Mar 9, 2010
N.T. Wright’s Minimal Facts Method
As stated other places on this site, both Gary Habermas/Mike Licona and William Lane Craig have adopted their own versions of the Minimal Facts method when arguing for the facticity and historicity of the Resurrection. Bishop of Durham, Dr. N.T. Wright, also has his particular method when presenting on the topic as well.
- The empty tomb
- The appearances to various people
- 7 changes in Jewish doctrine and practice
- Christian theology of the afterlife mutates from multiple views (Judaism) to a single view: resurrection (Christianity). When you die, your soul goes off to wait in Sheol. On judgment day, the righteous dead get new resurrection bodies, identical to Jesus’ resurrection body.
- The relative importance of the doctrine of resurrection changes from being peripheral (Judaism) to central (Christianity).
- The idea of what the resurrection would be like goes from multiple views (Judaism) to a single view: an incorruptible, spiritually-oriented body composed of the material of the previous corruptible body (Christianity).
- The timing of the resurrection changes from judgment day (Judaism) to a split between the resurrection of the Messiah right now and the resurrection of the rest of the righteous on judgment day (Christianity).
- There is a new view of eschatology as collaboration with God to transform the world.
- There is a new metaphorical concept of resurrection, referred to as being “born-again.”
- There is a new association of the concept of resurrection to the Messiah. (The Messiah was not even supposed to die, and he certainly wasn’t supposed to rise again from the dead in a resurrected body!)
You can find the Habermas/Licona version here.
You can find the Craig version here.
(This post was updated from the original. I added the 7 mutations to the Jewish teaching and practice which I found here: NT Wright’s Case for the Resurrection.)
The 7 changes sound interesting. Can you summarize them?
Great question Mike. I am going to edit the post and include the 7 changes. Give me a few minutes and I'll have it up for you.
Thanks! Now, is this saying it has also affected modern judaism?
I think other contributing factors affected modern Judaism. One being Rome destroyed their temple in 70 AD, which wiped out their sacrificial system and scattered the Jews all over the place. However, I believe all the Wright is saying is that the resurrection of Jesus was so unexpected that Judaism cannot account for it and therefore it cannot have been made up. It was such a radical event, that those Jews who witnessed brought about a seismic shift in their theological thinking and their daily practice as they lived out there faith.
Shawn –
Thx for pointing out this article!
Good stuff …
vocab
You bet. Wright has some good insights.
[...] British scholar N.T. Wright gives more reasons for Jewish views changing regarding the resurrection, which can be read at Shawn White’s post here. [...]
[...] British scholar N.T. Wright gives more reasons for Jewish views changing regarding the resurrection, which can be read at Shawn White’s post here. [...]