Chapter 2: The Minimal Facts: What Even Skeptics Believe
Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics.1
—MICHAEL LICONA
AS A YOUNG DOCTORAL STUDENT AT MICHIGAN STATE University, Gary Habermas was losing his Christian faith. It’s not uncommon to hear of these types of stories, as people wade through the volumes of debate and critical speculation surrounding belief in the Scriptures as God’s revealed Word to humanity. Gary was so shaken and exhausted from this enterprise that he contemplated becoming a Buddhist. He had read in the Bible how the apostle Paul said that if Christ was not raised from the dead, then Christianity was false—or as he said it, “your faith is futile” (1 Corinthians 15:17). He concluded from this that if he could have confidence that the resurrection really took place, that knowledge would save his faith. He then proposed to his doctoral committee that he desired to write on the resurrection of Jesus. The committee consisted of a Jewish scholar, an agnostic, and two others who did not believe the Scriptures were the inspired Word of God. The leader said, “That’s fine; just don’t come back and tell us that Jesus was raised from the dead just because the Bible says so.”
As he researched the historical evidence for the resurrection, he assembled the facts that a majority of historians would accept, regardless of whether they were Christian, agnostic, or atheist. He would come to call this method the “minimal facts” approach.2 It is well designed for discussing the faith with skeptics and doubters, since it shows that Christian beliefs, particularly the resurrection, are not just an issue of faith, but a question of history.
Dr. Michael Licona, a historian and an advocate for the minimal facts approach, says, “Some facts are so strongly evidenced that they are virtually indisputable. These facts are referred to as ‘historical bedrock.’ . . . Historical bedrock includes those facts that meet two criteria. First, they are so strongly evidenced that the historian can fairly regard them as historical facts. Second, the majority of contemporary scholars regard them as historical facts.”3 The specific types of evidence, which lead to the designation of a historical fact, fall into several categories. As mentioned previously, a historical claim is typically considered highly probable if it is made by multiple independent sources. Paul Maier states, “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”4
In addition, sources are considered more reliable if they originate shortly after the actual events. Furthermore, texts are regarded as more trustworthy if they record details that are actually embarrassing to the authors. The more of these criteria that historical data meet, the more likely a historical claim will become recognized as a fact.
The process of evaluating historical claims by these criteria is, in essence, the scientific method applied to history. The minimal facts approach provides common ground to engage people in a meaningful discussion. For me, someone who firmly believes in the reliability of Scripture, this approach was truly a breakthrough in terms of communicating the truth of the gospel to unbelievers, who doubted the reliability of the Gospels.
It also serves as a tool for dealing with radical skeptics who would not engage in the real evidence for the Christian faith and simply assert such absurdities as Jesus did not exist. Their approach could be called “blind doubt.” Such skepticism could never be used by historians of ancient history without undermining the entire discipline. “If we started with the default skepticism toward other ancient sources that some scholars place on the Gospels, we would know quite little about antiquity.”5
Facts are pesky things. They tend to get in the way of an opponent’s assertion that there is no evidence that Christianity is true. In this chapter we examine some of the many facts of history that scholars such as Habermas have set forth as minimal facts. These include events mentioned both outside the Scripture as well as within. Remember, even the most ardent skeptics accept many things in the Bible as true.
Before we get into the minimal facts, we examine the most obvious claim of the Christian faith that some have called into question, “Did Jesus really exist?” Jesus’ existence is not listed as a minimal fact for the obvious reason—of course He existed.
However, because there are those who want to challenge this fact in order to make the arguments moot about what He said, what He did, and who He really was, we start our discussion at this elementary level.
BREAKING NEWS: JESUS LIVED!
Up until the last few years, the verdict of historians has been virtually unanimous that Jesus was a person of history. The rise of atheism in the last decade has seen the rise of prominent skeptics who simply assert their “doubts” that Jesus really existed without providing any credible evidence. I’ve heard prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and others, say things like, “Jesus, if He even existed, . . .” It’s important to note that these men are not historians and simply assert this contention in apparent hopes that no one will challenge them because they are scientists. Dawkins has since recanted and admits Jesus existed.6
This dismissive attitude, however, has seeped into the bloodstream of pop culture as well and thrives in the blogosphere and on atheist websites. It is the equivalent of getting your news from a tabloid at the grocery store—the kind with a headline like “I Was Abducted by Aliens.” One of the leading skeptical voices, Bart Erhman, noted, “Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves.”7
This fact of history is settled in the minds of serious historians, regardless of their religious beliefs. Jesus’ life of approximately thirty-three years is still the most important one in all of human existence. His teachings are the bedrock of civilization two thousand years later.
Even the necessity of defending the fact that Jesus was a real person demonstrates the nature of the challenge of living in an age where information quickly mutates into disinformation. Radical deniers disavow any event that does not fit their preferred narrative. To the skeptic desperately trying to shout down any suggestion of the historical credibility of the Christian faith, Jesus’ actual existence is a difficult impossible concession to make.
There is a bit of irony that I am writing this chapter while in Jerusalem. It would be difficult to find anyone living here today who would deny that Jesus existed. The impact of His life on this land is undeniable. Multitudes pour into this part of the world to be given extensive tours of the places where Jesus lived, preached, and worked miracles. It’s long been my sense that anyone doubting Jesus’ existence should simply come to Israel and take a one-week tour. And you don’t need a scholar or historian. Any tour guide can set you straight. Yet to some, especially those under thirty in the United States, this has become a point of uncertainty.
Recently I was sitting in a meeting with one of the leading youth communicators in America, Heath Adamson. He paused after hearing the discussion on my writing a book that tells that Jesus existed and said, “This is the most important question we can answer for young people struggling to find faith—did Jesus really exist?” If Jesus never lived, then this whole thing about faith in Him is a sham.
On the surface, the motivation of such blind doubt is obvious. If Jesus never existed, then you don’t have to bother with all the hard work of looking at the evidence of His words or His works or all the other historical facts that demand a fair hearing.
Just like the debate surrounding the existence of God, the skeptics think that by repeating the magic phrase over and over, “there is no evidence for God . . . there is no evidence for God,” all of it will simply disappear. They seem to be trying the same trick when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ.
In the movie God’s Not Dead 2, the debate rages over whether a teacher can even mention the name of Jesus in a classroom. If Jesus lived, why shouldn’t He be referenced, especially in view of the fact that the impact of His life is still being felt today? Even His critics concede that His words changed the world and gave us an ethical standard unmatched in history. William Lecky was not a friend of Christians; he was an opponent who wrote,
Christianity following its leader has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions, has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but also the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortation of moralists.8
The real motivation for skeptics to deny that Jesus really lived is not a lack of evidence. They often desire to attack Christianity in any way possible because of the evil perpetrated by self-proclaimed Christians. Sadly, this perspective represents a tragic misunderstanding of history and Scripture. The dark actions done in Jesus’ name, atrocities during the Crusades, the Inquisition, attacks against the Jewish people, have all come in direct opposition to His words. He even predicted that many would call Him “Lord, Lord,” but they would not do what He said (Luke 6:46).
Furthermore, many of the followers of Jesus would eventually be put to death rather than deny that He lived, died, and rose again. What could people possibly have gained from fabricating a teaching that included “loving your enemies” and “the greatest among you will be your servant”?
The religious leaders certainly would not have fabricated a character that called them out for their hypocrisy. The Roman rulers couldn’t have been the source of this story either—they wanted no challenges to their authority. No, the evidence is abundantly clear. The Jesus of history is indeed the Christ of faith recorded in Scripture. The vital first step is to know what that historical evidence is. In doing so, you will be prepared to handle the baseless assertions that circulate in our culture with the intent to undermine faith in the credibility of the Christian story.
Remember, we are looking for the evidence of history accepted even by those who do not trust the overall reliability of the Gospels. As we will see clearly in chapter 3, the Gospels are reliable and are excellent sources for establishing what happened historically in terms of the life of Jesus. However, to meet the skeptics on their terms and look at evidence accepted by most historians, we can still establish the following events and claims as true.
He Was Crucified
The first minimal fact is that Jesus died by crucifixion. The cross is the symbol of the Christian faith and without question the most recognizable religious emblem in the world. Almost two billion people believe that Jesus’ crucifixion had something to do with their sins being absolved by God. In the next chapter, we look deeper into the reasons why He was crucified and how His death affects our relationship with God. Here, we look at the fact that His execution really happened. Not only do all four gospels report it, but virtually all early church writings are filled with references to this event.
On top of this evidence are the records by historians and writers who were not sympathetic to the Christian cause. When an enemy or opponent references an event, historians count that fact as a mark of authenticity. The most famous Jewish source is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who was employed by the Romans and wrote during the time of Christ. He would write, “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified . . .”9
A second source is Tacitus, who is generally regarded as the greatest of the Roman historians. He was the proconsul of Asia from AD 112 to 113. His last work, The Annals, was written circa AD 116–117 and included, “Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”10
Another Roman source was Lucian. He was a second-century playwright who wrote, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”11
As a final example, the collection of Jewish teaching known as the Talmud reports that “on the eve of the Passover, Yeshua was hanged.”12 Yeshua is “Joshua” in Hebrew (translated “Jesus” in Greek). Being hung on a tree was used to describe crucifixion in antiquity.
The entire saga of Jesus’ trial, execution, and the scattering of His disciples left a crater in history that bears witness to the reality of these fateful events. Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a historical fact supported by considerable evidence. In fact, on the continuum of historical probability, Jesus’ crucifixion “under Pontius Pilate” is the most certain of all claims related to Jesus.13
His Tomb Was Found Empty
Another important fact is that after Jesus’ crucifixion, His tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers. The empty tomb is not technically included by Habermas as a minimal fact, since the number of critical scholars who accept it drops to around 75 percent14 (compared to more than 90 percent for the other minimal facts15). This drop is likely due to the profound implication of an empty tomb. If Jesus were buried after His death, then the empty tomb would be a decisive additional piece of evidence for the disciples encountering a physical Jesus.
Despite the slightly lower acceptance, the evidence for an empty tomb is enormous. First, all four gospels mention that women were the first eyewitnesses. This fact is significant because the testimony of women was usually dismissed in ancient trials.16 So no first-century author would have ever made the story up.
All four gospels also specifically mention that the body of Jesus was immediately requested from Pilate by Joseph of Arimathea, and he placed it in his tomb. In addition, the early creed that Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:4 says, “He was buried.” If He was buried, then the tomb would have been a geographical, as well as historical, marker. All that the Roman and Jewish authorities would have had to do was produce the dead body of Jesus and the Christian story would have come to a screeching halt.
Skeptics attempt to work around this evidence by asserting that Jesus would not have received a proper burial. Rather, the Romans would have thrown His body to the wild animals. First of all, such an act would have violated the Roman laws, which stated that the customs of those nations they occupied should be respected as much as possible.17 Such laws were enacted in order to keep the peace.18 In addition, Jewish law expressly commanded bodies of the condemned be buried so that the land would not be defiled. “If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 21:22–23).
As New Testament scholar Craig Evans stated, “Given Jewish sensitivities and customs, burial would have been expected, even demanded.”19 Equally significant, early church tradition is unanimous in its designation of the site of the tomb. And the identified site is within the walls of Jerusalem, after they were repositioned further outward between AD 41 and 43. Custom required Jesus to be buried outside the walls, so the tradition for the site’s location had to go back to within ten years of the resurrection. The likelihood of a story of a tomb being fabricated so close to the actual events is remote.20 Such overwhelming cumulative evidence indicates that the skepticism of those who deny the burial and the empty tomb is without any solid historical foundation.
His Disciples Believed He Appeared to Them
The third minimal fact is the disciples’ experiences of the risen Jesus. The evidence supporting this fact is on par with that for Jesus’ crucifixion. How historians are willing to explain those appearances is a different question. While skeptics won’t acknowledge a real resurrection or a bodily appearance, they concede that it is a fact that His disciples and skeptics, such as Paul (who was a persecutor) and James (Jesus’ brother), believed that He appeared to them after His death. Luke Timothy Johnson, in his book, The Writing of the New Testament, stated:
Something happened in the lives of real women and men; something that caused them to perceive their lives in a new and radically altered fashion. . . . If we grant that something happened, however, then we must face the still harder question, what happened? What could be profound enough and powerful enough to change timorous followers into bold and prophetic leaders? What power could transform a fanatic persecutor into a fervent apostle?21
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for this conclusion comes from Paul’s recounting what he heard about the appearances from eyewitnesses. Scholars widely accept that Paul was the author of the book of Galatians, where he described how he had seen the Lord on the road to Damascus, then three years later went to Jerusalem and talked to Peter and James. From these encounters Paul details the appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8:
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 [Peter], 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.
Paul outlines a credible list of the key eyewitnesses who bore witness to the reality that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Another significant indication of the fact that the disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus was the transformation of their lives and their character. For instance, James, Jesus’ half brother, was not a follower during His initial ministry. In fact, he was a skeptic and a critic along with the rest of Jesus’ family (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). After seeing Jesus alive, he became a leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and he was eventually stoned to death, as recorded by the historian Josephus.22 The other disciples also turned from disillusioned doubters to bold proclaimers of the resurrection. In fact, they all were willing to suffer and die for their conviction that Jesus rose from the grave. And we have good evidence that some were even martyred.23
There are accounts of others who claimed to be the Messiah, but their deaths would quickly scatter their followers and end their movements. Such an example was referred to in Acts 5:34–39, when the religious leaders were confronted by the news of Jesus being alive. The fact that the movement grew by hundreds of people, based on testimony that Jesus was alive, demonstrates the most logical conclusion is the claimed appearances were genuine.
The Gospels provide an additional layer of support. Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ appearing to the disciples after His resurrection in Galilee:
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:16–19)
John also describes several appearances, and the likely original ending of Mark mentions that they would soon take place (Mark 16:7). Skeptics might not accept the exact details of the appearance narratives. Nor would they concede that Jesus was really physically present. However, the majority of leading scholars would acknowledge that their inclusion in multiple, independent sources, including those for the Gospels and the apostle Paul, indicates that appearances of some sort actually took place.
Additional evidence comes from the sermon and speech summaries found in the book of Acts. As a caveat, many scholars would not accept Acts as historically reliable, so it would not technically be part of a minimal-facts argument. However, the following chapter demonstrates that an honest evaluation of the book strongly supports it as a trustworthy source. In particular, a historian of Luke’s caliber would have faithfully represented the speakers’ original content.24 And Luke (the author) had access to eyewitnesses and other very early sources. Acts specifically mentions that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and he accompanied him to Jerusalem and met with James and the elders (Acts 21:18). Therefore, the summaries represent solid evidence for the apostles testifying to the appearances.
For instance, Peter mentions them in his message to the first Gentile believers:
“We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10:39–41)
They are also described in the message Paul gave on his first missionary journey to a Jewish synagogue:
“Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.” (Acts 13:28–31)
Several other examples could be added to demonstrate that the apostles included the appearances as a central part of their witness.
Proclaimed Early
A fourth minimal fact is the resurrection was proclaimed very early (just days after the actual event). Christianity started in the place where it was least likely to succeed, where it would have been easiest to disprove—Jerusalem three days after His death. Even though leading skeptical scholars admit that the resurrection of Jesus was proclaimed very early, professional skeptics often attempt to obscure or even deny this fact—obviously because of the implications. Rather than engage in historical debate, works of popular fiction like The Da Vinci Code make claims that Christianity came to prominence because of Constantine in AD 325. The reality is that the preaching of the resurrection turned the world upside down, from the very beginning. As was mentioned, 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 represents an early creed that Paul received from Peter fewer than five years after Jesus’ death during his early visit to Jerusalem. Since creeds require time to become standardized, the original teaching had to have originated years earlier.25
Moreover, the death, burial, and resurrection are also mentioned in Acts as part of the earliest sermons. The evidence from Acts is significant, but to keep within the minimal-facts criteria, it will be classified as supplementary for the same reasons as mentioned above. In addition, early key church fathers, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias, wrote about the early beginnings of the faith and the resurrection’s central importance. These sources are discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.
This evidence makes the early proclamation of the gospel a historical fact, which is recognized by virtually all New Testament scholars. Even Bart Ehrman dates the preaching of the resurrection to within two years of the event. James Dunn, one of the world’s foremost scholars, dates it to within months of the tomb. And Larry Hurtado, a pioneer in the study of the early church, dates the preaching to within days of the events.26 Therefore, the Christian message is not based on a myth that developed over years within the church. Nor is it based on some corporate self-delusion triggered by the disciples’ grief over having lost their beloved leader; such a scenario would have required a much longer period of time to develop. The early proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead and, therefore, was the promised Messiah began very soon after His death, and only this message could have produced in so short a time congregations of faithful believers all around the Mediterranean world.
Saul of Tarsus
Fifthly, historians are virtually unanimous in their belief that Saul of Tarsus, also known as Paul, was a harsh opponent of the new sect of Judaism called Christianity, but he was transformed into a defender of the faith after he believed he encountered the risen Jesus. Scholars also accept that he wrote at least seven of the New Testament epistles (letters) that bear his name. One of his greatest contributions was to interact with eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and pass their testimonies on to us (1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 1 and 2). He described how he met James, the brother of Jesus; John; and Peter, where “I presented to them the gospel that I preach” (Galatians 2:2). Bart Ehrman talks about Paul spending fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1:18). Ehrman, as any other person interested in Christianity, says he would have loved to have spent fifteen days with Peter.
So why do historians indicate that they accept Paul’s testimony as a part of the historical bedrock? First, as we just mentioned, Paul provides us with his own eyewitness report. The fact that he saw the risen Christ was not only written by Paul himself, but Luke, a historian and his traveling companion, wrote about his dramatic encounter in the book of Acts (Acts 9:27). Second, he was originally a violent enemy of the Christian movement, so historians give more weight to his statements concerning the events he reported. There was no greater enemy to the young movement than him. Imagine someone like Richard Dawkins being converted and becoming a champion for Christ. That was the magnitude of Saul’s salvation. Third, he provided embarrassing testimony about himself and the total reversal of his determined actions. Admitting that he was wrong in light of his tireless efforts to discredit and destroy Christianity is considered highly credible evidence. Fourth, he was highly educated, and he wrote in detail about his encounter with the risen Christ and his subsequent transformation (Galatians 1–2). Finally, he was willing to suffer and die for the Christian movement he had previously persecuted. He was martyred by Nero in AD 64.27
Imagine Saul, a Roman citizen, willfully submitting to forgo an advantage that status gave him and volunteering to suffer the ultimate punishment of the death penalty all because he refused to deny that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead and, therefore, the promised Messiah. “This point is well documented, reported by Paul himself, as well as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen. Therefore, we have early, multiple, and firsthand testimony that Paul converted from being a staunch opponent of Christianity to one of its greatest proponents.”28
All of this evidence points to the conclusion that Saul was transformed because he believed he had seen the risen Jesus.
OTHER MINIMAL FACTS
We outlined the five minimal facts most commonly used to defend the resurrection. However, there are many more that the majority of scholars would accept. I will mention briefly two additional minimal facts and one strongly supported event, but I go into greater detail about them throughout the remaining chapters.
James the Skeptic Became a Disciple of Jesus
The first additional minimal fact is that James, the half brother of Jesus, was originally a skeptic and critic of his brother’s ministry (Mark 3:20–21; John 7:1–5). However, he would later come to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, after he saw Him alive following His death. The appearance to James was mentioned in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. James would also later become the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13–21). And he was martyred by Jerusalem’s religious leaders, as recorded by Eusebius and Josephus.29 Something extraordinary had to occur to convince a skeptic that his brother was the Savior of the world.
The Christian Church Was Established and Grew
The second additional minimal fact relates to the sudden beginning and growth of the Christian church. Virtually all scholars agree that the church was immediately established in Jerusalem and grew quickly. Evidence from Paul’s letters indicates that substantial Christian churches had been established throughout the Roman Empire, from Judea to Greece to Rome, within a few decades of the crucifixion. The early expansion is also confirmed by the writings of Roman leaders and historians, such as Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, and even the Jewish Talmud. The authors would not have taken notice of the early Christians until their numbers became significant.
John the Baptist Baptized Jesus
The final event supported by significant historical evidence is John the Baptist baptizing Jesus.30 John is mentioned in all four gospel accounts. The actual baptism is mentioned in the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (Mark 1:9–11; Matthew 3:13–17; Luke 3:21–22), and the gospel of John implies that it had taken place (John 1:29–34). All of the gospels also describe supernatural confirmations of Jesus’ ministry. In addition, John was baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins. So his baptizing Jesus could imply that Jesus was inferior to John, which would have been embarrassing for the early church. As such, the story would not likely have been made up. These facts have convinced even liberal scholars that the event is historical.31
SUMMARY
I remember hearing that there were certain facts about the life and death of Jesus as well as subsequent events after His death that were considered facts of history, even by skeptics. Though I believed the stories in the Bible were true, I struggled at times in communicating those facts effectively to unbelievers who dismissed my use of Scripture. The minimal facts approach, as taught by Dr. Habermas, helped me to coalesce those key events and present them clearly to others. This approach was an enormous confidence builder for my own faith, and I hope that you will master it to solidify your faith and more effectively communicate it to others.