Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Randy_Carson]

In this thread, I plan on arguing for the resurrection of Jesus using the “minimal facts approach” pioneered by Gary Habermas.

Prior to starting this thread, I did a search using the term “minimal facts” to determine whether this topic has been overdone in this forum. Based upon the very limited (almost non-existent) results of that search, I have concluded that the topic will be reasonably fresh for the membership. It is my hope that those who are more familiar with the approach will be patient while new members (and new atheists) are considering the material perhaps for the first time.

The minimal facts approach argues for the resurrection of Jesus based only on evidence that is so strongly attested historically that it is granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the skeptical ones.

Consequently, this discussion will not consider whether the New Testament is reliable nor attempt to prove that it is. The conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead will not depend upon that argument.

Before I present the minimal facts, I’d like to say a few words about the nature of historical evidence. When it comes to historical facts, we can only speak in terms of probability and not absolute 100% certainty. For example, consider the following spectrum:

Very Doubtful…Quite Doubtful…Somewhat Doubtful…Uncertain…Somewhat Certain…Quite Certain…Very Certain
||||___|___||

We will be seeking to determine whether the evidence for the resurrection moves us to the right or left of the mid-point (uncertain) of this range of opinions.

Additionally, we must keep in mind that the standards of evidence do not require that the case for something is irrefutable. Rather, the standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases and proof that makes the truth of an accusation more probable than not in civil cases. If this is not understood, then the skeptics’ demand for proof may be unrealistic.

At this point, I’d like to offer a response to those skeptics who are fond of saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” No, extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence…just like any other kind of claim. It is my firm belief that sufficient evidence for the resurrection can (and will) be presented.

The Minimal Facts (4+1)

The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including the skeptic) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the “+1”, is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

 

[Kaninchen]

This is the same op as you’re using ‘elsewhere’, I see.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is the same op as you’re using ‘elsewhere’, I see.

Gee, I’m glad somebody noticed.

Big difference in response, eh?

What is your handle there, kaninchen?

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh, I’m not a member there, Randy, though they do have some interesting discussions and there’s a touch of the rather crazy atmosphere of message boards a couple of decades ago.

Difference in response?

Well, we’re much more polite at CAF.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

As atheist Tim O’Neill points out here, there are two ancient, non-biblical authors whose references to the crucifixion of Jesus that are beyond question: Josephus and Tacitus. I’ll begin with those.

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

This text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later ‘Christian interpolation’; however, the version given above is a translation of the Arabic text which does not contain the ‘Christian’ additions.

Tacitus (AD 116)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer’s clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44)

Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being ‘the founder’ of Christianity and as ‘executed in the reign of Tiberius’ under Pontius Pilate. As Tim O’Neill notes:

“This clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists. They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation. But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect second century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine.”

In addition to these two authors, several others from the first and second century must be taken into consideration.

Mara bar Serapion (ca. AD 73)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

While Jesus is not named, and ‘wise king’ is not a common Christological title, there is little doubt that the author is speaking here of Jesus because the loss of the Kingdom of the Jews coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while the “new laws he laid down” refer to the doctrines of the Christian faith.

Further, it was well known that Pilate ordered a sign to be hung on the cross above Jesus’ head which read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” in several languages. Mara, a Jew in captivity, was writing to his son, and he speaks of this ‘wise’ Jew as a king…echoing Pilate’s own words. The fact that Mara probably doesn’t mention Jesus directly is understandable because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews; Mara does not want to offend his captors.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lucian of Samosata (c. AD 150)

“The Chrisitians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their noble rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they were converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)

The Talmud (c. AD 175)

“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged” (The Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a).

Other citations from Thallus (via Julius Africanus), Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, and Seutonius provide additional support and corroboration of the existence of the man, Jesus. However, the passages listed above provide the clear and unambiguous evidence that Jesus died by crucifixion. On the strength of this evidence, the majority of scholars acknowledge this as a fact.

 

[SonOfMan]

Randy, Im not sure what you think this proves. Using Josephus is weak, as he wasnt even born by the time Jesus died.

Also, proving that a historical man named Jesus existed and was crucified doesn’t prove that he was God. Many people were crucified by the Romans. How does any of that prove that Jesus resurrected, much less proving that he was God?

IMO there is no proof for anything. No evidence. If you go that path of relying on evidence, you may shake people’s faith as the evidence isnt good and largely non-existent. People believe due to faith alone, there is no other way. Im not sure why, or even if, you think that is a problem.

 

[Spelf]

Randy, Im not sure what you think this proves. Using Josephus is weak, as he wasnt even born by the time Jesus died.

Also, proving that a historical man named Jesus existed and was crucified doesn’t prove that he was God. Many people were crucified by the Romans. How does any of that prove that Jesus resurrected, much less proving that he was God?

Did you read the OP? He’s not finished. Proving the man exists and was crucified was part 1 of 5 of his argument.

Josephus not being a contemporary of Jesus is irrelevant. Most traditional history was attained by individuals further from the fact than Josephus, and some few people - likely the elders of the Jews - were still alive when Josephus was working, and could have easily disproved his claims among the people. And yet this did not happen; there was no account anywhere at any time of the Jews denying the existence of Jesus - the people who had the most to gain from perpetrating such a fraud - because they could not do so with any credibility.

 

[SonOfMan]

And yet this did not happen; there was no account anywhere at any time of the Jews denying the existence of Jesus - the people who had the most to gain from perpetrating such a fraud - because they could not do so with any credibility.

I dont think anyone denies the existence of a historical man named Jesus. But, how does a historical man named Jesus getting crucified prove that he is God? Seems like a leap.

 

[Spelf]

I dont think anyone denies the existence of a historical man named Jesus. But, how does a historical man named Jesus getting crucified prove that he is God? Seems like a leap.

Again, read the OP - it’s part one of four. He’s establishing a fact pattern. He acknowledges that four of the five are pretty much universally accepted.

 

[eddie_too]

keep going randy.

 

[Contarini]

Overuse of the extrabiblical evidence, I think. Josephus is of considerable value, but this is lessened by the fact that most scholars agree the text as we have it has been altered by Christians.

Tacitus much less–he might just be reporting what people commonly believed based on what they heard Christians say. It doesn’t necessarily imply independent knowledge.

Point 1 is very solid, but you don’t emphasize the primary reasons, which are based on internal evidence. The crucifixion is witnessed to over and over again in the NT, by multiple, independent authors. Furthermore, it passes the “criterion of embarrassment” splendidly. Practically no scholars who actually study the NT or the ancient world think for a minute that anyone would make up the story that their leader was crucified. The entire NT is only explainable, even on highly skeptical grounds, as an attempt to deal with the fact that Jesus was crucified. (I.e., if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then the story that he did is obviously a response to the obvious, embarrassing, literally and at first glance metaphorically fatal fact that he was crucified.)

The “mythicists” dissent from this, but they are a tiny minority of people few of whom have formal credentials of the appropriate kind and all of whom have a clear agenda. The vast majority of skeptical scholars, such as Ehrman, accept that Jesus was real and was crucified.

Edwin

 

[SonOfMan]

Again, read the OP - it’s part one of four. He’s establishing a fact pattern. He acknowledges that four of the five are pretty much universally accepted.

Actually, I think the only point that is universally accepted is point 1. Points 2-5 are not and only the Bible says those events happened, with nothing else to support it.

 

[AyJSimon]

The crucifixion is witnessed to over and over again in the NT, by multiple, independent authors. Furthermore, it passes the “criterion of embarrassment” splendidly. Practically no scholars who actually study the NT or the ancient world think for a minute that anyone would make up the story that their leader was crucified.

If an ancient Jewish prophecy held that the Savior would be martyred, and then rise from the dead, it actually makes a lot of sense to make it up.

 

[SonOfMan]

Point 1 is very solid, but you don’t emphasize the primary reasons, which are based on internal evidence. The crucifixion is witnessed to over and over again in the NT, by multiple, independent authors. Furthermore, it passes the “criterion of embarrassment” splendidly. Practically no scholars who actually study the NT or the ancient world think for a minute that anyone would make up the story that their leader was crucified.

I wouldn’t say “independent authors.” All of the authors of the NT were from the same movement with the same bias and agenda. Not exactly independent or non-partisan.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Overuse of the extrabiblical evidence, I think. Josephus is of considerable value, but this is lessened by the fact that most scholars agree the text as we have it has been altered by Christians.

Not the text I quoted.

Tacitus much less–he might just be reporting what people commonly believed based on what they heard Christians say. It doesn’t necessarily imply independent knowledge.

1. What is Tacitus’ reputation as a historian?
2. Atheist Tim O’Neill addresses this very point here:

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all. This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could. He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

“My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.” (Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it’s highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt. He calls Christianity “a most mischievous superstition…evil…hideous and shameful…(with a) hatred against mankind” - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect’s founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus’ teaching, or his miracles, or anything about the claim that he rose from the dead. On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred (“during the reign of Tiberius”) and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus. But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects. None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus. There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.

Point 1 is very solid, but you don’t emphasize the primary reasons, which are based on internal evidence. The crucifixion is witnessed to over and over again in the NT, by multiple, independent authors. Furthermore, it passes the “criterion of embarrassment” splendidly. Practically no scholars who actually study the NT or the ancient world think for a minute that anyone would make up the story that their leader was crucified. The entire NT is only explainable, even on highly skeptical grounds, as an attempt to deal with the fact that Jesus was crucified. (I.e., if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then the story that he did is obviously a response to the obvious, embarrassing, literally and at first glance metaphorically fatal fact that he was crucified.)

The “mythicists” dissent from this, but they are a tiny minority of people few of whom have formal credentials of the appropriate kind and all of whom have a clear agenda. The vast majority of skeptical scholars, such as Ehrman, accept that Jesus was real and was crucified.

Edwin

Agreed. I think Habermas is seeking to argue from non-biblical evidence in point 1 to avoid the controversies that arguing for the historical reliability of the NT entails.

And I’m hoping to avoid that “Spiral Argument thingie”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If an ancient Jewish prophecy held that the Savior would be martyred, and then rise from the dead, it actually makes a lot of sense to make it up.

The Jews had no concept of a Messiah who would be nailed to a cross and rise from the dead.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fact 2: Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

The fact that Jesus’ followers really believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them can be established from evidence that suggests two points: 1) the disciples claimed that after the resurrection, Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them and 2) after Jesus’ resurrection appearances, the disciples were transformed from fearful individuals who denied they knew him and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord, and they remained steadfast in their belief in the face of imprisonment, torture and martyrdom.

The minimal facts approach relies on those things about which there is virtually unanimous agreement among scholars; however, the skeptic who is less familiar with the evidence might be tempted to ask, “How do you know the disciples weren’t lying?” This is a fair question, and it may be answered without the need to defend the historical reliability of the four Gospels by looking at what other ancient sources tell us about the claims and beliefs of the apostles.

They claimed it.

The disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them. This conclusion can be reached from nine early and independent sources that fall into three categories:

1. the testimony of Paul about the disciples
2. the oral tradition of the early Church
3. the written works of the early Church.

*Paul. *Paul provides very strong evidence for the resurrection claims of the original apostles. He claimed for himself the authority of an apostle, and this claim was supported by a number of Apostolic Fathers shortly after the completion of the New Testament—two of whom probably were themselves disciples of the apostles. Paul knew several of the apostles personally including Peter, James and John. He played a major role in the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 (cf. Acts 15). As a result of Paul’s personal knowledge of the apostles, what he has to say about the beliefs of the other apostles is important.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes:

15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

There are two important phrases in this passage which must be highlighted. First, notice that Paul says clearly “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised on the third day”. This is unquestionable evidence of the belief of the resurrection of Jesus. However, it is the second point that ties this belief directly to the Apostles: Paul writes, “For what I received, I passed on to you…”.

Paul tells us that what he is about to say is something that he himself had “received” from others. Who were they? And when did he receive it? Paul learned the details contained in 1 Co. 15:1-8 from the apostles themselves during his visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. Thus, Paul is telling us of the core belief of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead.

At this point, the skeptic may object that this is using the Bible to prove the Bible. This objection will not stand. The minimal facts approach does not rely on the inspiration of scripture nor on the general reliability of the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament is viewed for what it is: an ancient volume of literature containing 27 separate books by multiple, independent authors written over a period of roughly 50 years. From this volume, only those facts were are accepted by a majority of scholars – including the skeptical ones – are taken into consideration. Paul is one of those independent sources, and he confirms that the apostles claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. If Paul did indeed receive this from the apostles during his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, then he may have heard the resurrection of Christ preached as early as five years after the resurrection took place. This leaves those skeptics who argue for the embellishment of the “legend” or “story” of Jesus with a very small window in which that embellishment could have taken place!

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

*Oral Tradition. *The passage from 1 Corinthians 15 brings us to the second category of evidence that the apostles believed in the resurrection: the oral tradition of the Church. At first, it might seem that the oral tradition of the Early Church is not knowable since we cannot actually hear what the Early Church was preaching with our own ears. How can we uncover this early gospel message?

In an age when technology for recording what someone said did not exist, it was important for speakers to phrase their messages in ways that could be easily memorized. In the Church, the statement of belief are known as creeds. Examples include the “Apostles Creed” and the “Nicene Creed”.

Based on its language and structure, scholars believe that 1 Co. 15:1-8 was an early creed of the Church which Paul himself had “received” from the apostles and memorized for use in his own preaching of the gospel. Thus, it is an early example of the Oral Tradition of the Church that was also captured in written form.

In addition to this early creed, there are in the Gospels what appear to be summaries of the actual preaching of Jesus and the possibly the disciples themselves. The reason scholars consider these written sermons to be summaries is that most sermons last longer than five minutes. Yet, most of the sermons in the New Testament can be read in less than five minutes. Consequently, they are thought to be written summaries of a much larger sermon given orally. Admittedly, it cannot be proved that the preaching of the resurrection in these sermons came directly from the lips of the apostles themselves. But if we are not there, we are surely very close.

Written Tradition. Finally, we come to the written tradition of the Early Church. To begin, we have the independent witness of the four gospel writers themselves, and they cannot be ignored as early, independent works which report the resurrection. The four gospels (as well as the book of Acts) were all completed within 70 years of the resurrection at the latest, and all of them report that the disciples believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Additionally, the Apostolic Fathers provide additional evidence of the faith of the apostles. These fathers are a distinct subset of the Early Church Fathers, and they are designated as “Apostolic” because of their close personal knowledge of and interaction with the Apostles. They were either known to the apostles and instructed and appointed by them, or by someone who was very close to the apostles.

One such Apostolic Father was Clement of Rome (c. AD 30-100) who may have been the Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus and Tertullian both attest to Clement’s association with the apostles, especially Peter whom Clement ultimately succeeded as Bishop of Rome.

Clement confirms the apostles’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus in his “Letter to the Corinthians.” He writes:

Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.” (Clement, First Letter to the Corinthians, 42:3.)

Irenaeus also tells us of Polycarp (c. 69-c. 155) who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus writes,

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed from this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4)

Polycarp, hearer of the apostles, also confirms their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Writing to Philippian Church around AD 110, Polycarp says of the apostles:

“For they did not love the present age, but him [Jesus] who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.” (Polycarp, To the Philippians, 9.2)

Overall, Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Jesus five times in this letter.

From all of the above, we can see that there are nine sources of information in three categories which attest to the belief of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead. These are:

1. Paul
2. Oral Tradition (early creed, sermon summaries)
3. Written Tradition (four gospels, Clement, Polycarp)

 

[Contarini]

Not the text I quoted.

1. What is Tacitus’ reputation as a historian?
2. Atheist Tim O’Neill addresses this very point

That’s an interesting point and may be correct. But the reference is so casual that I’m not sure how much can be built on Tacitus’ general statement of methodology. Did he really claim never to use hearsay, or just to avoid it whenever possible? The suggestion that he talked to Josephus is interesting, though that would actually mean that he wasn’t an independent source (and since I don’t think anyone has claimed that Josephus met Jesus personally, Josephus’ evidence would have been hearsay). It just seems unlikely that Tacitus (unlike Josephus) would have independent access to information about Jesus apart from what the Christians themselves (and possibly Josephus) said. But who knows? Maybe he talked to other Jews in Rome, some of whom had known Jesus personally. That’s just very speculative.

It’s not of great importance, because there is no significant scholarly debate on whether Jesus lived and was crucified.

Agreed. I think Habermas is seeking to argue from non-biblical evidence in point 1 to avoid the controversies that arguing for the historical reliability of the NT entails.

Well, that doesn’t make sense to me (this is a criticism of Habermas, not you). In this account of the “minimal facts” methodology (which I know I cited in our earlier discussion), Habermas defines “minimal facts” in terms of the consensus of scholars. I think that’s sound and wonder why he would choose to go only for external ancient sources in Step 1 of the argument you’re following.

You still seem locked into the false binary–either the NT is reliable in every detail or we can’t appeal to it. That just isn’t how it works. All scholars use the NT as a historical source–even skeptics like Ehrman. There are commonly accepted “criteria of authenticity,” though just which ones count, which ones count most heavily, and how they should be interpreted is often debated. Appealing to the consensus of scholars is a short-cut way of addressing this.

And I’m hoping to avoid that “Spiral Argument thingie”.

The problem with the Spiral Argument, as I see it, is that it
a) argues from the complete reliability of the NT as a whole, sidestepping the discussion of specific events, and
b) claims that we can “prove” by purely historical means something (the aforesaid complete reliability of the NT) that most scholars question.

I don’t want to reopen that debate any more than you do. But I wish you could see that it’s quite possible to appeal to the NT as a historical source without assuming a conservative view of its reliability. You look at the evidence for a specific claim. Are there historically plausible alternatives? In the case of the virginal conception of Jesus, for instance, there clearly are. But not in the case of the crucifixion. And perhaps not in the case of the resurrection, though that’s a much harder case to make.

I’m currently reading N. T. Wright’s volume on the resurrection. His approach is to argue for point 2 (he doesn’t see any need to argue for point 1, though I can see why Habermas would, since unlike Wright he regularly engages in debate with atheists who may find “mythicist” arguments plausible–and God bless him for that) and then argue that the best explanation for the fact that early Christians believed in the resurrection is that it really happened. He engages in an extensive study of pagan and Jewish views of resurrection, mostly to refute the idea that the early Christians could plausibly have used the term “resurrection” to refer to some kind of spiritual existence. The entire multi-volume series is well worth reading for someone with your interests.

I don’t, myself, think that point 4 is very useful–point 3 somewhat more so, perhaps, but I still wouldn’t rest much weight on it. Paul’s literary evidence, on the other hand, is very significant as testimony to what the earliest Christians believed.

Edwin