3. A Quintet of Facts (4+ 1): The First Two
Introduction to Part 2
The Minimal Facts Approach
omedian Emo Philips describes a discussion between two men on a bridge.
One is ready to jump and the other is trying to talk him out of it.
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or what?"
He said, "A Christian."
Isaid, "Small world! Me too. Protestant or Catholic or Greek Orthodox?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I screamed, 'Die, heretic!' and pushed him over.'
The minimal facts approach seeks evidence with a high degree of certainty
On the one hand, are we presenting too large a package of doctrines and practices for nonbelievers to accept in order to become a Christian? Are we sharing the gospel and... how they must be baptized by immersion? ... how they must speak in tongues? ... how they must read only a certain version of the Bible? ... how they must look for the pre-Tribulation return of Christ? ... how they must believe that the earth is only six thousand years old? ... how they must accept the five points of Calvinism? ... how they must pay a tithe to the local church?
On the other hand, isn't the gospel a crucial subject? In our conclusion to this volume, we will discuss the shape of the gospel in some detail. For now, we will define it as the good news of the deity, death, and resurrection of JesusJesus is God; Jesus died for me; and Jesus is alive.
When presenting the evidence for the Resurrection, let's stick to the topic of Jesus' resurrection. This means that we do not digress into a side discussion on the reliability of the Bible. While we hold that the Bible is trustworthy and inspired, we cannot expect the skeptical nonbeliever with whom we are dialoguing to embrace this view. So, in order to avoid a discussion that may divert us off of our most important topic, we would like to suggest that we adopt a "minimal facts approach." This approach considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly everyscholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones. This definition of minimal facts will play a large part in the method used in the chapters that follow. Most facts we use meet two criteria: They are well evidenced and nearly every scholar accepts them. We present our case using the "lowest common denominator" of agreed-upon facts. This keeps attention on the central issue, instead of sidetracking into matters that are irrelevant. This way we can present a strong argument that is both supportable and compelling.'
One of the strengths of this approach is that it avoids debate over the inspiration of the Bible.' Too often the objection raised frequently against the Resurrection is, "Well, the Bible has errors, so we can't believe Jesus rose." We can quickly push this point to the side: "I am not arguing at this time for the inspira tion of the Bible or even its general trustworthiness. Believer and skeptic alike accept the facts I'm using because they are so strongly supported. These facts must be addressed."
Once, while I (Licona) was speaking on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection to a group of medical students at the University of Virginia, an atheist stood up to say that he couldn't believe Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible contains contradictions. He then proceeded to read from a book written by another atheist that cited one such alleged contradiction. I answered that volumes of books have been written to answer such charges about the Bible. However, even if this man read those hooks, and rejected the answers they gave, that would not matter at all in proving that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I had presented historical facts that were strongly attested by the majority of scholars, including skeptics. Historians recognize that most writings of antiquity contain factual errors and propaganda. They still can identify kernels of historical truth in those sources. If they eliminated a source completely because of bias or error, they would know next to nothing about the past. Thus, if this student continued to reject the inspiration of the Bible, there was still the collection of historical facts that remained to be answered.
In that discussion, I could have changed the subject to a defense of the Bible. I could have attempted to answer the specific contradiction alleged in the book that had been quoted. Something might have been accomplished in such an exchange, for the trustworthiness of the Bible is important. However, students at the meeting would not have had to face the more central topic-the fact of Jesus' resurrection. The side issues about alleged contradictions could have gone on endlessly. But we are not told in the Bible that one must believe in its inspiration or inerrancy in order to have eternal life. We are told that belief in Jesus' resurrection is essential in order to have eternal life.4
When we talk to unbelievers, therefore, we should keep to the subject that matters most. In the words of consultant Steven Covey, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."'
Since we can establish that Jesus rose from the dead without appealing to the reliability or inspiration of the Bible, we will keep these topics as separate issues. The point is not that we must avoid using the New Testament when considering Jesus' resurrection. Rather, we simply must approach the New Testament as we would any other hook in antiquity. For example, Tacitus is considered the greatest Roman historian. Scholars recognize that Tacitus sometimes writes with a heavy bias, but they are still able to benefit greatly from his work. They weed through the bias and use historical study techniques to yield much that can be known with a great deal of historical certainty.'
The New Testament is a compilation of writings from various authors that the early church considered authoritative. Scholars debate the dating and authorship of several books. However, this will not concern us in discussing the Resurrection. In our "minimal facts approach," we only consider content that is strongly evidenced and considered historical by virtually all who study the subject. Although critical scholars frequently question the authorship and date of the Gospels and Acts, most of them accept that these writings contain a fair amount of teachings that can be traced to the disciples and Jesus.
This is not to imply that we accept what the skeptical scholars say, it just means that we will leave debates about the Bible's authority to others. We will instead take advantage of the fact that most scholars, even skeptical ones, grant that some things are true in the Bible. When they do agree, the point they accept must be pretty well established by available historical data. Further, if most skeptics are willing to reject a natural theory, even though that theory supports their opposition to Jesus' resurrection, it must be that the theory cannot be supported by evidence.
No fact or theory finds total agreement or disagreement. Skeptical scholars are notorious for disagreeing with one another. Extreme, radical positions can always be found, though these remain in the minority. Some skeptics of Jesus' resurrection persist in arguing for a far-fetched opposing theory, although there may be little or no support for it. If we look hard enough, we will find people who deny that we exist. Thus, our minimal facts include what nearly all scholars hold, including skeptical ones. Seldom can we speak about what all agree on, for seldom do they all agree.
In a "minimal facts approach," we also should focus our efforts on presenting evidence for Jesus' resurrection, rather than on the inadequacies of opposing theories. This communicates that there is too much good evidence to consider and address for us to waste time picking on opponents. It avoids giving the appearance that one must run to the defensive. After focusing on the evidence for a while, it may be time to address various opposing theories if an unbeliever raises them.
Minimal Facts Approach
The "minimal facts approach" considers only data that meet two criteria:
1. The data are strongly evidenced.
2. The data are granted by virtually all scholars on the subject, even the skeptical ones.
A skeptic ought not be allowed to merely cite apparent contradictions in the Bible and say that the Resurrection has been disproved. The "minimal facts approach" builds a case using facts with a high degree of certainty, facts that any skeptic probably accepts.These facts need to be addressed. If a skeptic takes a position that even the majority of skeptical scholars reject, we can argue individually for the minimal facts that we are using. So if a skeptic prefers to take another position, that's okay. In doing so, the believer now has an opportunity to present much more data in support of the argument for Jesus' resurrection. The skeptic will need to respond.