What is the minimal facts argument for the resurrection?

The minimal facts approach — developed over four decades by Gary Habermas and his student Michael Licona — argues for the resurrection using only a short list of facts that even skeptical scholars grant, without first asking you to accept the reliability of the New Testament. That is its whole design: to sidestep the usual stalemate, where the case quotes the Gospels and the skeptic replies that the Gospels are exactly what's in dispute. Instead of asking you to grant the reliability of the New Testament, it asks only for a short list of facts that meet two demanding tests: each is strongly evidenced by multiple lines of testimony, and each is accepted by the great majority of scholars who study the subject, including skeptical, agnostic, and Jewish ones.

The usual list runs like this: Jesus died by crucifixion; his disciples sincerely believed he rose and appeared to them; the persecutor Paul was converted by what he took to be an appearance of the risen Jesus; the skeptic James, Jesus's own brother, was likewise converted; and, flagged as more contested, the tomb was found empty. Even a hostile scholar like John Dominic Crossan grants that the crucifixion is as sure as anything historical can be. Then the argument asks, plainly: which single explanation best accounts for all of these at once?

The claim is not a mathematical proof but an inference to the best explanation, the reasoning a historian or detective uses. Each naturalistic theory, hallucination, theft, legend, can cover one fact or two but strains on the rest, while the resurrection covers them together. Honesty requires two caveats: the empty tomb is the softer, more disputed link, and the argument is strongest leaning on the facts critics themselves concede. It doesn't force the conclusion, but it puts it seriously on the table.