Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 2.2
What you will learn
- Describe the evidential method and how it differs from the classical two-stage approach.
- Identify the kinds of historical evidence evidentialists cite, especially for the resurrection of Jesus.
- Explain what it means to argue for the best explanation of a body of data.
- State the main objections raised by historians, philosophers and other apologists.
The big idea
Evidential apologetics argues that Christianity makes claims about events in history, and that these claims can be tested like other claims about the past. Its defenders gather evidence about the life of Jesus, the early reports of his resurrection and the rise of the church, and argue that these facts are best explained by what the New Testament says. Unlike the classical method, many evidentialists do not insist on proving God first. Critics ask whether history can bear the weight, and whether evidence alone can settle questions of this size.
Key terms
- Evidence
- Facts, reports or observations that count for or against a claim.
- Evidentialism
- In apologetics, the approach that rests the case for Christianity mainly on historical and other evidence. In philosophy the same word has a related but different meaning: the view that beliefs should be proportioned to evidence.
- Inference to the best explanation
- Reasoning that chooses, from among possible explanations of a set of facts, the one that accounts for them best.
- Minimal facts
- A method that uses only facts about the resurrection that are accepted by most scholars, including skeptical ones. It is associated with Gary Habermas.
- Primary source
- A document or witness from the time of the events, as opposed to a later account that depends on it.
- Eyewitness
- A person who saw an event first-hand.
- Probability
- A measure of how likely a claim is, given the evidence. Some evidentialists use mathematical probability to describe the strength of a case.
Background
The evidential method has a long history. In the eighteenth century, Joseph Butler, an Anglican bishop, published The Analogy of Religion, arguing that Christianity is at least as probable as the order of nature. William Paley’s Evidences of Christianity (1794) laid out the case from miracles and the character of the apostles. In the twentieth century, writers such as John Warwick Montgomery, Gary Habermas and Richard Swinburne developed more careful forms, and the historian N. T. Wright wrote a large scholarly work on the resurrection.
Evidentialists differ among themselves. Some, like Montgomery, think the evidence can stand largely on its own. Others, like Swinburne, argue that the historical evidence is strengthened by prior probability from arguments for God. The label therefore covers a family of approaches that share a focus on public facts.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Why history matters to Christianity
Christian faith does not rest on a set of general ideas alone. It makes claims about events: that Jesus was born, taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate and rose from the dead. The apostle Paul writes that if Christ has not been raised, the faith is vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). He treats the resurrection as an event that could be true or false, and he names living witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6).
Evidentialists take this seriously. If the faith depends on events, it should be possible to look at the records of those events and ask whether they are reliable. This does not make history the whole of faith. It treats history as one place where faith can be tested.
Step 2: The kinds of evidence cited
Evidentialists usually appeal to several lines. One concerns the New Testament documents: how early they are, how many copies survive and how well the text has been preserved. Another concerns the Gospels as historical sources, including arguments that they preserve eyewitness memory. A third concerns the testimony of non-Christian writers, such as the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Josephus, who mention Jesus or his followers. A fourth concerns the early Christian claim about the resurrection, which Paul passes on in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as something he himself received, and which most scholars date to within a few years of the crucifixion.
Some evidentialists add other lines, such as fulfilled prophecy, the changed lives of the first disciples, or the character of Jesus. Others avoid these as less public or less certain.
Step 3: Arguing to the best explanation
The central argument is often called an inference to the best explanation. It starts with a list of facts and asks which explanation accounts for them best. Habermas’s minimal facts approach uses only facts accepted by most scholars of the period: that Jesus died by crucifixion, that his followers sincerely believed he appeared to them, that the church’s persecutor Paul changed his life, and that his brother James became a believer. Some add the empty tomb, though scholars are more divided on it.
The evidentialist then compares explanations: hallucination, legend, fraud, mistaken burial or the resurrection itself. The claim is that the resurrection explains the facts better than the alternatives. Critics respond that other explanations are possible, or that the facts themselves are less secure than claimed. The argument is therefore an invitation to compare, not a proof.
Step 4: Evidence and the question of miracles
The strongest philosophical objection is that of David Hume, who argued in the eighteenth century that a wise person proportions belief to evidence and that the evidence for the regular laws of nature will always outweigh a report of a miracle. Evidentialists reply that Hume’s argument assumes the point at issue, since it treats uniform experience as settled when the question is whether an exception occurred. Many philosophers, Christian and not, consider the debate unresolved.
This is one place where evidentialists and classical apologists differ. A classical apologist says theism must come first so that a miracle claim is credible. Many evidentialists say that the evidence for the resurrection should be considered in its own right, and that it can itself count in favor of God’s existence.
Step 5: Objections from several sides
Several kinds of objection are raised. Historians point out that history gives probabilities, not certainties, and that ancient evidence is sparse. Some argue that the Gospels were shaped by faith and cannot serve as neutral sources. The German writer Gotthold Lessing spoke of an ugly broad ditch between accidental truths of history and necessary truths of reason, meaning that no historical report could prove a universal religious truth.
From inside Christianity, Reformed presuppositionalists argue that the method treats the Bible as merely probable and cannot justify full trust in God’s word. Søren Kierkegaard held that even if the historical evidence were overwhelming, it could not produce the faith that the Gospel requires, because faith is a commitment and not an inference. Evidentialists reply that they do not claim to produce faith, only to remove reasons for doubt.
- What does Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 suggest about whether the resurrection is a historical claim?
- Which kinds of historical evidence seem strongest to you, and which seem weakest?
- What is an inference to the best explanation, and how would you test one?
- What alternative explanations of the resurrection reports would a fair historian consider?
- How do you think Hume’s objection should be answered, if at all?
- What does Kierkegaard’s concern suggest about the limits of evidence?
Examples
The early creed in 1 Corinthians 15
Paul writes that he delivered what he also received: that Christ died for sins, was buried, rose on the third day, and appeared to Peter, to the Twelve and to more than five hundred, most of whom were still alive. Many scholars think this passage preserves a very early summary. Evidentialists use it to argue that the resurrection claim began within a few years of the events.
Comparing explanations
A student makes a table with five columns: hallucination, legend, fraud, mistaken tomb and resurrection. In each row she lists a known fact, such as the change in Paul. She marks whether each explanation accounts for the fact easily, with difficulty, or not at all. The exercise does not decide the question, but it shows the form of the argument.
A historian’s caution
A historian of antiquity says that she can state what the sources say and how likely different accounts are, but that history cannot show that a miracle happened. A historian’s method, she says, cannot go beyond natural causes. An evidentialist might ask whether this limit is a result of the method or an assumption brought to it.
Different perspectives
Evangelical evidentialists
Writers such as Habermas and Montgomery argue that the historical case for the resurrection is strong enough to move an open-minded person. They stress that the method asks for investigation, not blind faith.
Roman Catholic
Catholic teaching has long held that miracles and prophecies are signs that make faith credible, and that reasons for belief exist. At the same time it maintains that faith is a gift and goes beyond the evidence. Historical work on the New Testament is welcomed, though some Catholic scholars are more critical of the sources than evangelicals.
Presuppositionalist critics
These writers hold that treating the Bible as one hypothesis among others undermines its authority. They hold that the Christian must speak from God’s word and not from neutral probability.
Historical-critical scholarship
Many scholars study the Gospels with methods that ask how far the stories were shaped by later belief. Some, like N. T. Wright, conclude that the resurrection is the best explanation of the rise of Christianity. Others, including some Christians, hold that history can establish early belief in the resurrection but cannot decide whether it occurred.
Jewish and secular views
Jewish scholars such as Geza Vermes and Pinchas Lapide have taken the evidence for the early belief seriously, though they do not draw the Christian conclusion. Secular critics offer naturalistic accounts, such as grief-induced visions. A fair evidentialist must answer these accounts on their merits.
Why it matters
Many of the questions people ask about Christianity are historical: did these events happen, and can the records be trusted? The evidential method teaches a student to take such questions seriously and to reason about them with care, instead of simply asserting or dismissing. It also trains an important habit, which is the willingness to say how strong a case is and what would count against it.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Evidentialists claim that history proves Christianity.
Correction: Most speak of strong cumulative support or of the best explanation. Few claim proof, and many warn that faith goes beyond evidence.
Misunderstanding: Evidence for the resurrection is just the Bible quoting itself.
Correction: Evidentialists point to multiple sources, including Paul’s early letters, and to outside writers who mention Jesus. They also argue about the date and nature of the sources. Whether the argument succeeds is a separate question.
Misunderstanding: A good historian cannot say anything about miracles.
Correction: Historians disagree. Some hold that the discipline is limited to natural explanation by its own method. Others hold that history can weigh any hypothesis, including one involving God.
Misunderstanding: The evidential method ignores faith.
Correction: It addresses whether belief is reasonable. It does not claim that evidence produces faith, and most evidentialists say that faith is a response to God’s grace.
Knowledge check
Why does the evidential method focus on history?
Christianity claims that certain events happened, such as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Paul himself treats the resurrection as a fact that can be true or false and names living witnesses. If the faith concerns events, the records of those events are a reasonable place to test it.
What does inference to the best explanation mean?
It means choosing, from among possible explanations of a set of facts, the one that accounts for them best. The evidentialist lists accepted facts about Jesus’ death and the first disciples and argues that the resurrection explains them better than hallucination, legend or fraud.
What is Hume’s objection to miracle reports?
Hume argued that the evidence for the laws of nature, based on uniform experience, will always outweigh the testimony for a miracle. Critics reply that this assumes the question at issue, which is whether an exception has occurred. The debate remains active among philosophers.
How do classical and evidential apologists differ on starting with God?
Classical apologists argue that belief in God must be established first so that a miracle claim is credible. Many evidentialists argue that the historical evidence for the resurrection can be weighed directly and may itself count for God’s existence.
What objection does Kierkegaard’s thought suggest?
He held that faith is a commitment of the whole person and cannot be produced by historical probability. Even strong evidence could not make anyone a Christian. Evidentialists agree that evidence does not cause faith, but they claim it can remove obstacles.
Think it through
- If a historian told you that an ancient event was 80 percent likely, would that change how you act on it? Does it matter whether the event concerns your faith?
- What would count as evidence against the resurrection? If nothing could, what does that say about the claim?
- Why might a person trust a historical report from a friend more than a better documented one from a stranger?
- How do you weigh your own experience against what you read in history?
Independent assignment
Weigh the explanations
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. List the facts it states or implies. Then name at least four possible explanations for the early belief in Jesus’ resurrection (including the traditional one) and write two or three sentences on how well each explains the facts. Finish with a paragraph on what further information you would want. Do not announce a verdict unless you wish to. Keep this for yourself.
Further study
- 1 Corinthians 15 Read the whole chapter and mark what Paul says he received and who he says saw Jesus.
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God A large scholarly study of resurrection belief. Read the introduction and summaries.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses An argument that the Gospels rest on eyewitness testimony, to be read critically.
- F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? A classic evangelical argument for the reliability of the New Testament.
- Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration The standard account of how the text of the New Testament was transmitted.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosophy of History Background on the limits and methods of historical knowledge.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion Read for Hume’s objections on miracles and religion.