So, upfront, I’ve got to tell you that the claim that a man was resurrected from the dead is quite extraordinary. In fact, the mid-18th century philosopher David Hume put forward the extraordinary nature of the Christian resurrection claim as a question. Hume asked: “Is it more probable that a person is deceived, deceiving, or that the dead man actually rose from the dead?” In fact, it is so improbable that anyone claiming that a dead man rose from the dead is assumed to be lying. Hume put it this way: saying it is a strange thing that such miraculous events don’t take place in our day. “But,” Hume said, “it is nothing strange that men should lie in all ages.” You see, experience and probability tell us that the dead stay dead, that men lie, and that any story of the dead coming to life is probably just that: a lie. However, for the Christian, the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is not a lie. Christians hold that Christ died, was buried, was raised on the third day, appeared to Cephas, and then to the twelve. Then, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles and last, he appeared to Paul (cf 1 Cor. 15-3-8).

So, we face an apparent difficulty, a conundrum of sorts: we have two divergent truth claims, ultimately asking the question: what is the most plausible explanation for what happened to Jesus after his death? But before we attempt to answer that, it’s important to determine the best approach to investigate the resurrection claims. Since the resurrection is an irretrievable event in time past, I think you will agree is considered a historical event. Consequently, we are warranted in approaching the resurrection investigation as historians. However, in approaching the resurrection investigation as historians, another question immediately presents itself: since it is the Christian claim that Jesus was miraculously raised from the dead by His supernatural Father, can historians legitimately investigate miracle claims? Resurrection historian Michael Licona says no, explaining, “As historians, we are limited to asking whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead. Historians cannot answer whether it was God who raised Jesus…” Likewise, the popular atheist and critic of Christianity Bart Ehrman agrees with Licona, adding that the historian can neither confirm nor deny that miracles have occurred in the past.

So, suppose we follow the consensus of Licona and Ehrman, and limit our scope to the historical evidence alone. In that case, we also gain the additional benefit of limiting bias’s role in our investigation. This also helps establish a mutual, common ground among all competing hypotheses from which to begin a historical inquiry. In other words, in order to judge one theory more plausible than all other competing theories, there must be some minimal baseline facts that most scholars agree with. The superior hypothesis among all competing hypotheses is the one that best explains these baseline facts.

Scholar Gary Habermas refers to these facts as the “minimal bedrock facts.” While Habermas lists a dozen or more “minimal facts,” resurrection scholar Michael Licona reduces Habermas’s list to the bare minimum of three. These three minimal bedrock facts for any historical investigation are defined as those facts that “are strongly evidenced, and that contemporary scholars nearly unanimously regard as historical facts.” In that sense, the minimal bedrock facts present us an opportunity to continue to engage the Bible skeptic Michael from common ground. Again, it is reasonable to consider the minimal bedrock facts as common ground because an overwhelming majority of resurrection scholars (both Christian and atheistic) agree with these minimal facts. That makes for solid, historical, common ground to stand upon with the Michaels of the world.

When we look at the historical resurrection event, the agreed-upon bedrock facts pertaining to the fate of Jesus are these: 1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. Very shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.

3. Within a few years after Jesus’ death, Paul converted after experiencing what he interpreted as a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.

These three facts represent the minimal historical facts that enjoy a near-unanimous consensus among an extremely diverse group of scholars. Even Fredrich Nietzsche, the hardcore atheist, agrees that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, and He was crucified on a Roman cross.

Join us next week as we continue to look at the historical resurrection of Jesus. Until then, is God dead?

Gloria in excelsis Deo! — Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of Waurika Church of Christ and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at dr.kerley@ isGoddead.com.