Skip to content

Course 16 · Lesson 8.1

Assembling the evidence into a case

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 16 outline

Module 1: How Historians Reason

  1. Sources and evidence: primary, secondary, early and late
  2. Criteria of authenticity and their limits
  3. What historical probability means
  4. Where history stops and theology begins

Module 2: Jesus in the Ancient World

  1. The three quests for the historical Jesus
  2. Josephus and the Jewish sources
  3. Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius on the Christians
  4. What outside sources can and cannot prove

Module 3: The Gospels as Historical Sources

  1. Dating the Gospels
  2. Authorship, anonymity and church tradition
  3. The Synoptic problem and John
  4. Eyewitness testimony, memory and reliability
  5. The Gospels as ancient biography

Module 4: The Death of Jesus

  1. How the Romans practiced crucifixion
  2. The evidence that Jesus died on a cross
  3. Burial and the empty tomb accounts

Module 5: The Earliest Testimony

  1. What the first Christians actually claimed
  2. Paul and the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15
  3. The appearance accounts in the Gospels and Acts
  4. Jewish and Greco-Roman expectations about resurrection

Module 6: Martyrdom and Its Limits

  1. Early persecution and the martyrdom traditions
  2. Late legends and early evidence about the apostles
  3. What martyrdom shows about sincerity and what it does not show about truth

Module 7: Alternative Explanations

  1. Hallucination and visionary experience
  2. Legend and the development of belief
  3. Conspiracy, the swoon theory and the wrong tomb
  4. Comparing explanations by explanatory power

Module 8: Building and Testing a Case

  1. Assembling the evidence into a case
  2. Background beliefs and the question of miracles
  3. Stating the limits of the case honestly

All courses

Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 8.1

What you will learn

  • Organize the evidence studied in the course into the structure of a written argument.
  • Rank pieces of evidence by strength and mark the secure and the contested ones.
  • Anticipate the strongest objections to each step and write replies.
  • Distinguish an argument built on a few secure facts from one that relies on many contested claims.

The big idea

A historical case is built like a bridge: each step must bear weight, and the whole is only as strong as its necessary supports. A careful case for or against the resurrection begins with the most secure facts, adds the more contested ones with labels showing their status, states the alternative explanations, compares them, and says what follows. Writing the case out forces honesty, because weak steps become visible. It also shows that two people may use the same evidence and reach different conclusions through different weighting.

Key terms

Premise
A statement offered as a reason for a conclusion.
Secure fact
A claim accepted by nearly all scholars of the period, believing or not, for example that Jesus was crucified under Pilate.
Contested claim
A claim on which scholars are divided, for example that the tomb was found empty.
Minimal facts approach
A method used by some apologists, notably Gary Habermas, which builds the argument only on facts accepted by most scholars, including skeptics.
Steelman
To state an opposing view in the strongest form its defenders would accept, before replying to it.
Burden of proof
The duty to give reasons. In this question both sides carry it for the claims they make.

Background

Much of the course so far has been analysis: how sources work, what each source says, how rival explanations fare. This module builds toward synthesis. The student is asked to assemble the findings into one coherent argument and to test it.

An argument has parts. It states what is to be shown, the evidence offered, the reasoning from the evidence to the conclusion, the objections, the replies and the limits. Writing these parts separately is a discipline that guards against hidden assumptions. This lesson gives the structure and a way of rating the evidence.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Begin with what is secure

A strong case starts with facts that opponents also accept. In this subject they usually include the following: Jesus was crucified under Pilate and died; his followers believed and proclaimed that God had raised him; they said that he had appeared to them; the movement began in Jerusalem and grew quickly; Paul, once a persecutor, became a believer after an experience he took as an appearance. Most scholars add that James, Jesus’ brother, became a leader of the church.

These are not all equally secure, and the student should note the grounds for each. The crucifixion is nearly certain. The claim that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen Jesus risen is accepted by most scholars, whatever they think caused it. Paul’s conversion is attested by his own letters. James’s later leadership is attested by Paul and Josephus.

Step 2: Add the contested claims with labels

Other claims are important to the case but disputed. They include the burial in a known tomb, the discovery of the empty tomb by women, the appearance to a group of five hundred, the physical nature of the appearances and the early date of the creed’s wording. The argument should say, for each, how strong the evidence is and what the opposing view holds.

A good habit is to write the argument twice: once using only the secure facts and once adding the contested ones. If the conclusion survives the first version, it is robust. If it needs the contested claims, the writer should say so and show how strong each is.

Step 3: State the rival explanations and compare

The next part sets out the competing explanations, vision, legend, conspiracy and the rest, each in its strongest form, and compares them by the criteria of Lesson 7.4. The writer should not choose weak versions of the rival theories to make victory easy. The steelman principle applies: state the other view as its best defenders would.

The writer should also say which explanations are combined, since many scholars use mixed accounts, and should mark which combination is under discussion.

Step 4: Draw the conclusion with the right strength

The conclusion should match the evidence. A writer may conclude that the resurrection is the best explanation, that a natural explanation is the best, or that the evidence is inconclusive. Each of these can be defended honestly. What cannot be defended is a conclusion stated with more certainty than the steps support.

The conclusion should also say what follows and what does not. If the claim is that the resurrection best explains the evidence, that is a historical judgment. The step to the Christian doctrine of Christ’s divinity is a further one, as Lesson 1.4 explained.

Step 5: Test the case

A useful test is to give the draft to a thoughtful person who disagrees and ask which step they find weakest. Another is to ask whether each premise would be accepted by a scholar of the opposite view. A third is to list the claims that, if false, would collapse the argument, and to rate the probability of each.

A fourth test concerns tone. An argument that mocks opponents, or says that no reasonable person could disagree, is probably claiming too much. The historical record shows many reasonable and learned people on both sides.

  1. Which facts in my case would an opponent accept?
  2. Which steps depend on contested claims, and have I said so?
  3. Have I stated the rival explanations in their strongest form?
  4. Which single step, if it failed, would bring down the argument?
  5. Is my conclusion no stronger than my steps?
  6. What would a thoughtful opponent say is my weakest point?

Examples

A skeleton of an argument

Premise one: Jesus was crucified. Premise two: his followers sincerely believed that he appeared to them risen. Premise three: Paul and James changed from opponents to believers. Premise four: the belief arose early in Jerusalem. Question: what best explains these? Compare vision, legend and resurrection. Conclusion and limits.

Two versions

A writer composes the argument first using only five secure facts, and finds that it supports a modest conclusion: something happened that convinced the disciples. In the second version with contested claims, the conclusion is stronger but depends on the empty tomb and group appearances, which the writer rates as probable but not certain.

A hostile reader

A student gives her draft to a friend who is a skeptic. He objects that she treats Paul’s list as better evidence than it is. She revises to separate what the list says from what she infers. The argument is shorter and stronger.

Different perspectives

Minimal facts apologists

Gary Habermas and others argue that a case should rest on facts accepted by most scholars, and claim that the resurrection best explains them. Critics say the facts chosen are sometimes contested and the list is shaped to fit the conclusion.

Cumulative case scholars

N. T. Wright argues that the case works as a whole: the rise of the movement, its beliefs and its transformation form a pattern that only the resurrection explains. Critics reply that a cumulative case can hide weak links.

Skeptical scholars

Many argue that when the evidence is assembled, it shows a sincere belief that arose from experience, but not enough to prove a miracle. They note that the best evidence is early testimony of belief, not of the event.

Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians

Many hold that argument can support faith, but faith itself is a gift and a trust. They do not expect a case to compel belief, though they value the effort to show faith is reasonable.

Teachers of critical thinking

They recommend structured arguments, steelmanning and testing by opponents, in any field. They note that the habit of stating an opponent’s view well is the best protection against self-deception.

Why it matters

Anyone can have an opinion about the resurrection. Building a case shows how strong or weak that opinion is, and where it depends on judgments that others may reasonably make differently. It is also the best preparation for talking with people who disagree, which is both an intellectual and a moral skill.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: A strong case needs as many pieces of evidence as possible.

Correction: A strong case needs well supported steps. Adding weak claims can lower its strength.

Misunderstanding: If the opposing views have been refuted, the case is done.

Correction: The writer must also show that the favored explanation fits the evidence and say how strongly.

Misunderstanding: A case that does not convince opponents is a failure.

Correction: Opponents may differ on background beliefs. The test is whether the case is honest, clear and answers the strongest objections.

Misunderstanding: A historical conclusion is the same as faith.

Correction: A historical argument can support the credibility of faith. Faith involves trust and commitment beyond what argument gives.

Knowledge check

Why start with facts accepted by opponents?

Starting from common ground makes the argument fair and checkable, since an opponent cannot dismiss premises they already accept. It also shows how much of the conclusion rests on secure foundations. Contested claims can then be added with labels showing their strength and the reasons for doubt.

What is the steelman principle?

It means stating an opposing view in the strongest form its best defenders would accept, before replying. It guards against attacking caricatures, makes the comparison fair, and exposes weaknesses in one’s own case that a weaker version of the rival theory would hide.

How can a writer test whether a case is robust?

By writing it first with only the secure facts, then with contested ones added, by giving it to a thoughtful opponent to find the weakest step, and by listing which claims, if false, would collapse the argument. A case that survives these tests is more reliable.

What should the conclusion of a historical case claim?

No more than the steps support, and with a clear statement of its status as a historical judgment of probability. It should say what follows and what does not, particularly that a historical argument does not itself establish doctrines such as the divinity of Christ.

Think it through

  1. Which step of the argument do you think is strongest, and which weakest?
  2. Are there facts you hesitated to include because they did not fit your view?
  3. How would you feel if a respected friend disagreed with your conclusion?
  4. What is the difference between winning an argument and getting it right?

Independent assignment

Draft the case

In your own notebook, write 600 to 800 words: a first draft of your case on the origin of the resurrection belief, using the structure of this lesson (secure facts, contested claims with labels, rival explanations, comparison, conclusion). Mark in the margin each claim that is contested. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study