Section 09
Six pillars
Six historical facts are accepted by more than 95 percent of NT scholars. The resurrection hypothesis explains all six.
Gary Habermas has catalogued scholarly work on the resurrection since 1975, more than 1,400 sources in his peer reviewed 2005 survey and roughly 4,500 by his 2024 four volume study, in English, German, and French. He reports that a core set of facts is accepted by more than 95 percent of the specialists who publish on the question. The site uses six.
One: Jesus died by crucifixion. Two: the disciples believed he had risen. Three: the disciples were transformed. Four: proclamation began very early in Jerusalem. Five: Paul converted on his own report of seeing the risen Jesus. Six: James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, also converted on his own report.
Six independent data points. One hypothesis explains all of them.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, and that he appeared.
Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:3 to 5, transmitting a creed dated within 5 years of the crucifixion.
By the numbers
- Habermas bibliography
- ~4,500 sources by 2024
- Scholarly acceptance
- >95 percent
- Independent witnesses (1 Cor 15)
- Cephas, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul
Strongest counter position
A small minority (Robert Price, Richard Carrier) reject one or more of the minimal facts. They are at the edge of the field; the >95 percent figure refers to broad mainstream including agnostic, Jewish, atheist, and Christian scholars.
What this does not prove
The >95 percent figure is Habermas’s own tally of his sample, not an independently published survey, and critics press that point. It measures consensus among working specialists in NT historiography; the empty tomb (section 8) sits lower, near 75 percent.
Citations
- 1 Corinthians 15:3 to 8.
- Galatians 1:18 to 19, 2:9.
- John 7:5.
- Acts 9, 22, 26.
- Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 2004.
Goes deeper
Run the math yourself
The Bayesian calculator
Sean Carroll, the most articulate naturalist working today, argues for naturalism on Bayesian grounds. The framework is honest. It is also symmetrical: anyone can use it. Move the sliders to your own honest priors and read the posterior. The math is fully shown.
Your starting estimate, before considering the resurrection evidence, that there is a God who could act in history.
If Jesus did rise, how well does the resurrection hypothesis predict the historical core: empty tomb, appearances, transformation?
If Jesus did not rise, how well do the best naturalistic alternatives jointly predict the same historical core?
Posterior probability of the resurrection
The URL updates as you adjust. Share the link to share your priors. The defaults are deliberately neutral: half-and-half theism, evidence ten times more likely under resurrection than under the best naturalistic alternative.
Cite this section
- APA 7
- Reyhe, K. (2026). Six pillars. Section of Christianity True. https://christistrue.org/en/sections/minimal-facts/
- MLA 9
- Reyhe, Konrad. “Six pillars.” Section of Christianity True, 2026, https://christistrue.org/en/sections/minimal-facts/.
- Chicago
- Reyhe, Konrad. 2026. “Six pillars.” Section of Christianity True. https://christistrue.org/en/sections/minimal-facts/.
Keyboard: k prev j next