What makes the minimal facts the minimal facts? How do we know that a particular event in the past ought to be considered a fact? Historians use certain general guidelines to allow them to identify when something is a fact and when it is not.
Yesterday, I listed five facts for the resurrection of Jesus. Today, I will attempt to demonstrate why those are considered facts, even by those scholars who do not grant that Jesus rose from the dead (more about the trouble this poses in a future post).
Please keep in mind that these are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. Judgment is required along with taking as much into consideration as possible when determining if something is a fact of history or not. Historical scholars use these guides to help them work through this process when dealing with historical evidences.
Here are some of the principles used to support historical claims:
- Are there multiple, independent sources? [MIS]
- Are there any enemies that affirm the event or evidence? [EA]
- Are there embarrassing admissions by those who are favorable towards the event or evidence? [Emb]
- Are there any eyewitnesses? [Eye]
- Are the testimonies and/or sources early in time (close to when the events occurred)? [Early]
So how does the five minimal facts stack up when these questions are applied to each of the facts? Let me remind you of what the five facts are:
- Jesus died by crucifixion. [Jesus]
- The disciples believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. [Disciples]
- The conversion of the church persecutor Paul. [Paul]
- The conversion of the skeptic and half-brother of Jesus, James. [James]
- The empty tomb. [Tomb]
I’ll use a grid to graphically layout how these facts grade out against the historical guidelines. The historical principles will be left-to-right across the top of the grid while the minimal facts will go down the left hand-side of the grid. Due to spacing issues on this page, I’ll refer to each in short-hand.
| |
MIS |
EA |
Emb |
Eye |
Early |
| Jesus |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| Disciples |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| Paul |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
| James |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
| Tomb |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
As you can see, this list of data hits on a multiple of the historical guidelines for being considered historical fact. As a result, this has led the vast majority of scholars (even the skeptical ones) to:
- Conclude that the data are strongly evidenced, and
- Grant that this is historical evidence that must be accounted for in any hypothesis regarding Jesus post-crucifixion.