Minimal Facts Approach – Testing Hypotheses

Minimal Facts Approach – Testing Hypotheses

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Various Hypotheses Concerning the Resurrection

After establishing the four minimal facts surrounding the event of resurrection, I will now put to the test a few of the numerous hypotheses given as an explanation for these facts. The answer at the end of each fact demonstrates whether or not the theory in question can account for that particular fact.*

Swoon TheoryJesus did not die on the cross; he fainted or swooned, and was eventually revived

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Hallucination TheoryThe disciples had grief-induced or other type hallucinations, which explain the appearances of Jesus.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – YES
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – YES/STRAIN

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Legend TheoryJesus was most likely a man who led a small religious cult in first century Palestine, but legend about him developed over the years after his death in an effort to convert people to Christianity.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO/STRAIN
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Myth TheoryThe story of Jesus Christ is a myth that developed much like the myths of other ancient near east religions.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Jesus was resurrected – Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, was buried, and subsequently appeared to his disciples and others in bodily form.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – YES
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – YES
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – YES
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – YES

This hypothesis accounts for all of the facts.

The inference suggested by historically exploring the evidence around the events of Jesus’ life is that a resurrected Jesus is the best explanation for the historical facts. What are the implications of a resurrected Jesus?

Mary Jo

Main Sources:

Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel: 2004.

*Licona, Mike. Resurrection of Jesus. Lecture. McLean Bible Church Apologetics Conference, “Loving God With All Your Mind.” November, 2006. Format for checking hypotheses from Licona’s lecture.

For further reading:Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories – Gary HabermasThe Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection – Gary HabermasContemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ – William Lane CraigDid Jesus Really Exist? – Paul L. Maier
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #3

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #3

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #3 – Jesus appeared to foes

Evidences:
1) Paul – Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee
2) James – Jesus’ brother

– Both were unbelievers before the resurrection of Jesus
– Both became believers after an experience of the risen Jesus, following Jesus’ crucifixion
– Neither had motive to convert
– James: principle of embarrassment
– Paul: earliest N.T. writings, very reliable material

Paul was an unlikely convert to Christianity. He had been a known persecutor of Christianity and yet his conversion was based on what he perceived to be an experience of the risen Jesus. His conversion was based on primary evidence (what he experienced for himself), not secondary evidence (such as believing what others told him about Jesus). This testimony carries no little weight. Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 15 are considered some of the earliest writings from the New Testament and are therefore closest to the events themselves. Due to the early nature of these writings, scholars grant much of what Paul reports to be historically probable events. What can be shown from this material is 1) an ardent enemy of Christianity converted to Christianity based on an experience he believed to be the risen Jesus 2) the convert’s name was Paul and he recorded these experiences himself (a primary source) and 3) He testified to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Paul also wrote about another foe Jesus appeared[i] to, which was James, Jesus’ brother.

“Then he appeared[ii] to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared[iii] to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
1 Corinthians 15:7-8The information regarding James’ status as an “enemy” of Christ comes from the reports in the Gospels (Mark and John). This material would not be seen as favorable to the cause of Christ by including it in these books. In fact, Jesus’ own brother’s disbelief in him is rather embarrassing testimony to the faith. Later on, however, James was identified as the leader of the church in Jerusalem after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. He eventually was martyred for his commitment to the Christianity as reported by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.[iv] Paul gives an account (above) of the appearance of Jesus to James as part of an early creedal statement in making a defense of the resurrection.

These two men, with nothing to gain materially or politically, with seemingly no logical reason to understand Jesus as a part of their monotheistic God, began to follow Jesus due to experiences they had of Him after His death and subsequent resurrection. This fact needs to be explained and accounted for, not with mere speculation, but with hypotheses supported by first century evidence.

Skeptics must provide more than alternative theories to the Resurrection; they must provide first-century evidence for those theories.”[v]
– Dr. Gary Habermas
Mary Jo


[i] optanomai – “to look at, behold” from the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon available from http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=3700&version=kjv&type=str&submit=Find

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] The material of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, which is where this material is found.

[v] Geisler, Norman. Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Quote by Gary Habermas. Wheaton, Crossway Books: 2004. pg. 299.

Main Source:
Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #2 – Jesus’ appearance to the disciples

Evidences:

1) The disciples believed the risen Jesus appeared to them

2) The disciples’ transformation from frightened, hiding individuals to bold witnesses of the resurrection

The disciples’ belief that Jesus appeared to them post-crucifixion, is a fact that needs to be explained. The disciples wrote down their eyewitness testimonies to these appearances in the gospels. Plus, Paul discusses these appearances in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11.

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 Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers 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.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Critics claim Paul’s writing in the previous passages as some of the earliest New Testament writings.[i] Paul quotes a creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance…” Though Paul penned these words around twenty years after the crucifixion, he had this knowledge prior to writing these words. This very same knowledge of the appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples is also found in the writings of the early church fathers; for example, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius.[ii]

The disciples had an unusual transformation from individuals who were afraid and hiding to bold witnesses of the resurrection. Why would I call this transformation unusual? Let’s look at the circumstances surrounding their transformation.

First of all, the transformation of the disciples is one of the reasons virtually all scholars who study this material concede this point.[iii] The skeptical scholars try to offer explanations for what caused this transformation; they do not discern the disciples’ accounts as mythology, but instead offer explanations for what these men believed they saw.[iv] In the course of explaining this transformation, we have to take into account that the disciples were willing to suffer persecution and, eventually, martyrdom for the man that they knew personally (including their knowledge of Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God and his prediction of his own death and resurrection.[v]) If they knew Jesus’ resurrection was a fraud, they would be insane, at best, to die for him, because there was nothing to gain from following him: no political power and no future hope of resurrection for themselves. The disciples looked forward to immense suffering, outcast status in their culture, and death for the cause of that which they knew personally to be an untruth (since Jesus claimed to be God and predicted his own death and resurrection, if he was not raised from the dead, the disciples would know he was not raised and they would know he was a false prophet.) Yet, they were willing to bear all this. The best explanation of their unusual behavior after Jesus’ crucifixion was that they believed they literally experienced the risen Jesus.

Now we must account for the experiences of the disciples due to the facts that they believed they saw the risen Jesus and these appearances did transform their lives.

Mary Jo

[i] “Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD.”
Gary Habermas. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Available from: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[ii] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pgs.53-59.

[iii] Ibid. pgs.56-60

[iv] An example is found in the work of Jack Kent in The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth. Kent attempts to explain the post-crucifixion appearances as grief-induced hallucinations on the part of the disciples.

[v] Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, his prediction of his death and resurrection, and the evidence surrounding his subsequent death and resurrection set Jesus and His followers apart from other messianic claims and religions. If God raised a man from the dead, this would signify His approval of that man’s message. This is especially important considering that Jesus claimed to be God.
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

The Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #1

The Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #1

Over the course of the next few posts, I will be presenting evidences for the Resurrection based on the research of Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University and Mike Licona of the North American Mission Board. This material can be found in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”

In the “Minimal Facts Approach,” I will only be using ‘facts’ from the New Testament that can satisfy the following two criteria: 1) they are strongly evidenced and 2) they must be acknowledged by a vast majority of scholars (atheist through conservative).1 By strongly evidenced, I mean that they satisfy some or all of the criteria used in textual criticism to establish historical probability.

Examples of these criteria are:

1) multiple, independent sources
2) enemy attestation
3) principle of embarrassment
4) eyewitness testimony
5) early testimony2

What I am not saying is that these facts prove the resurrection of Jesus historically. What I am saying is that the best explanation of these facts, when combined, is a resurrection of Jesus.

Fact #1 – Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion

1) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in all four Gospel accounts
2) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in non-Christian sources

a. Josephus, Jewish Historian Antiquities 18, chapter 3

b. Tacitus, Roman Historian Annals 15.44

c. Lucian of Samsota, Greek Satirist
The Works of Lucian, Vol. IV “The Death of Peregrin” (scroll down to 11)

d. Mara Bar-Serapion, Syrian prisoner
A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (scroll down to just after footnote 19)

e. The Jewish Talmud

3) Jesus’ death on a cross is one of the most well-attested events of ancient history

“That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography” pg.145; to read, type in “that he was crucified” in search box

Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is a historical event.

Mary Jo

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.47.
2 Ibid. pgs. 36-40.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

History from the New Testament?

History from the New Testament?

The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. So much has been debated about the New Testament’s reliability that I think maybe this point has been missed. Namely, the New Testament does exist as a collection of ancient works, and can be looked at as such for historical facts. As I look at other works of ancient history, I am going to apply the same criteria to all of them, including the New Testament. I will look for facts from the work that are 1) strongly evidenced and 2) accepted by virtually all the scholars who studied the material.

As Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have reminded us in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus“, 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.”1 Why, then, cannot a skeptic of the New Testament look into the evidence surrounding the strongly attested passages and glean truths (facts) from the material? They can and they do.

Gary Habermas has been researching the scholarly work on the New Testament from 1975 to the present. He has combined the research of over 2000 scholars who are atheists, skeptics, liberals, middles, and conservatives. In doing this research, Habermas has noted some trends in what these scholars grant as historically reliable material from the New Testament.2 What? There is historically reliable material in the New Testament? Shouldn’t we just accept Christianity on faith and leave the reasoning to other aspects of our lives? “You Christians would have it made if you would just admit that your faith is just that: faith.” No thank you. I did not become a Christian merely based on feelings and emotions. (please see endnote on explanation of “faith”)3 Plus, Paul, in the New Testament, says

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. I Corinthians 15: 14-15

I do not see a lot of room for debate here. The passage is clear. It goes on to talk more specifically about the general idea of resurrection, but it also makes a clear statement about “just believing.” It doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for a postmodern philosophy of each narrative (religion, community, place and time in history) containing the same amount of truth for those who participate; ie. “All religions have truths.” Our narrative denounces itself if it is not the truth!

As Christians, we should be committed to seeking truth and wisdom. Check these out:

Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Proverbs 4:6-7

If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer. Proverbs 9:12

Okay, so now I am little off the subject, which was originally about using the New Testament to glean truths, at least in the same manner as any other ancient document. Why should I accept a double standard regarding the history in the New Testament? In discussing the New Testament, Christian and skeptic alike should be able to use the same standards in scrutinizing the history of the text.4 Now I am interested in discovering if there is another ancient document (2nd century or earlier) with at least the same amount of sources (enemy attestation, multiple, independent sources, eyewitness testimony, etc.) and early manuscripts as the New Testament. At this point, I do not know of one.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16

Mary Jo

_______________________________________

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.45

2 I have listed a couple more of Gary Habermas’ sources here for further investigation:

Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. 2003.

________. Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?
Available from http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

________. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Gary Habermas. Available from www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm

________. Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection. Available from
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm

3 Faith is much more complex than the treatment given here. I am referring to the skeptic’s view of faith (un-reasoned belief), not the deep complexity of faith that develops in a Christian; faith including heart, soul, mind, and strength.

4 While I believe the Bible to be trustworthy and inspired, I cannot expect a skeptic or non-believer to do the same, which is why I have presented my case in this manner.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007