Christian Evidences: Jesus and the Resurrection Assignment
PHIL240: Christian Evidences
Josie Gipe
3/7/2024
1
Questions
Question 1
The minimal facts approach, a strategic and evidence-based stance, distinctly operates by
focusing on key historical points. These points are widely affirmed and well-evidenced,
extending acceptance across scholars of different philosophical and theological leanings from
conservative believers to skeptical non-believers (Habermas, 2012). A more detailed
examination of the core minimal facts starts with the death of Jesus by crucifixion. This
historical event does not solely rely on biblical accounts for affirmation but also finds support
from extra-biblical sources like Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus. The
lethal nature of crucifixion is further substantiated by medical and forensic research highlighting
the deadly impact of this form of execution.
Another crucial fact lends itself to the transformation of Jesus' disciples post His death.
Their firm and unwavering belief that they had seen the resurrected Jesus, alongside their
willingness to suffer and face death for this belief, supports the authenticity of their experiences.
The historical accounts of their martyrdom provide additional considerations to their convictions.
Adding to these is the radical conversion of Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus (Habermas
et al., 2004). Initially an adversary of the Christian movement, Paul's life took an an heard fo turn
after an encounter with what he believed was the risen Christ (Minimal Facts on the Resurrection
That Even Skeptics Accept | SES, 2016). His transformation, well-documented in the New
Testament through his letters and the Acts of the Apostles, further authenticates the impact of the
resurrection claim.
While not universally agreed upon, the empty tomb narrative receives substantial
recognition among many scholars. Considerations include the discovery of the empty tomb by
2
women, an unexpected narrative given the societal norms at the time, and the absence of tomb
veneration, a common practice for holy individuals' burial places.
Despite the weight of these widely accepted facts, they have been subject to challenges
posited by alternative theories. These theories, proposing different natural explanations such as
hallucinations or the swoon theory which argues that Jesus did not die but merely fainted, have
not gained broad acceptance, primarily due to their failure to consider all the minimal facts
collectively.
Consequently, the leading proposition of the minimal facts approach remains that the
most comprehensive and coherent explanation of these facts is the actual resurrection of Jesus
Christ. This hypothesis acknowledges the difference in personal beliefs, yet it insists on a strong
case for the resurrection that aligns with the generally affirmed facts.
However, acceptance of this argument ultimately depends upon individual philosophical
dispositions and pre-existing beliefs, particularly concerning historical data interpretation and
openness to the possibility of miracles. For naturalists, even a strong and deep-seated argument
cannot substantiate a miracle claim. In contrast, those open to the possibility of miracles may
find the minimal facts approach a persuasive argument for Jesus' resurrection.
Question 3
The question of "legend" about the resurrection is significant because it challenges the
reliability and authenticity of the resurrection account. If the resurrection story of Jesus Christ
were a legend, it would be a later development that grew and embellished over time, and
therefore, it might not necessarily carry a factual representation of historical events.
3
This is where the early dating of New Testament documents becomes important. The closer in
time a document (or a source) is to the events it describes, the less time there is for legendary
development to occur. The New Testament documents, including the letters of Paul and the
Gospels, are dated back to within decades of the crucifixion, which is an exceptionally short
period by ancient standards (Habermas et al., 2004). This proximity to the reported events makes
it highly unlikely that the resurrection account could be a mere legend.
The resurrection testimony dating back to the years immediately following Christ's
crucifixion is also important. If the accounts of the resurrection were immediate, it further
implies that the story did not have the chance to evolve or be embellished as a legend over time.
It suggests that the disciples and early believers were sharing what they believed to be a real,
historical event shortly after its occurrence, not a tale that grew over generations.
The recognition of "creeds," sets of beliefs that early Christians shared and repeated, is
significant because they show an early, organized understanding and assertion of the
resurrection. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is considered an early Christian creed, which
Paul mentions as something he received and passed on. The fact Paul was writing just a few
years after Christ's crucifixion suggests an early belief in the resurrection, which could not have
developed as a legend over an extended period (Habermas et al., 2004). So, recognition of these
creeds helps in refuting the "legendary development" objection to the resurrection, reinforcing
the belief that the resurrection was a historical event that early Christians testified to, rather than
a story that evolved over time.
The notion of the resurrection legend also fails when we evaluate the reaction and
behavior of the disciples after Jesus's crucifixion. The apostles underwent significant
persecution, with many meeting violent deaths. The willingness of these early followers to suffer
4
and die for their belief suggests that they truly held this belief, generally, people do not choose
martyrdom for what they know to be a legend or a lie.
Furthermore, the characterization of Jesus's resurrection in the New Testament
contradicts the pattern of legendary development. Ancient legends of divine figures typically
involve grandeur, glory, and dignity. Yet the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the Gospels
exhibit a humble, intimate, and approachable figure who shares food with his disciples and
shows them his wounds. This unique, humanizing representation of a resurrected divine being is
not consistent with the expected concoction of a legendary tale.
The inclusion of women as the first witnesses of the resurrection also challenges the
“legend” argument. In the patriarchal society of the 1st century, a woman’s testimony was
considered less reliable and often dismissed. If the resurrection story were a legend developed by
the disciples to persuade others, logically they would have chosen male figures as the initial
witnesses to make their tale more credible (Habermas et al., 2004). The fact that women were
reported as the first witnesses speaks to the likely truth of that occurrence.
The argument from silence in other historical texts also counters the legend theory.
Critics of the resurrection often point out that non-Christian sources from that era do not mention
the miraculous event. However, the absence of the resurrection story in other historic writings
doesn't prove it a legend since those authors had no reason to advertise or preserve an account
that could challenge their beliefs or political standings. Meanwhile, the writings we do have
(New Testament documents) show remarkable consistency about the central claim of the
resurrection. Therefore, it primarily aligns with the criteria of historical reliability, rather than
hallmarks of legendary development.
5
Christian Evidences: Jesus and the Resurrection
The discussion surrounding the historicity and validity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
has been a point of interest across disciplines, blending the realms of theology, history, and
cultural studies. This discussion mainly revolves around two different viewpoints: the minimal
facts approach and the legend theory. Both ideas give interesting perspectives into this ancient
narrative, capturing the ever-changing complexity of understanding history.
The minimal facts approach operates through facts, using a concise set of well-supported
events covering Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This methodology's core strength lies in its
emphasis on evidence and widespread acceptance across diverse philosophical spectra, from
strong believers to skeptics atheists (Habermas, 2012). The initial evidence includes Jesus'
crucifixion, validated through biblical and extra-biblical sources such as Tacitus and Josephus.
Additionally, medical insights make survival post-crucifixion far-fetched, therefore,
strengthening the premise of this approach.
The disciples' transformation following Jesus' death further supports the aspects
supported by the minimal facts approach (Minimal Facts on the Resurrection That Even Skeptics
Accept | SES, 2016). Their firm belief in the resurrection, along with their readiness to endure
immense hardships and suffering for this belief, points to the authenticity of their experiences.
Additionally, the well-documented conversion story of Paul from an adversary to a fervent
follower complements these cases, reflecting the lasting impression and effects of the
resurrection claim.
Meanwhile, the legend theory stands in opposition to these historical facts, proposing a
different interpretation. It is assumed that the story of Jesus Christ's resurrection could be an
iconic legend, a narrative developed and embellished over time. Central to countering this
6
theory's arguments is the early dating of New Testament documents (Habermas et al., 2004).
These documentations, penned far too close to the crucifixion to leave room for legendary
developments, significantly undercut this theory's premises.
Complementing these early writings are the immediate testimonies and creeds of early
Christians testifying the resurrection as a real event. His quick acceptance and spreading of the
idea further weaken the thought that the resurrection was a slowly formed myth.
What sets the resurrection account apart from typical legendary tales is its unique
portrayal of a divine figure. Instead of the usual grandeur and invincibility, the Gospels portray a
humble, relatable, and approachable Jesus. This representation does not meet the expectations of
a legendary account, going against the standards of their creation. Even more interestingly, the
fact that women were the first to report the resurrection, which was a big shift from societal
expectations, suggests it’s too powerful to simply be a made-up story.
In summary, both the minimal facts approach and legend theory contribute to our
understanding of the resurrection narrative. Each offers unique insights and significant
challenges in interpreting this ancient account. Although many might contend that the minimal
facts approach provides a more evidence-focused and thus convincing narrative, the legend
theory's tenets still echo in academic and public discourse. Ultimately, the acceptance of either
perspective is informed both by personal beliefs and an individual's stance on the potential for
miracles.
Adding to the complexity of this debate is the theory of embellishments, which suggests
that the narrative of Jesus' life and teachings were significantly altered as it was circulated over
time, comparable to the way a message in a game of "telephone" evolves as it's passed from
person to person. This theory alludes to how details of personal or extraordinary events can get
7
amplified, creating increasingly grandeur versions, an example being how accounts of
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) were most likely embellished in the centuries after his death
before they were transcribed into the Pali and Sanskrit manuscripts. Skeptic Robert Price
provides interesting evidence for the rapidity with which legends and embellishments can
develop, even within the principal person's lifetime, with internet communication in our modern
age allowing for the quick spread of unfounded stories or "urban legends."
However, when we refocus on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the question of
whether embellishments crept into the narrative, it's crucial to remember that textual purity,
particularly of the New Testament, is widely acknowledged within academia. Nevertheless, the
concern remains as to whether legends seeped into Christian traditions before their
documentation, necessitating proof of the unlikelihood of such an occurrence.
The potential embellishment theory faces contradictions from the tangible experiences of the
original apostles, which bear significant weight. If these experiences included the resurrection of
Jesus, it is unlikely that the account started without it and gradually incorporated the event.
Conversions like those of Paul and James, hinging on personal encounters with what they
believed to be the risen Jesus, further undermine the embellishment theory.
The discussion around embellishments, therefore, does not conclusively prove that the theory is a
valid explanation for the accounts of Jesus' resurrection (Habermas et al., 2004). While such
legend might accumulate over time in some ancient accounts, it is imperative to explore if it
satisfactorily explains Jesus' resurrection reports on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, in light of these considerations, the proposition that the resurrection narrative
underwent gradual embellishment remains complex. While parallels can suggest quick
transformation into legends, the early dating of Paul and James's experiences provides
8
compelling evidence against such theories. While the dialogue between the minimal facts
approach, legend theory, and embellishment theory continues to inform our understanding of the
resurrection narrative, one's interpretation is greatly influenced by their personal ideologies and
belief systems.
These arguments and factual evidence about Jesus are critical for us, as Christians, to
understand. They give us the ability to discuss Jesus, our love for Him, and our zeal for His
teachings factually and tangibly all of which are important in a society that cherishes proven
historical figures as deserving of respect and attention (Why the Historicity of Jesus Matters,
2022).
If we equip ourselves with this knowledge, coupled with our faith, our ability to
evangelize becomes more effective. After all, it is one thing to say, "I believe because that is
what I believe," which is a statement that leans heavily on personal experience and thought.
However, it is far more powerful to be able to say, "I believe, and here are the factual historical
points that back up and enrich my belief."
This approach can foster more impactful conversations about our faith, as we're able to
articulate it in a language that skeptical or questioning individuals may better understand. We
can engage them on a level where faith and reason come together, where both passion and logic
coexist. The combination of faith and knowledge becomes both our defense and our outreach
tool, redefining the Christian message from a merely personal belief to a historically validated
faith.
9
References
Alternate Critical Theories to the Resurrection - JA Show Articles. (2004, September 27).
https://jashow.org/articles/alternate-critical-theories-to-the-resurrection/
Habermas, G. R., Licona, M. R., & Kregel Publications. (2004). The Case for the Resurrection of
Jesus. Kregel Publications.
Habermas, G. (n.d). New Objections (and Responses) to the Resurrection [Video]. Liberty
University. https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/596071/pages/watch-new-objections-and-
responses-to-the-resurrection?module_item_id=62329633
Habermas, G. (2012). Scholars Crossing Scholars Crossing Faculty Publications and
Presentations School of Divinity The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of
Jesus: The The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of
Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Role of Methodology as a Crucial
Component in Establishing Historicity Historicity.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1014&context=sod_fac_pubs
Minimal Facts on the Resurrection that Even Skeptics Accept | SES. (2016, September 28).
Ses.edu. https://ses.edu/minimal-facts-on-the-resurrection-that-even-skeptics-accept/
Why the Historicity of Jesus Matters. (2022). Christianity.com.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/why-the-historicity-of-jesus-matters.html
