Is There Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead?

The late eminent New Testament scholar Raymond Brown argued that the most prominent view in New Testament Christological studies at the end of the twentieth century was that of moderate conservatism. If Brown is correct that this position (moderate conservatism) is “the most agreed upon scholarly approach to Christology,”[1] it may likewise provide a hint regarding what seems to be a recent positive shift toward a more open view of the resurrection of Jesus.[2]

What accounts for these recent, major research trends? It seems that at least two developments have contributed significantly to the more positive historical outlook today regarding the New Testament text in general and its historical portions in particular. Playing the key roles in these studies pertaining to both Christology as well as to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances are two recent developments: the application of the historical criteria of authenticity, and the critical recognition of the historical role played by the early New Testament creedal passages. This essay addresses these two recent trends and the data they contribute to resurrection studies, in addition to providing an overview of the Minimal Facts Argument for Jesus’s resurrection.

The Historical Criteria of Authenticity

First, over the past century, historians have been developing and clarifying various tools that help them to assess whether or not an event has occurred in the past. Among the most important has been the use of historical “criteria” in evaluating reported historical events (and sayings). These criteria function like proverbs that guide historians rather than merely inputting data into a mathematical-like formula in order to tabulate whether or not an event is historical.

While there is still some debate regarding the use of the historical criteria, it is important to note that these criteria can only be used to add to the probability that an event has occurred. For example, if a reported event meets the criteria of multiple independent attestation (meaning that it is attested to by a number of different and independent sources), then this can add to the likelihood of the event having occurred. In general, the greater the number of criteria that are met regarding an event, then the greater the probability that the event occurred.

In the same way that everyday tools like hammers and saws have limitations, so too the historical criteria have limitations as tools for historians and for further application by New Testament scholars. If an event fails to meet some of the criteria, then it does not follow that the event is therefore nonhistorical. Trying to use historical criteria for a negative conclusion would be an inappropriate use of the tool—much like trying to use a hammer to saw a piece of wood. The hammer is the wrong tool for the job. The late New Testament scholar Ben Meyer provided a nice summary of the value of historical criteria: “[T]heir presence positively tells in favor of historicity, but their absence does not positively tell against historicity.”[3]

The criteria, then, are among both the historians’ as well as the New Testament scholars’ tools that can add to the confidence level for whether or not an event occurred.

As will be shown in more detail below, the use of historical criteria has led to an increasing affirmation of the events surrounding Jesus’s resurrection. Many of the minimal historical facts surrounding this event meet the standards of multiple criteria. Among the most popular principles for application to the resurrection appearance accounts are the two criteria of early and eyewitness sources, along with multiple independent attestation and embarrassment. The application of these and occasionally other criteria has led a number of critical scholars from a wide variety of theological backgrounds to affirm the historicity of particular events.

Early New Testament Creeds

Second, early New Testament preliterary or creedal material[4] provides another significant reason for the move toward more conservative views of the resurrection data. Perhaps the most helpful way to introduce these almost always brief texts is to say that creeds are basically the answer to this question, What was the theme of the earliest apostolic preaching prior

to the appearance of the very first New Testament writings? The answer is that these traditions filled that role, encapsulating the earliest statements of fundamental strata on which the church is based, even for that majority of early believers who were illiterate but could certainly memorize or sing these messages.

This oral material took various forms such as hymns (Philippians 2:3- 11), sermon summaries (drawn from texts like Acts 2:14-39; 4:8-12), or creedal statements and affirmations of the central doctrinal components of the Christian faith (chiefly 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.[5]). These are crucially important building blocks because these creedal passages predate the writings in which they are presently located. Some are pre-Pauline, meaning that they date from prior to Paul’s conversion! Hence, these texts were foundational. By studying them, we are hearing the earliest Christian gospel message![6]

Ironically, it was scholars who often assumed skeptical positions regarding the New Testament who brought these creeds to light decades ago. These scholars held that the canonical texts were preserved to meet the existential needs or desires of various Christian communities, whether or not Jesus actually taught these things. They said this concern took a priority over the value of preserving the historical material. New Testament scholar Darrell Bock writes that these opponents “argued that the [oral] tradition was influenced more by a concern for the life setting (Sitz im Leben) of the community to which the tradition was directed than for the setting of the event in Jesus’ life.”[7] These earlier researchers operated upon skeptical assumptions regarding these writings and sought to “get behind” the texts to whatever authentic historical material may lie behind it.

However, these presuppositions backfired in the sense of the scholars’ realization that their assuming an unreliable transmission of tradition caused them to acknowledge the confirmed presence of formal, memorized oral traditions that are less susceptible to such bending of the tradition, potentially providing early historical material that existed prior to the writings themselves. So these snippets of the initial proclamations had opened a window into the early content of the Christian message years before it was first written.

Skeptics have recognized this as well, and they now readily concede the importance of the oral formulas. The agnostic Bart Ehrman, for example, writes, “The value of being able to isolate preliterary traditions is that they give us access to what Christians were believing and how they were extolling God and Christ before our earliest surviving writings.”[8] Jewish New Testament researcher Pinchas Lapide even affirmed that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead and argued that some of these oral traditions, such as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., could be traced back to the actual eyewitnesses of these events.[9]

Thus, as some critics sought to find the historical material that lurked behind the text, they helped discern various oral traditions that were previously embedded in the texts! These oral formulas have provided scholars with initial information regarding the views of the earliest Christians. These texts have also contributed a line of evidence that argues

against the critics’ own assumptions that the New Testament writers freely created stories based upon their needs. Instead, this process indicated that believers were careful to preserve the oral traditions that were being passed down to them.[10]

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Minimal Facts Argument

These two developments over recent decades—the criteria of authenticity and the realizations regarding the early creedal texts embedded in the New Testament books—have helped immensely in the study of Jesus’s resurrection. Each, in its own way, has gone further in helping to establish the historicity of this event.

While defending an aspect of the more traditional reliability argument, Lydia McGrew recently made a laudatory comment regarding the Minimal Facts Argument. Appreciating it in part, McGrew noted the “near-exclusive use in Christian apologetic circles” of this argument in recent years.[11] Why is this argument so popular of late?

The Minimal Facts Argument is built on two prerequisites:

(1) No historical data are employed unless they are supported by several strong arguments each.

(2) As a result, virtually all critical New Testament scholars (including even atheistic, agnostic, and other non-Christian researchers) agree with the historicity of each fact. Of these two criteria, it should be noted that the first one is by far the more crucial of the two.[12]

Over the years, Habermas has used anywhere from three to eight minimal facts, with the number varying because it is somewhat arbitrary in the sense that virtually no scholar allows only this abbreviated number. Of late, six facts have been the usual quantity.

Employing just six of these facts we would include

(1) Jesus’s death by crucifixion,

(2) that the disciples had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus, and

(3) that the resurrection event was proclaimed a very short time after the crucifixion. Further,

(4) Jesus’s disciples were transformed by these experiences, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for this resurrection message. Last,

(5) James the brother of Jesus and

(6) Paul (Saul of Tarsus) were converted by experiences that they likewise thought were resurrection appearances of Jesus.

A recent count of this research determined that there is a minimum of eight to thirteen arguments of various sorts for each of these six historical facts. These “backup” evidences are of varying strengths, though they draw heavily from both the historical criteria of authenticity as well as the creedal data mentioned earlier.

Most commonly used from the criteria of authenticity are the tests already mentioned: the early and eyewitness sources; along with multiple attestation of sources; plus embarrassing features, such as women being the chief witnesses to Jesus’s crucifixion, His burial, and His resurrection appearances. From the creeds, by far the primary emphasis is on 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Additional reasons further support these six facts as well. When the entire list of supportive arguments is posted, it is far more apparent why virtually all critical scholars endorse these six facts with very little dispute. But the account does not end there. In turn, this combined case is capable of doing three things:

(1) the strongest evidences favoring Jesus’s resurrection are provided from these data;

(2) they also offer the most crucial refutations of the major naturalistic hypotheses in opposition to this event;

(3) plus, these prior two tactics may be carried out with just this minimal foundation, making this maneuver much more concise and easy to handle.

Perhaps that is why McGrew attested that the Minimal Facts Argument’s “widespread use may be in part a result of the fact that it provides a straightforward template for a debate format.”[13]

In addition, this approach provides a grounding from these historical facts that supplies a foundation for the center of Christian theology; such as the gospel message itself. Finally, these facts also provide bridges to Christian ministry and practice.[14] All in all, this is a remarkable amount of uses for a brief, concentrated historical argument. 

---

[1] Raymond Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (New York: Paulist, 1994), 14-15, 102.

[2] Cf. Gary R. Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend Toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. by Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 78- 92.

[3] Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London, UK: SCM, 1979), 131; cf. also 141.

[4] Although there are differences among these terms, these creeds are sometimes referred to similarly by the terms traditions, confessions, or hymns.

[5] Also Luke 24:34; Romans 1:3-4; 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:23-26; 1 Peter 1:21; 2:21, along with the sermon summaries in Acts.

[6] V.H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1963), 140-146.

[7] Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 182.

[8] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: Harper One, 2014), 216 (emphasis in original).

[9] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 99.

[10] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 182-183.

[11] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017), 220-221.

[12] For details, see Gary R. Habermas, “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity,” Southeastern Theological Review, vol. 3 (Summer 2012), 15-26.

[13] McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, 220.

[14] Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).