as the Gospels do, eliminate the time at which legend could have developed regarding the resurrection story. With substantial evidence in favor of the historicity of the resurrection, it is apparent as to why the accusations of legendary development fall short.

It is a common temptation for the Christian engaging in apologetic dialogue to attempt to provide absolute proof for Christianity, especially when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus. Far too often, we as Christians have the tendency to “overstate our case” by suggesting that we can prove the Christian faith with complete certainty when in actuality we cannot convey the reality of Christianity absolutely.[31] As “ambassadors for Christ,” it is important that “state our case accurately” and remember that “the standards for our evidence does not require it to be irrefutable but only beyond a reasonable doubt”[32] (2 Corinthians 5:22). As mentioned previously, with historical instances “we can only speak of probability not one hundred percent certainty.”[33] It is important to recognize as a practicing Christian apologist that “even outside of worldviews, virtually nothing can be established with one hundred percent certainty.”[34] Keeping all this in the forefront of our minds when engaging in apologetic discourse, we as acting Christian apologist can apply this to the question of proving Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Answering the question of whether or not one can absolutely prove that Jesus was raised from the dead, Christians should be honest in apologetic dialogue and admit that we cannot absolutely prove Jesus’ resurrection. Since historical events like those recorded in the Bible cannot be “put into a test tube or repeated,” we cannot verify with complete certainty that the resurrection took place.[35] Rather, by conducting a thorough and objective analysis of the historical evidence, we should focus on determining the reliability of the data at hand and whether that data points in a direction that either supports or opposes the various arguments being made.

As previously noted, the numerous theories that claim that the resurrection of Jesus resulted from the development of legend stories are not exceptionally reliable in credibility and only provide weak opposition to the historicity of the resurrection. On the contrary, it has been revealed by Dr. Habermas’ minimal facts approach that evidence in favor of the historicity of the resurrection is reliable in its credibility and points strongly in the direction of the resurrection as an actual historical event. Additionally, since “the Bible has demonstrated that its accounts are trustworthy and have never been controverted by solid historical data,” it is reasonable that we “give the Bible the benefit of the doubt” when some of the events it records cannot be absolutely verified.[36] Therefore, while not being able to prove the resurrection with complete certainty, we as Christian can “provide good evidence for Jesus’ resurrection” and demonstrate that it is “rationally justifiable to accept it.”[37]

With a compelling quantity of evidence in favor of the historicity of the resurrection, it is reasonable that apologist for Christ could use it to further other apologetic inquiries or arguments. As with the resurrection we are unable to absolutely prove the existence of God, but as Christians we can still provide good evidence for God’s existence and demonstrate that it is rationally justifiable to accept it.[38] The reality of the resurrection of Jesus’ “justifies both His life and His claims,” making of the existence of God known to man.[39] If a sufficient amount of evidence can be presented to rationally believe in the historicity of the resurrection, which is the linchpin of Christian faith, then “Christian message about God can be reasonably confirmed.”[40] If we can come to a rational belief that Jesus claimed to be God and reinforced that claim by fulfilling His promise that He would be resurrected from the dead, it is reasonable to believe then that the God of the Bible is the “only true God” over all of creation[41] (John 17:3). Therefore, the resurrection can be used to further the apologetic arguments regarding the existence of God and the origin of the universe and mankind among numerous others.

Overall, while the resurrection of Jesus cannot be proved with absolute certainty, the overwhelming evidence regarding its legitimate occurrence allows us to have a reasonable belief in its actuality. Dr. Habermas’ minimal facts approach has allowed this evidence to be easily available and contributed greatly to the defense of the historical credibility of Jesus’ resurrection.[42] Finally, the case for the resurrection can certainly be used to further apologetic inquiries and arguments such as the questions surrounding God’ existence and the origin of the universe and mankind.

[1] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 48-77 [2] Ibid., 44 [3] Ibid., 30-47 [4] Ibid., 31, 36 [5] Ibid., 37 [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid., 37-39 [8] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 40 [9] Ibid., 38, 40 [10] Ibid., 48-77 [11] Ibid., 37-39, 48-49 [12] Ibid., 49, 56 [13] Ibid., 50 [14] Ibid., 64-69 [15] Ibid. [16] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 69-70 [17] Ibid., 29; Unless otherwise noted, the biblical passages referenced employ the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway/ Good News Publishers, 2020) [18] Joshua D. Chatraw and Mark D. Allen, Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2018), 283-287 [19] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 30 [20] Ibid., 33 [21] Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2016), 19-39 [22] Ibid., 35 [23] Ibid. [24] Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2016), 36 [25] Ibid., [26] Ibid., 36-37 [27] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 84-89 [28] Ibid., 85, 87 [29] Ibid., 86-87 [30] Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2016), 34 [31] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 203 [32] Ibid., 32, 203 [33] Ibid., 31 [34] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 31 [35] Ibid., 132-150 [36] Ibid., 31 [37] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregels, 2004), 203 [38] Ibid., [39] Ibid., 184 [40] Ibid., 183 [41] Ibid., 166-171 [42] Ibid., 48-77