Source: “On the Resurrection: volume 1”: Evidences, 2024 by Gary Habermas Published by B&H Academic Brentwood, Tennessee.
Minimal Facts Historical Consensus.pdf
5. Listing the Minimal Historical Facts.mp3
Contemporary critical research has shifted toward a "bottom-up" historiographical approach that identifies a consensus of historical data surrounding the end of Jesus’s life, which even skeptical scholars accept. This "minimal facts" method relies on a bedrock of evidence that meets two rigorous criteria: each fact must be individually supported by strong historical arguments and be recognized by the vast majority of researchers across various theological spectrums. By focusing on a "lowest common denominator" of agreed-upon events—such as Jesus’s execution, the disciples’ sincere belief in his appearances, and the radical transformations of skeptics like James and Paul—scholars can establish a reliable foundation for dialogue without requiring a prior belief in the New Testament’s total accuracy. Ultimately, this approach seeks to move from these virtually indisputable occurrences toward a historical investigation of the best possible explanation for the origins of the Christian movement.
Discussions about the historical Jesus often feel like they take place across a vast chasm. On one side stands faith-based belief, accepting the scriptural accounts as a whole. On the other stands academic skepticism, which critically questions every detail. This divide can seem so wide that any common ground appears impossible to find, leaving the impression that history and faith are hopelessly at odds.
But what if that common ground already exists? A surprising and growing consensus has emerged among critical historians—including Jewish scholars, atheists, agnostics, and skeptics—on a core set of historical facts surrounding Jesus's death and its aftermath. This agreement isn't based on theological commitments but on the rigorous application of standard historical methods. This article explores five of the most startling points of consensus, revealing a shared foundation of fact that challenges our assumptions about this ancient event.
Many people assume that to accept any part of the story of Jesus, you must first accept the New Testament as generally reliable. However, many critical scholars do the exact opposite. They work "from the ground up," attempting to build a case for specific events based only on data points that pass the highest standards of historical scrutiny.
This methodology is often called the "minimal facts" approach. It seeks to establish a "lowest common denominator" of historical certainty—a set of facts that a wide and diverse range of scholars can accept, regardless of their personal beliefs.