Comparing the minimal facts for the resurrection of Jesus presented by Michael Licona and N. T. Wright
In the Christian Apologetics field, it is very common to see people using the “minimal facts” approach when arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. In this approach, the apologist first establishes some historical facts that are accepted by virtually all historians, such as the crucifixion of Jesus and the conversion of the apostle Paul. After advancing their argument by getting the other side of the debate to grant these facts as reliable or secure from a historical standpoint, the Christian would go on to ask: what is the best explanation for these facts? Of course, from our point of view, the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Michael Licona explains why he uses this approach (which he calls “historical bedrock”):
“Given the pitfall of horizons that await a haphazard historian, painting a historically responsible portrait of Jesus requires the use of historical facts that are regarded as virtually indisputable. These facts are “historical bedrock,” since any legitimate hypothesis claiming to paint a fairly accurate portrait must be built on it.” [1]
In order words, the only way for a historian to protect himself or herself from their own horizons (i.e. worldview) is to build on the facts that are virtually indisputable among historians. For Licona, openly based on the argument from Gary Habermas, the three main facts are the crucifixion of Jesus; that right after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them; and that a few years after Jesus’ death, Paul, who was previously a persecutor of Christians, also experienced what he believed to be a post resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus. [2]
It is interesting that Licona does not use the empty tomb in his historical bedrock. It is not that he does not believe that to be true, but that this fact does not pass two criteria that he established in his approach: (1) “The empty tomb does not enjoy the nearly unanimous majority agreement of the others”; and (2) “the absence of significant heterogeneity among those who grant the empty tomb.” [3] It’s not my idea here to argue for each of the facts, since Licona does that thoroughly in his book. Let’s now compare his approach to the one followed by another New Testament scholar, recently appointed Senior Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, professor N. T. Wright.
First of all, we are analyzing Wright’s “The Resurrection of the Son of God” and he does not mention the crucifixion on that book, since it is meant to discuss the facts after Jesus’ death and the consequences of it. That said, we have no reason to doubt that Wright includes the crucifixion in his “historical bedrock.” Next, it is interesting that Wright’s approach is different from Licona, since he will spend most part of his book trying to argue about the “belief” among the early Christians that Jesus rose from the dead:
“[This belief] was at the center of their characteristic praxis, narrative, symbol, and belief; it was the basis of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah and lord, their insistence that the creator god had inaugurated the long-awaited new age, and above all their hope for their own future bodily resurrection. The question we now face is obvious: what caused this belief in the resurrection of Jesus?” [4]
It is clear that N. T. Wright uses the established fact that early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead to argue for the next level of minimal facts: the empty tomb and the appearances to the disciples and Paul. For Wright, there is no way the belief previously held by Jews and modified by the early Christians about a bodily resurrection in our own time could have generated spontaneously without the stories about the empty tomb and the appearances:
“The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.” [5]
Now it is the point where Licona and Wright meet: what is the best explanation for these facts? In the case of Licona, the crucifixion of Jesus, the appearances to the disciples and the appearances to Paul. In the case of Wright, the appearances to the disciples and Paul, and the empty tomb.
Hopefully this discussion is useful for you to understand different approaches to argue for the resurrection of Jesus. Feel free to comment below and ask any questions about this. As my last post, this one is not exactly a book review / summary, but it is based heavily on the books “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” by Michael Licona, and “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N. T. Wright.
[1] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 277.
[2] Ibid, 302–303.
[3] Ibid, 462.
[4] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 685, Kindle.
[5] Ibid, 686.
