(2024)
I. Introduction
II. Legal Apologetics
III. Burden of Proof
IV. Minimal Facts Approach
A. Definitions
B. The Minimal Facts Approach in Legal Terms
C. First Level of Inference: Expert Opinions
1. Opinion Based on Sufficient Evidence?
a) Insufficient Evidence of “Experiences”
b) Insufficient Evidence of “Transformations”
2. Opinion Helps You Understand the Evidence?
D. Second Level of Inference: Inference to the Best Explanation
1. No Limit on Options
a) Naturalistic Theories
b) The Peter/James Conspiracy
2. The Best of a Bad Lot?
V. Conclusion
I. Introduction
Establishing the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event is the linchpin of evidential Christian apologetics. Gary Habermas developed the “minimal facts approach” (MFA) for proving the Resurrection in his 1976 dissertation. Habermas asserts that a few facts accepted by even skeptical scholars are enough to substantiate the Resurrection’s occurrence.
Habermas has faced some criticism for this approach even from other apologists. Nonetheless, based on my incomplete survey of apologetic literature, most evangelical apologists now use some variation of the MFA. The approach especially dominates Christian argument in online debates. William Lane Craig maintains that he is not an adherent of the MFA, but he uses pretty much the same approach in oral debates.
Despite this popularity, I have not found any legal apologist who has followed Habermas’ path to (allegedly) proving the Resurrection. Legal apologists have not revealed why they evidently eschew the MFA. Perhaps it is because applying legal rules of evidence and procedure to the MFA demonstrates that the approach is without merit.
Habermas has recently published the first two volumes of his magnum opus on the Resurrection. Habermas anticipates producing four volumes, and the first two already total 1,968 pages. I will not comment on these tomes in this essay, but will instead examine a more succinct book by Habermas on the same topic—The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ.
II. Legal Apologetics
People are often skeptical when I say that much of the law is common sense. However, this is especially true in evidentiary matters because evidentiary rules began in common law.
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The life of the law is not logic, but experience.”[1] Through centuries of experience, courts developed a body of precedent for using credible evidence and excluding unreliable evidence. During the 1970s, the United States Supreme Court wrote the Federal Rules of Evidence in order to organize and codify most of these common law evidentiary rules. Even though no apologist has claimed that any legal argument supports the MFA, I think it is worthwhile to show that the same commonsense rules provide sound advice both in and out of court.
III. Burden of Proof
Depending on the issue at stake, courts use different standards of proof for the sufficiency of evidence. Criminal conviction requires the highest standard of proof—proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Apologists generally agree to use the burden applied in most civil matters—proof by “preponderance of the evidence.” The latter means that the plaintiff must establish that a given proposition is “more likely than not.”[2] We cannot determine exact percentages of probability for complex and often subjective issues like evidence of the Resurrection, but “more likely than not” naturally equates to more than 50% probability.
Of course, apologists could never satisfy any burden of proof because evidence of supernatural events is always worthless under the physical facts rule. But the MFA is defective even if we ignore the physical facts rule.
IV. Minimal Facts Approach
Habermas advocates using the MFA to convert skeptics. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus—coauthored by Habermas and Michael R. Licona—advises proselytizers that:
[W]e do not digress into a side discussion on the reliability of the Bible…. 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 every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones…. 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.[3]
The main problem with this methodology is that most of the “data” that so strongly attest the “agreed-upon facts” come from the Bible. Habermas and Licona overstate their case when they write that the Bible’s reliability is irrelevant. The thrust of their argument seems to be that historians can find kernels of historical truth in unreliable documents.
The MFA is a two-step process. I can best demonstrate this process using some legal definitions of common terms.
A. Definitions
In legal parlance, a fact is an occurrence as it actually took place, or a physical object or appearance as it actually existed. It is an actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere opinion. The existence of a document may be a fact, but that does not mean that everything in a document is true. Habermas seeks to establish that the Resurrection is a fact.
Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, or other tangible objects. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection comes primarily from New Testament documents. However, Habermas does not offer these documents to make the Resurrection more probable. Instead, he offers them to support the opinions of his experts.
Opinion evidence refers to what a witness believes or infers about the facts. In general, witnesses testify only to facts that they observed and should not give opinions. However, a court may allow experts to give opinions pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Expert opinion is a type of evidence, and a fact finder may consider such opinions along with documents and testimony, if any. Habermas proffers the expert opinions of historians to make the existence of the Resurrection more probable.
A fact finder is the person or persons who decide disputed facts in a legal matter. The jury is the fact finder in a jury trial. The judge is the fact finder in a bench trial. You are the fact finder for your own beliefs.
For the purposes of this paper, inference is synonymous with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact from which you can infer another fact. If the streets are dry when you go inside of a theater and wet when you come out of it, then you can infer that it rained.
Historians use different terms, but they make the same distinction between facts and evidence. Historian C. Behan McCullagh explains:
Justification conditions are reasons which we have at present for thinking historical descriptions are true. Thus, for example, the truth condition of the sentence “Captain Cook sighted Australia on 21 April 1770” is a past event in the world which corresponds to this description, the event of Cook sighting Australia on that day. The conditions which justify the statement, on the other hand, are documents, such as Cook’s Journals, from which it can be inferred.[4]
B. The Minimal Facts Approach in Legal Terms
Using these definitions, I believe that the following outline fairly states how Habermas argues using the MFA:
- Based on evidence (primarily New Testament documents), historians form expert opinions regarding whether the alleged evidence is sufficient to infer the “minimal facts”—e.g., the New Testament documents contain stories about the risen Jesus appearing to the disciples, stories which allow historians to infer that the disciples had experiences that they believed to be physical appearances of Jesus. However, these “minimal facts” are actually expert opinions.
- The fact finder, based on the “minimal facts” (which are actually expert opinions), infers the principal fact—i.e., that Jesus rose from the dead.
Using the MFA, you (the fact finder) consider the Gospels and other documentary evidence only as support for expert opinions in the first step. Likewise, opinion evidence is the only evidence that you consider in the second step.
Although the rules of evidence do not prohibit multiple inferences, courts recognize that piling inference upon inference provides only weak support for the final inference.[5] Just as each level of hearsay increases uncertainty about a hearsay statement, each level of inference increases the uncertainty of an inferred fact.
C. First Level of Inference: Expert Opinions
Historians work with often fragmentary evidence in order to infer historical patterns and conclusions: “Historical work, by its very nature, is always putting two and two together and making five—or twelve or seventeen.”[6]
Habermas claims that “practically all critical scholars” agree to twelve facts as “knowable history.”[7] He writes that “even by utilizing only four of these accepted facts, a sufficient case can be made for the historicity of the Resurrection.”[8] The four supposed facts are:
- Jesus’ death due to crucifixion.
- The subsequent experiences that the disciples were convinced were literal[9] appearances of the risen Jesus.
- The corresponding transformation of the disciples.
- Paul’s conversion appearance, which he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
These “core facts” are opinion evidence. Evidence, especially expert opinions, is not a fact until the fact finder determines that it is true.
I do not dispute the first and last of these opinions. Most (but not all) critical scholars believe that Jesus existed and that the Romans crucified him. Likewise, I see no reason to doubt that something happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. People see all sorts of things.
However, it is simply false that “virtually all critical scholars” accept the second and third of Habermas’ “core” opinions regarding the disciples’ post-Resurrection experiences and their corresponding transformations. To begin with, Habermas’ alleged “facts” are both broad and vague.
Exactly who—by name—were “the disciples?” Habermas lumps them together as if the same evidence applies to each individual. The Gospels do not even identify the same twelve disciples. Mark 3:14‑19, Matthew 10:2‑4, and Luke 6:13‑16 each list twelve disciples. However, Mark and Matthew list Thaddeus as a disciple, and Luke replaces Thaddeus with Judas son of James, aka Jude. John 21:2 does not list all twelve disciples, but includes Nathaniel as one of the disciples who saw Jesus after the Resurrection.
In The Historical Jesus Habermas cites eleven “critical theologians who accept these four core facts.”[10] None of these scholars support Habermas’ claims. They do not discuss evidence for the disciples’ supposed belief that Jesus physically appeared to them, and they do not even hint at the “transformation” of the disciples:
| Habermas’ Citation | What the Source Actually Says |
| 1. Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 27-49. | There is a “theological reason [that the Resurrection] is not ‘historical’ in the proper sense of the word” (Fuller, 1973, p. x [Preface]).[11] |
| 2. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 1 trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1954), pp. 44-45. | “The accounts of the empty grave, of which Paul still knows nothing, are legends…. Not until later was the resurrection interpreted as a temporary return to life on earth, and this idea then gave rise to the ascension story” (Bultmann, 1954, p. 45). |
| 3. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 153-158. | “While the stories of the Cross probably point to an event that took place in the full light of historical observation, the stories of the Resurrection spread a veil of deep mystery over the event. The one is a highly probable fact; the other is a mysterious experience of a few” (Tillich, 1971, p. 153). |
| 4. Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1960), pp. 179-186. | “The Easter narratives of the evangelists differ considerably in detail, and point back to much less uniform tradition than their passion stories. This shows immediately that the tradition here was for a longer time in a fluid state. We have to reckon with gaps, but also with legendary additions” (Bornkamm, 1960, p. 182). |
| 5. Ulrich Wilcken, Resurrection, Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1977), pp. 112-113. | “The disciples returned to their homes in Galilee after the crucifixion. Peter then ‘experienced a vision’ and the disciples reconstituted the Twelve ‘based on the appearance experienced by Peter'” (Wilcken, 1977, p. 113). |
| 6. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 88-106. | “The appearances reported in the Gospels, which are not mentioned by Paul, have such a strongly legendary character that one can scarcely find a historical kernel of their own in them. Even the Gospels’ reports that correspond to Paul’s statements are heavily colored by legendary elements, particularly by the tendency toward underlying the corporeality of the appearances” (Pannenberg, 1968, p. 89). |
| 7. Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of Christian Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 197-202. | The book does not discuss evidence and refers to “visions” of Jesus (Moltmann, 1967, p. 198). |
| 8. A. M. Hunter, Jesus, Lord and Savior (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 98-103. | Hunter stated in a preface that this book was “a kind of personal confession of my Christian faith.” |
| 9. Norman Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark and Luke (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 78-84. | “If we demand modern historical information from the Gospels, they become recalcitrant” (Perrin, 1977, p. 78). “In some way they were granted a vision of Jesus” (Perrin, 1977, p. 83). |
| 10. Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1973), pp. 81-92. | Brown interprets the Greek text about physical appearances, but never addresses alleged evidence. |
| 11. Paul van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1963), pp. 126-134. | van Buren states: “The evidence is insufficient. All we can say is that something happened” (1963, p. 128). |
I will not speculate about why Habermas would rely on scholars who so completely contradict his claims. A more important question is whether you need any help from experts.
Those of us who cannot read Greek must rely on experts to translate the New Testament, but reasonably intelligent people can understand the translated documents. New Testament scholars can also explain context and analysis of the evidence. However, these insights are not beyond the comprehension of lay persons.
You should consider two questions when evaluating expert opinion: (1) Does the expert base his opinion on sufficient evidence? (2) Does the expert’s specialized knowledge help you understand the evidence?
1. Opinion Based on Sufficient Evidence?
An expert must explain the evidence supporting his expert opinions. This is a very commonsense requirement. If your doctor says that you have lung cancer, then he will probably show you an x-ray. The same is true for most medical conditions. Doctors can usually explain some test or symptom that supports their diagnosis.
Habermas claims that the MFA considers only “data” (that are actually expert opinions) that are strongly evidenced.[12] I have already written two papers addressing the weakness of apologetic evidence in general: You be the Judge: An Unopposed Brief Challenging Legal Apologetics and A Lawyer Evaluates Evidence of Supernatural Events.
In The Historical Jesus, Habermas explains specific evidence that he claims supports the expert opinions of historians regarding the disciples’ experiences and subsequent transformations. However, just as the eleven historians that Habermas cites do not support his “core facts” (that are actually opinions), the specific evidence that Habermas cites to support those opinions fail to withstand scrutiny.
a) Insufficient Evidence of “Experiences”
Habermas writes: “The fact of the disciples’ experiences that they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus, is corroborated chiefly by the early and eyewitness testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.”[13] But 1 Corinthians is not eyewitness testimony. It is not eyewitness testimony in the legal sense of the words. And it is not even eyewitness testimony under the plain English meaning of the words. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and he did not meet any disciples until long after the alleged appearances.
Even if 1 Corinthians were credible, it does not say anything specific. It merely says that Jesus “appeared” to “the twelve”—even though there were only eleven remaining disciples after Judas betrayed Jesus. It gives no names, dates, or places for these appearances. Paul also used the same Greek word—ōphthē—for all of Jesus’ appearances, including the appearance to Paul that was merely visionary. Ōphthē can mean either a vision or a normal physical observation, so 1 Corinthians is not even specific about whether Jesus physically appeared to the disciples.
b) Insufficient Evidence of “Transformations”
Evidence for the “transformation” of the disciples is no better. Habermas does not identify specific facts that could support an expert opinion, but instead provides four general areas where one might look to find specific facts.[14]
First, Habermas argues: “The transformation of the disciples as a result of these experiences [that they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus] is confirmed by the material immediately following this early creed (1 Cor. 15:9-11), which reports the ministry of the eyewitnesses.” I must confess that I do not understand what Habermas is going on about here. I have read and reread the last two chapters of 1 Corinthians, and can find no mention of the disciples, eyewitnesses, or transformations.
Second, Habermas argues that “the entire New Testament also verifies this conclusion.” This is too general to be a useful citation. If there are relevant facts in the New Testament, then Habermas should cite the specific chapter and verse where they can be found.
Third, Habermas relies on “the testimony of the early church authors.” This is worse than citing the New Testament. What author? In what book can we find this testimony?
Fourth, Habermas cites “reports of the disciples dying for their faith as martyrs,” and cites as authority Book 2, Chapters 9, 23, and 25 of The Church History by Eusebius—a fourth-century historian. I addressed these mythical martyrs in a previous paper.
2. Opinion Helps You Understand the Evidence?
Imagine that your doctor told you that your right arm must be amputated in order to remove a mole. You would naturally ask why he recommended such a drastic procedure. You would probably not be satisfied if he said that he had talked with ten other doctors, and they all agreed that the arm must come off. You would still want to understand the reason why amputation is the only remedy.
Other than translating Greek, Habermas does not explain exactly how the New Testament experts’ specialized knowledge will help you understand the evidence. The MFA helps you understand nothing. Instead, Habermas asks you to accept the supposed conclusions of scholars without understanding anything—in other words, he asks you to believe by faith. If you are going to have faith, you might as well just have faith in the Resurrection instead of faith in his eleven misquoted theologians.
This is also a very commonsense requirement. Although you may not understand everything about a medication or procedure, a doctor should ensure that you understand the risks and likely side effects. Likewise, an expert should, as much as possible, help the fact finder to understand the evidence supporting his opinion.
C. Second Level of Inference: Inference to the Best Explanation
Habermas never explicitly discusses the need to infer the Resurrection from the “minimal facts.” To the best of my knowledge, Habermas has never used the words “infer” or “inference” in the same sentence as Jesus. He seems to assume that if you accept his “minimal facts,” then the Resurrection is a self-evident conclusion that requires no discussion.
Both Licona and William Lane Craig recognize that they must bridge the gap between the “core facts” and the Resurrection. Craig and Licona use a method called “inference (or argument) to the best explanation” to infer the Resurrection from “core” or “bedrock” facts. Craig explains:
In seeking the best historical explanation of the evidence concerning the resurrection of Jesus, we employ a model of inference common to all inductive[15] reasoning, including the natural sciences, known as inference to the best explanation. According to this approach, we begin with the evidence available to us. Then out of a pool of live options determined by our background beliefs, we select the best of various competing explanations.[16]
This methodology requires two steps. Therefore, the second step of the MFA (infer the Resurrection from the expert opinions) requires two steps—or rather substeps. First, identify the “live options”—the possible explanations for the alleged evidence for the Resurrection. Second, select the best option.
1. No Limit on Options
As a matter of evidence in court, the Resurrection is not a possible hypothesis because the law considers inferences that are contrary to well‑established physical laws to be inherently impossible.[17] Jesus returning from the dead is not a live option because the physical facts rule kills it. However, even if we ignore that rule, the MFA is still unsound.
a) Naturalistic Theories
Habermas never discusses inference to the best explanation or any other form of logical inference. However, he argues that all naturalistic hypotheses have been discredited, which (if true) would certainly make picking the best live option a lot easier.
Habermas claims that alternative naturalistic hypotheses are “unable to account for [the empty tomb and eleven other] facts concerning Jesus’ Resurrection.”[18] From a legal point of view, the empty tomb is not a “fact.” New Testament documents contain statements about an empty tomb, and such statements would be evidence if they were admissible (which they are not). However, the statements are not “facts” until a fact finder decides (infers) that they are facts. For example, skeptics do not need to “account for” the empty tomb. We only need to account for conflicting stories written about an empty tomb decades after Jesus’ crucifixion—and that is easily done.
Somebody invented the story about the empty tomb, and Mark’s anonymous author was the first to write it down. There—all facts accounted for.
Licona and Craig differ from Habermas on this point. It is implicit in the argument to the best explanation that multiple live options exist. In The Resurrection of Jesus, Licona compares the Resurrection hypothesis to:
[F]ive naturalistic hypotheses that provide a representative sample of the variety of the naturalistic hypotheses presently under discussion in academic books and peer-reviewed journals. We will consider the proposals of Géza Vermes, Michael Goulder, Gerd Lüdemann, John Dominic Crossan, and Pieter Craffert.[19]
These five biblical scholars merely scratch the surface of theories about the birth of Christianity. Dozens—if not hundreds—of theologians, historians, and other scholars or amateurs have all advanced their own theories. The “pool of live options” is more like an ocean of possibilities.
Both Craig[20] and Licona[21] cite historian C. Behan McCullagh as authority for applying inference to the best explanation to historical events. McCullagh discussed an issue with this methodology, and used the enduring mystery of the Princes in the Tower as an example. Sir Thomas More claimed that King Richard III murdered the princes and buried their bodies in the Tower under a staircase. McCullagh explained why the discovery of two skeletons in the Tower under a staircase did not prove the truth of More’s story:
There could be any number of explanations for the existence of those two skeletons. The fact that an historical hypothesis neatly accounts for some evidence does not entail the truth of the hypothesis. There may well be another explanation of the evidence which is the true one, and which no one has yet thought of.[22]
The same is true for the Resurrection. The ocean of possibilities has no limit, and apologists would do well to remember Donald Rumsfeld’s warning that unknown unknowns cause the most difficulties. Barring a new trove of evidence like the Dead Sea Scrolls, we will probably never know exactly what happened in the days after Jesus’ crucifixion.
b) The Peter/James Conspiracy
Just for fun, I will add another drop into the ocean of possibilities for explaining the evidence (documents) related to the Resurrection.
Christianity is now one of the world’s great religions, and that skews our thinking about its origins. However, two thousand years ago it was either a cult or a new religious movement (NRM), depending on your term of preference. Most people are suspicious of new religions, and rightly so. Money and power often motivate cult leaders, and we should be equally suspicious of a religion that was new two thousand years ago.
My theory, the Peter/James conspiracy, assumes that the apostles were men with varying degrees of greed, gullibility, and attraction to power—cui bono. Although similar to the ideas of H. S. Reimarus and the “minimal witnesses” argument of Paul Ens (“Paulogia“), I am, so far as I know, the first person to propose this exact theory.
Apologists agree that the disciples were surprised and devastated by their leader’s untimely demise. Peter had no normal life to which he could return, having long since sold his fishing boat. He saw an opportunity when graverobbers stole Jesus’ body—a common event at the time.[23]
James could pass for Jesus in the light of an oil lamp, so Peter recruited him to impersonate Jesus in a series of after-dark appearances to the disciples. The Gospels naturally omitted this detail about the lighting. Read the statement of H. H. Furness about a medium faking spirit manifestations if you doubt that James could impersonate his brother.
James also claimed that Jesus appeared to him. The other apostles believed James, and Peter welcomed him into the group of apostles. There is nothing unbelievable about this sequence of events. Consider David Miscavige seizing control of Scientology after the death of L. Ron Hubbard if you doubt that a subordinate might engineer a takeover under such circumstances.
This theory also explains certain Bible verses that apologists and Christians in general usually ignore. Acts 3:32-37 and Acts 4:32-37 explain how Christian landowners sold their properties and laid the proceeds “at the apostles’ feet.” Christians have offered various possible explanations for this conduct, but groveling at someone’s feet is usually an act of subservience and submission.[24]
Acts 5:1-11 tells how Ananias and Sapphira suddenly dropped dead after they failed to place all of the proceeds of a sale at Peter’s feet. No chance to repent. No “let one of you who is without sin cast the first stone.” Some people might think that instant death is a harsh punishment for misstating the value of real estate. “And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.”[25]
Financial exploitation is a warning sign of a destructive cult. What would you think if two of your friends joined the Church of Scientology, and then died under mysterious circumstances immediately after acquiring a large sum of cash?
Paul became a Christian after he had some sort of vision. He proved to be a useful idiot because he collected money from his Gentile converts for the “poor” in Jerusalem.[26] Paul never reveals why the poor in Jerusalem are more needy than the Gentile poor, but money was the only thing that Peter and James wanted at the Jerusalem conference.[27]
Christians passed these differing versions of the stories from person to person.[28] Years later, the anonymous gospel authors—who knew nothing of Peter’s grift—wrote down four different versions of the story.
2. The Best of Bad Lot?
McCullagh identified certain criteria to use in determining the best explanation—such as plausibility and explanatory scope. These criteria may have some validity, but in my opinion they are unnecessarily complicated. For example, Licona devotes 142 pages of his 718-page The Resurrection of Jesus applying the criteria to the Resurrection and the theories of his five selected biblical scholars.[29]
In legal terms, inference to the best explanation is a way of evaluating circumstantial evidence.[30] Courts commonly explain circumstantial evidence to juries with a simple instruction:
Generally speaking, there are two types of evidence. One is direct evidence, such as testimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact from which you can logically conclude another fact exists. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that you find the facts from a preponderance of all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial.[31]
No matter what criteria are used, selecting “the best of various competing explanations” would not necessarily satisfy apologists’ burden to prove that the Resurrection hypothesis is more likely than not. In order for circumstantial evidence to establish Jesus’ resurrection by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), the Resurrection must be the only probable inference from the evidence, as opposed to one possible inference.[32]
Apologists must show that the Resurrection hypothesis is better than all of the various competing explanations taken together because the “not” in “more likely than not” includes all hypotheses that are not the Resurrection hypothesis, not just the views of the five scholars chosen by Licona. In order to prove that the Resurrection is more likely than “not,” apologists must prove that it is more likely than all proposed explanations and all unknown possibilities combined.
V. Conclusion
The minimal facts approach relies entirely on expert opinions—and mischaracterized expert opinions at that. Even if Habermas’ eleven critical theologians supported his “core” facts, would you want to have faith in Jesus based on the opinions of a bunch of experts?
Likewise, the inference to the best explanation cannot satisfy apologists’ burden of proof. To infer that Jesus rose from the dead would require the Resurrection (an impossible hypothesis) to be the only probable hypothesis, and one more likely than all possible alternative hypotheses combined.
Notes
[1] Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1951), p. 1.
[2] United States v. Fatico, 458 F. Supp. 388, 403 (E.D.N.Y. 1978).
[3] Gary Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), p. 44.
[4] C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 10.
[5] S.E.C. v. One or More Unknown Traders in Sec. of Onyx Pharm., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 241, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
[6] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 1st ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006), p. 4.
[7] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 2005), p. 158.
[8] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 161.
[9] By a “literal” appearance I think Habermas means a physical appearance. See Habermas & Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 154-164.
[10] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 162n74.
[11] Also, Reginald Fuller maintained a “firm commitment to the orthodox teachings of the [Anglican] church.”
[12] Habermas & Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 47.
[13] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 162.
[14] Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 163.
[15] Inductive reasoning is commonly used in the natural sciences, but inference to the best explanation is abductive reasoning.
[16] William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus ed. Michael J. Wilkins & J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995): 141-176, p. 141, 143.
[17] Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Auxier, 470 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Ky. 1971).
[18] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p. 160.
[19] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), p. 469.
[20] William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” p. 141, 143.
[21] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), pp. 107-109.
[22] C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 18.
[23] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 688.
[24] For example: 1 Samuel; 25:24; Esther 8:3; Isaiah 60:14; Mark 5:22; and Mark 7:25.
[25] Acts 5:11.
[26] See: Romans 15:25-28; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; and 2 Corinthians 9.
[27] Galatians 2:9.
[28] See: Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented their Stories of the Savior (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2016).
[29] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 469-610.
[30] Schwertfager v. City of Boynton Beach, 42 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
[31] Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions 3.3 Evidence (2020).
[32] Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Systems, Inc., 409 F.3d 784, 793 (6th Cir. 2005).
Copyright ©2024 by Robert G. Miller. This electronic version is copyright ©2024 by Internet Infidels, Inc. with the written permission of Robert G. Miller. All rights reserved.