In this article, William Lane Craig claims:
Fortunately, Christianity, as a religion rooted in history, makes claims that can in important measure be investigated historically. Suppose, then, that we approach the New Testament writings, not as inspired Scripture, but merely as a collection of Greek documents coming down to us out of the first century, without any assumption as to their reliability other than the way we normally regard other sources of ancient history. We may be surprised to learn that the majority of New Testament critics investigating the gospels in this way accept the central facts undergirding the resurrection of Jesus. I want to emphasize that I am not talking about evangelical or conservative scholars only, but about the broad spectrum of New Testament critics who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical seminaries. Amazing as it may seem, most of them have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus. These facts are as follows:
FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars who have written on these subjects which any adequate historical hypothesis must account for: Jesus’ entombment by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
Do most scholars/historians who have seriously investigated the history of Jesus of Nazareth (including secular ones) agree upon these four historical facts?
Note 1: The "Consensual knowledge" section of the Historical Jesus Wikipedia page appears to support the claim about the crucifixion (first half of fact #1), but is silent about the other claims (second half of fact #1 and facts #2 through #4). Therefore, it does not fully answer the question.
Note 2: The related question Did Jesus live? is mainly concerned with Jesus' existence, not with the academic consensus regarding the more specific four historical facts that William Lane Craig uses to build an "inference to the best explanation" for the resurrection. Therefore, the related question does not (fully) answer this question.