Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[nopaniers]

Hi all,

I have been writing a wiki page about the minimal facts method - the way I'd say that Gary Habermas goes about arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm by no means a historian and there are a lot of people here with a better historical and biblical knowledge than me. So I'm interested in getting some constructive criticism, and suggestions for how to make the argument better.

The page is here:
http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki.../Minimal_facts

I'm not interested in getting into a big argument about ECREE, and, no, I'm not trying to convert you atheists. What I do want to know is: Are there ways to make this argument better? For example: Are there some good sources (preferably which are available on the web) which I should cite? Have I written things which are just wrong? Do you have some useful quotes, or some interesting piece of information that could be added?

Thank you in advance.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I'm afraid I'm not much use for the factual side of your argument, but this immediately caught my eye:

The minimal facts approach is a powerful method of offering evidence that the resurrection was a historical event.

The term "is a powerful method" is not objective. Leave out the word "powerful" and you're golden. I don't mean to nitpick - just trying to help.

[hatsoff]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just rhetoric. The actual argument against the "minimal facts" approach is that the Resurrection is too inherently improbable for ancient documents to demonstrate its occurrence. There are too many things which can go wrong in the reporting of history for us to be so certain that the aggregate of the most plausible natural explanations are even less probable than a Resurrection. Applied to the minimal facts approach, this means that, supposing we find that facts X,Y,Z really do imply the Ressurection, then that's an argument against facts X,Y,Z, and not an argument for the Resurrection. For it is considerably more probable that historians have erred, as they often do, in one of their conclusions, than that a disembodied mind reanimated Jesus' corpse using supernatural powers.

That said, I don't find any formulation of minimal facts to imply a Resurrection. Consider the most robust of them:

1. Jesus death by crucifixion
2. An early belief in resurrection
3. The resurrection appearances experienced by disciples
4. Paul’s appearance and change of heart
5. James’s (Jesus’ brother) change of heart
6. The empty tomb

I must briefly comment that these are hardly "minimal" facts. For example, speaking for myself, only the first two of them do I accept more or less without hesitation. The other four are quite suspicious, and in the case of James having a "change of heart," I find that completely baseless. But now I wish to suppose for a moment we accept all six as absolutely true. Can we conclude from these that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I think it's pretty obvious to most non-Christians that even given all six "facts," there are a plethora of more individually likely natural explanations than the Resurrection. Also note that individual likelihood is not even required, since the argument requires that the probability of the Resurrection outweigh the aggregate of naturalistic explanations.

Unfortunately, history is not a business of precise numeric figures. Indeed, for this question of the Resurrection we have no numeric values at all, precise or otherwise. We must weigh competing explanations without the aid of mathematics, using our own crude human judgment. Despite this, I think the extreme improbability of the Resurrection is fairly obvious to those who are not dogmatically committed to a particular position.

[seanD]

1. Jesus death by crucifixion
2. An early belief in resurrection
3. The resurrection appearances experienced by disciples
4. Paul’s appearance and change of heart
5. James’s (Jesus’ brother) change of heart
6. The empty tomb

I must briefly comment that these are hardly "minimal" facts. For example, speaking for myself, only the first two of them do I accept more or less without hesitation.

To disregard any one of these, would be to not only throw out the gospels -- which might be somewhat easy for a skeptic to do -- but throw out Paul's letters as well -- which might present some problems.

I think it's pretty obvious to most non-Christians that even given all six "facts," there are a plethora of more individually likely natural explanations than the Resurrection.

Problem is, those natural explanations all fall by the wayside to historical obstacles one way or another unless the skeptic removes those obstacles by distorting history somehow.

[seanD]

Hi all,

I have been writing a wiki page about the minimal facts method - the way I'd say that Gary Habermas goes about arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm by no means a historian and there are a lot of people here with a better historical and biblical knowledge than me. So I'm interested in getting some constructive criticism, and suggestions for how to make the argument better.

The page is here:
http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki.../Minimal_facts

I'm not interested in getting into a big argument about ECREE, and, no, I'm not trying to convert you atheists. What I do want to know is: Are there ways to make this argument better? For example: Are there some good sources (preferably which are available on the web) which I should cite? Have I written things which are just wrong? Do you have some useful quotes, or some interesting piece of information that could be added?

Thank you in advance.

It's a good article. You got the minimal facts to build on. I don't know how else you could make it better.

[nopaniers]

Hey, thanks mate.

This wiki is presented from the Christian point of view rather than in wikipedia style... Hmmmm... I'm torn... When I leave it out it just sounds a bit bland and boring for most people. Any suggestions for what I could change it to rather than just leave it out altogether?

[Manwë Súlimo]

Hey, thanks mate.

This wiki is presented from the Christian point of view rather than in wikipedia style... Hmmmm... I'm torn... When I leave it out it just sounds a bit bland and boring for most people. Any suggestions for what I could change it to rather than just leave it out altogether?

If that was directed to my comment, then here's my answer:

If your article was intended to be merely an apologetic tool, then you should leave the word in. If you're trying to model this article after Wikipedia, it should be left out.

[SaintWill]

Probably the first hit you'll take is that all of your sources are biblical. I know you're counting Peter as extra-biblical, but because of the organization of Iraneus around 180, it's difficult at best to consider the remaining accounts as being without a common agenda. I don't know if that's the normal argument, but the fact that you have an obvious process of compilation during that time negates the idea that you can count those sources as separate.

[Pumbelo]

I would argue in terms WLC does. The empty tomb, the large variety of appearances, the transformation of the disciples, the origin of the belief in a bodily risen messiah and large growth of early christianity all have to be explained and I haven't found a satisfying naturalistic explanation for any of those, let alone for all of them.

That said, I don't find any formulation of minimal facts to imply a Resurrection. Consider the most robust of them:

1. Jesus death by crucifixion
2. An early belief in resurrection
3. The resurrection appearances experienced by disciples
4. Paul’s appearance and change of heart
5. James’s (Jesus’ brother) change of heart
6. The empty tomb

I must briefly comment that these are hardly "minimal" facts. For example, speaking for myself, only the first two of them do I accept more or less without hesitation.

Habermas is counting scholarly opinion. If he would include what people on the internet think, he would end up with a 40% consensus that Jesus was copied from Mithra

[nopaniers]

Thanks SaintWill. Fair point. Pehaps I should make more of an effort to group the synoptic gospels together, for example?

Pumbelo: LOL. Yes. That's true. Imagine what we would take as true if we followed what the internet thought!

[Seasanctuary]

I think you have a good general approach if you are trying to follow this: "That way, if someone attacks the sources you are using, you know that they are out of step, not only with conservative scholars, but also sceptical scholars."

But then you go right on with a conservative Christian approach throughout much of the article. I realize skeptical scholars aren't going to get you as far as you want to go, but you have to decide on your approach.

That said, you might be surprised how far you can go with skeptical scholars if you pick out the most appealing thing said by each individual one and combine them. For example, you could cite Michael Grant as a secular scholar who believes the Empty Tomb scenario is historically justified. Or Robyn Lane Fox as one who believes the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry.

Still, it might be better to simply make note of these things and stick to things secular scholars agree on for a truly "minimal" approach. A composite of the most Christian friendly concessions by secular scholars is not an accurate picture of any one secular scholar, let alone the majority of them.

Perhaps a tiered article:

* Things secular scholars generally agree upon. The true minimum.

* Interesting things some secular scholars have said.

* Arguments from Christian scholars on what they think secular scholars ought to recognize.

[nopaniers]

Hi Seasanctuary,

You are right. It would be wrong to claim it is the view of any one particular skeptical scholar. Somewhat ironically if they reached the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected, that would probably make them not "skeptical" of the resurrection by definition. I guess the sort of things you're thinking of skeptical scholars agreeing are on things like that Jesus was just a good moral teacher and miracle-free?

For me, not being a historian of any sort, I have to accept what Habermas (and William Lane Craig) have to say about the majority.

Thank you for that. I am going to add a quote by Michael Grant, because I was missing a decent quote for that section.

[SaintWill]

Thanks SaintWill. Fair point. Pehaps I should make more of an effort to group the synoptic gospels together, for example?

You could certainly make a note of it. That would show your opponent that you aren't just a Bible zombie, and you can "do history". You would definitely be able to unbalance an opponent by outlining the difference between the "Q" gospels and the rest of the new testament, because most skeptical readers of the Bible don't know that John and the Apocrypha are sourced differently.

Careful, though, when using this one in a debate format. You can come off as not skeptical enough of the Bible as a compilation. I think as long as you note where and how the books were compiled, you can make a good case for covering the history.

By the way, this is a riot: an atheist helping with a Biblical defense. Might be a first!

[sp1ke0kill3r]

To disregard any one of these, would be to not only throw out the gospels -- which might be somewhat easy for a skeptic to do -- but throw out Paul's letters as well -- which might present some problems.

Hmmmmm... Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb (fact 6) So I'm not sure why we would need to " throw out" his letters if we chose to disregard it. An appealing ideas since it's remarkably absent from pre Markan sources.
Similarly, While Paul is an excellent witness for what the disciples told him, he can not help much with fact #3: While he seems to have been in an excellent position to relate the disciples own words, he can't help us at all with whatever the disciples may have experienced. His testimony boils down to the disciples believe they had experiences of a resurrected Jesus. In deed, Paul tells us absolutely nothing about those experiences. He doesn't give a single detail about the appearances beyond claiming they happened.
Further, I don't see how Paul has anything to contribute concerning fact #5.
Without even breaking a sweat, I've shown that three of these facts can be seriously questioned without " throwing out" Paul's letters.

Still more, fact 2 depends on what you mean by early. Certainly, Paul is an excellent witness to what the disciples believed three or more years after the crucifixion, but he can't attest to anything earlier (that is. the crucial early beliefs
of say the first month or so. )

Problem is, those natural explanations all fall by the wayside to historical obstacles one way or another unless the skeptic removes those obstacles by distorting history somehow.

Do they? How so? Have you personally gone over the evidence yourself or are you just reciting someone else's claims? Why not ask hats what specific explanations he is referring to.

[Tassman]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just rhetoric. The actual argument against the "minimal facts" approach is that the Resurrection is too inherently improbable for ancient documents to demonstrate its occurrence. There are too many things which can go wrong in the reporting of history for us to be so certain that the aggregate of the most plausible natural explanations are even less probable than a Resurrection. Applied to the minimal facts approach, this means that, supposing we find that facts X,Y,Z really do imply the Ressurection, then that's an argument against facts X,Y,Z, and not an argument for the Resurrection. For it is considerably more probable that historians have erred, as they often do, in one of their conclusions, than that a disembodied mind reanimated Jesus' corpse using supernatural powers.

That said, I don't find any formulation of minimal facts to imply a Resurrection. Consider the most robust of them:

1. Jesus death by crucifixion
2. An early belief in resurrection
3. The resurrection appearances experienced by disciples
4. Paul’s appearance and change of heart
5. James’s (Jesus’ brother) change of heart
6. The empty tomb

I must briefly comment that these are hardly "minimal" facts. For example, speaking for myself, only the first two of them do I accept more or less without hesitation. The other four are quite suspicious, and in the case of James having a "change of heart," I find that completely baseless. But now I wish to suppose for a moment we accept all six as absolutely true. Can we conclude from these that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I think it's pretty obvious to most non-Christians that even given all six "facts," there are a plethora of more individually likely natural explanations than the Resurrection. Also note that individual likelihood is not even required, since the argument requires that the probability of the Resurrection outweigh the aggregate of naturalistic explanations.

Unfortunately, history is not a business of precise numeric figures. Indeed, for this question of the Resurrection we have no numeric values at all, precise or otherwise. We must weigh competing explanations without the aid of mathematics, using our own crude human judgment. Despite this, I think the extreme improbability of the Resurrection is fairly obvious to those who are not dogmatically committed to a particular position.

The so-called “minimal facts approach” is only practiced by Apologists and is no more than special pleading in favor of Christian scholarship. All it offers are minimal “facts” whilst arbitrarily excluding more controversial details such as the authorship, dating and reliability of the texts.

Of the above 6 “facts” the only one we can be reasonably certain of is Jesus’ execution by crucifixion. Even the “early belief in resurrection” can be queried in that the original belief was probably that of Jesus' spiritual body resurrecting, not the fleshly body as referred to in the gospels. Hence no “empty tomb”. Jesus mortal body decomposed like that of any other body.