Abstract
The minimal facts method has become one of the most influential historical approaches to defending the resurrection of Jesus, largely because it restricts itself to data that are strongly evidenced and widely granted by critical scholarship. This paper argues that the method is epistemologically valuable but often overextended. By examining the stated aims of the method, its acknowledged limitations in the work of Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, and the distinction between event-level, causal, and theological explanation, the paper contends that the minimal facts method can establish a strong historical foundation for the death of Jesus and the postmortem experiences of his followers, but it cannot by itself establish the theological claim that God raised Jesus or that Christianity is true. Rather than rejecting the method, this paper situates it within a broader cumulative case for Christianity. When properly constrained, the minimal facts method functions as a historical anchor that secures key resurrection-related data and creates the need for further metaphysical and theological explanation. Its strength is preserved precisely when it is not asked to bear more argumentative weight than historical inquiry can sustain.
Recommended Citation:
Anderson, L. J. “The Minimal Facts Argument as Historical Anchor in a Cumulative Case for Christianity.” Lamad Theological Review, May 2026.
Leave a Reply