The Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection is Too Minimal

I’m not a fan of the minimal facts argument for the resurrection. I don’t think it works, and it might even do more harm than good. I know this is a rather spicy take. And I understand people who absolutely love minimal facts might want to click away, give me a thumbs down, or leave an angry comment. But hang on a second! I used to love this argument, too. So put down your torch and pitchforks for just a moment. Hear me out for a few minutes!

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[TestifyApologetics]

I realize this is a very popular argument! I personally had a hard time letting go of it for a lot of reasons. I plan on doing a video where I show a better way, as well as 1-2 more videos why I have some issues with minimal facts. Please understand, I get there will be some pushback and I have love for Habermas, Licona, Craig and others who use this argument (or in Craig's case, a similar version but not quite "minimal facts")

My intention is that I love the truth and want there to be less obstacles from people seeing it. Please hang with me and stay tuned for the whole series.

[whatsinaname]

I think the minimal facts is great at tearing down the idea that the Resurrection is a fringe theory, or requires you to just be taking an uncritical approach to the Bible. It’s a decent bedrock to get people to agree to, and then from there we should push forward. I don’t see much point to a conversation on the Resurrection where you don’t establish common ground.

[CH-ekbm]

There's a more obvious problem with the minimal facts argument: if even sceptical scholars grant these facts, that shows that it is more than possible to believe the minimal facts without believing in the Resurrection.

[vedinthorn]

To be fair, those kinds of minimal appearances would also not be convincing to someone like Paul or most anyone else. Therefore it is unlikely that such appearances happened.

That said, I don't think the minimal facts argument is supposed to be a one stop shop argument. It's to prompt someone to explain that data without breaking Occam's razor. They could then begin raising all kinds of questions that lead to other answers, but the point, to me, was to set them on the right track to start with.

[nick.s.c]

Thank you for the video! This argument almost made me lose my faith because of the general misconception that it is the only argument for Christianity. After your video on Pascal's wager though, I decided to read his "Pensees" and that along with some other arguments saved it. I am glad you are doing a critique of this. It is not that God cannot use an argument like this to convert people, it is actually not arguments at all that God uses to convert people but instead the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But, the vast majority of skeptics, and even some believers will not find these arguments convincing. I can't wait to see what you do next on this topic!

[quad]

That’s a good point. Just a general ‘appearance’ without specifying the type of experience won’t necessarily favor a literal resurrection, and, depending upon the kind of appearance, could actually favor a spiritual one.

[j.victor]

I deeply disagree with what you said:
1) A few days ago I was talking to a deist and she was impressed with the defense I made. I showed her that the resurrection is a rational explanation and the simplest of the evidence we have. At no time did she object or dispute the facts; on the contrary. What she said to me was: "I prefer to be where I am". Everything is fine.
2) About the nature of the apparitions while I spoke with her, she raised this objection: "but they saw only one spirit". Next, I explained that Paul (not even a first-century Jew!) could not think of "resurrection" as anything other than a corpse coming to life. If they only had visions of Jesus, they would use another term instead of "resurrection".
3) About James: I don't know much about this point. Skeptics convert today without having seen the resurrected Jesus. Couldn't the same have happened to James? Besides, we don't know much about what happened to James. Who says he hasn't had an ecstatic experience (some kind of hallucination) that he thought was his brother appearing to him? We have nothing but "...then appeared to James". What we say beyond that is pure speculation.
4) On the nature of the apparitions: I have already mentioned this in the point above, but Paul could not imagine Jesus resurrected in any way other than a deceased coming back to life. When Paul's religious tradition talked about "resurrection", it spoke of things like 'flesh', 'dead', 'dust', 'bones', 'graves', etc...
• Isa. 26:19: “your dead shall live, their corpses (נבלתי; LXX: οἱ ἐν τοῖς µνηµείοις: those in the tombs) will rise.”
• Ezek. 37:5-6, 13: “Thus says the Lord God to these bones…‘I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come on you, and cover you with skin… I will open your graves and bring you up from them.’”
• Dan. 12:2 (LXX): “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will arise.”
• Sibylline Or. 4:242–245 states, “As many as are pious, they will live on earth again, God giving them spirit, life, and joy.”
• In 1 Enoch 108:11–13, God says, “And now I will call to the spirits of the good … who have not been rewarded in their bodies, with honor, as was meet for their fidelity. And I will lead out in a shining light those who love my holy name.”
• Apocalypse of Moses 13:3 states that at the end of time, “all flesh, from Adam up to that great day, shall be raised, such as shall be the holy people … then shall be given to them every joy of Paradise, and God shall be in their midst.”
• 2 Esdras 7:31–32 states, “And after seven days the world, which is not yet awake, shall be aroused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust of those who dwell silently in it; and the chambers shall give up the souls which have been committed to them”
• In 2 Maccabees 7:9, as a righteous Israelite is about to be tortured by dismemberment for his faith, “he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, and said nobly, ‘I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again’ ”
• See also 2 Macabees 14.46, Ethiopic Enoch 90:33, Testament of Judah 25.1-4
Again (and I want to emphasize this point): "resurrection" is about a corpse coming back to life (clearer: it's someone who takes up space; steps and leaves footprints in the sand; you can slap it if you like).
6) Furthermore, even if Jesus' resurrection were 'spiritual' (again: that doesn't exist), still Jesus would have been vindicated and appeared to the apostles showing to show it.
7) Yes, the minimal facts don't discuss the nature of Jesus' body (and I don't think anyone should talk about it). For a curious discussion of the subject, see Mike Licona and Greg Cavin's debate. In summary, even if the approach you advocate is right, it DEFINITELY cannot demonstrate the nature of the body of Jesus (in fact - and I'm being a bit bold here - if we only use the gospels, we would also be in doubt as to what the apostles saw it was actually a ghostly apparition; but that misses the point).
8) "Like some accounts of Marian apparitions". Although you used the term 'some' I was curious: what do you mean by that? Explain please. I ask this because, although it's strange for me to say this (I'm a Protestant), I think that a 'minimal facts' approach can be taken for the Marian apparitions and I don't think it was a hallucination, pareidolia or anything like that: in fact there was something there, and I wouldn't dare say that Catholics are irrational for believing that she was in fact the mother of Jesus (even though I don't think so).
9) While this may not "change the skeptic's mind", this does not mean that the maximum data approach would also convince, since as human beings we always try to explain the evidence we have when it conflicts with what we already believe. The Lord's words are the purest truth: "if they do not believe Moses and the prophets, much less will they believe if someone rises from the dead [and appears to them]." And no, I don't think we need Thomas' touch and see. How do you know James or the 500 did that too? But anyway, they were believers, weren't they?
10) Finally, in my view, the minimal facts approach is the best, as it teaches us to put our bias into critical scrutiny. If from the beginning I already start saying that the gospels and Acts are historically reliable, I don't think it is necessary to say anything else. End of the game. Jesus is risen and and Christianity is true. There would be no more atheists.
11) This may sound strange to some, but a few weeks ago I read Tim and Lydia McGrew's article in Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and (amazingly) found it one of the worst reads of the year (get what I mean, please !). I found the argument presented very unconvincing and difficult to follow.
12) Furthermore, I also find it somewhat arrogant to say that this approach "fails" as many people came to faith thanks to this argument. To say that this argument "fails" would be (in some sense) to say that these people came to faith for bad reasons an thus, they are irrational.
13) Although I have offered these criticisms, I think the maximum data approach is valid (I just wouldn't use it in a conversation or a debate, for example). But one crucial issue that those using this approach need to be aware of and defend very well is the authorship, date, and historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts. That's not bad, but I don't prefer to go that way.

[vrpl]

I agree with you that the Minimal Facts does not prove the Resurrection, and using it that way is a problem. And perhaps over-eager apologists try to force it to say more than it does.

But I disagree with you about it not moving the needle. The sceptic is forced to abandon the resurrection as a story that developed over generations. Maybe in internet debates, you have a lot of skeptics that already know that path is a dead end, but I have encountered many people who come with that assumption. I think the Minimal Facts is a great way to get the foot in the door and to get people to start actually interacting with the texts rather than believe their own preconceived ideas must be what the texts reveal.

I also think, from an evangelistic point of view, I've run into people who think, as a religious person you're trying to pull the wool over their eyes, and you start citing from all these sources, and referencing all these books, and they don't have the background that you do, and they want a firm safe foundation to begin. So it's not too denigrate the Gospels or the other texts if the New Testament, but you can start and say, okay let's put those questions aside for a moment and just analyze this small data set, and then we'll consider the rest.

As long as the Minimal Facts is used as a beginning and not used as an end, I think it has its place.

[calebjore]

Great video. I also used to be a staunch supporter of the minimal facts argument until I actually interacted with criticism of it from Lydia McGrew and Jonathan McLatchie. I agree that a maximal data approach is much more robust, especially when combined with individual, well-supported facts (e.g., the empty tomb). Looking forward to the rest of the series. Keep up the great work!

[krombopulosmichael]

Great video brother. Minimal facts argument is excellent for bolstering a believers faith as it relates to discussions of historical evidence and misunderstandings around that. But what comes first for belief in Jesus us faith, not historical evidence. You must first have faith for the evidence to impact your belief.
So I 100% agree that as the word say, we must give an adequate defence of the faith, this includes defending and standing by the gospels. Excellent work.

On the aside, maybe this opens a doorway with people for discussion and a seed, maybe it doesn’t, but it’s all in the Lords hand and he will work on the heart while we as believers in Jesus Christ testify to his glory.
Praise god

[tomjoseph]

Habermas says many witnesses in question were convinced enough to change their lives dramatically and preferred telling of their experiences to preserving their lives.

Because it's based on minimal agreed facts, it doesn't consider the nature of their experiences - only that they were truly convincing to the witnesses. A person could speculate that the witnesses irrationally considered evidence they shouldn't have such as hallucinations before deciding to dramatically change and risk their lives- but that so many did, offers support for the worth of their evidence.

Going into more detail than what is generally agreed among scholars would defeat his point that just the minimally agreed facts evidence what happened. Other facts and reasons to believe would be a matter for a further, different discussion.

[truncated]

Congrats on being invited on @Pinecreek 's channel. It will be fun to see the two of you talk together sometime.

[nathanring]

Hi, I'm a (relatively) recent atheist and this argument never convinced me even as a Christian. I think you're super great for posting this video and found your honesty super refreshing. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[tomfrombrunswick]

As a sceptic I was impressed by this video. Not by the end point but by the simple rational approach to the facts. If all apologists approached things as calmly and sensibly I suspect they would have a higher success rate

[milliern]

The amount that one gets out of what the critics concede is itself a very strong argument, even if you aren't satisfied with the minimum facts approach. It's letting your opponents pick your weapons and they get to pick theirs, and yet it is still not clear that they have any hope of winning. So maybe you don't convince them, sure. However, they look quite foolish in what they can't achieve by handing you a sling and a stone, whilst they send out their 8 ft soldier with a sword.

Great video. It's good to hear some other thoughts.

[pinehas]

Really love your videos on minimal facts. As a Reformed person I do use presuppositional apologetics and I really loved your conclusion in this video. We really should man up and defend the scriptures and not act like they are just some cool books. Epistemology, I believe, really plays a great role in this, which I is why I fully agree with your last words in this video.
God bless!

[emrys]

Great video, it's important to analyze our own sides arguments. Make sure we're not presenting the ressurection in a weak fashion.

[MerBlack]

Thankful for your videos, brother! Great work!

[joshuaschaeffer]

Just went through mike laconas "a historiographical approach to the resurrection" with an unbelieving friend and have to say, super grateful for your channel. This is very much true, and I think this is the reason that James White has the best debate against Bart Ehrman. James White is getting his PHD in textual criticism, and I am hoping that he makes the maximal case for the resurrection.

[studentbg]

I disagree. According to the minimal facts argument Jesus didn't just appear to one person, but to many people. If my cousin told me she saw a dead relative, that wouldn't be enough to convince me, but if I had dozens of people tell me they all saw the same dead relative then I could no longer dismiss it by saying that there is nothing there.