The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

by Gary R. Habermas, Michael Licona

"There is nothing like this on the market. It is interesting, engaging, and crucial material."
—Norman Geisler

This is an accessible, comprehensive, and persuasive resource providing detailed evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It also demonstrates how to share the material clearly, honestly, and definitively. Included is an interactive CD which tests the reader's knowledge of the material by using an entertaining TV game show format.

"[The authors] have distinguished themselves as leading experts on the evidence for this all important event."
—D. James Kennedy

Genres: Christian, Christianity, Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, History, Faith

352 pages, Paperback

First published September 25, 2004

About the author

Gary R. Habermas was born just outside Detroit, Michigan in 1950. Although he was raised in a Christian home and attended a German Baptist Church, he began having serious doubts about Christianity. For more than ten years, he faced uncertainty about key Christian claims and searched other religious and non-religious systems, especially naturalism. His studies centered chiefly on investigating various world views, occasionally getting close to what he thought might be the proper approach. During this time, as he explains, "The last thing I did at night was recall what I had learned that day to further my search. Early the next morning, it seems that the first thing that came to my mind was, 'Where did I end my studies last night?'" This continued for several agonizing years.

Habermas' interest in the field of apologetics began early in his search when he realized that some religions made claims that could be either verified or falsified. He searched the various religious systems to ascertain if such claims were verifiable. After several years of study, he concluded that very few religious claims could be substantiated. Habermas concluded that even Christianity suffered in this sense. While certainly having more evidential considerations than other religions, there always seemed to be a reason why the argument could not be finalized. While Habermas conducted detailed studies of creation, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the general reliability of the Old and New Testaments, he constantly asked if there were any "clinching" arguments.

Habermas especially studied the notion that Eastern metaphysics were confirmed by modern physics, as well as the claims made on behalf of various other holy books. He reached the conclusion that, while religious beliefs could be held by faith, they usually lacked great evidence and could not be "proven" to be true.

Habermas' search frequently took the form of debating with various adherents of non-Christian as well as Christian views. He told practitioners from both camps that their beliefs were not as grounded as they would like to believe. He especially recalls one encounter where an exasperated Christian told him that he was filled with demons! Once his mother called to see how he was doing, and he announced that he thought he was close to becoming a Buddhist, his latest research interest.

During this time, one subject began to appeal to Habermas more than any other. He realized that if Jesus had been raised from the dead, this would go a long way toward arguing that Christianity was true. He also studied the founders of the major religious traditions, along with some lesser-known figures, to see if there were other claims that someone had been raised from the dead. He was especially interested in whether there was any historical or other evidence for any such teachings. Thirteen hundred note cards later, he was well on the way to a lifetime of being "hooked" on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Little did he know that his early years of study on this subject would begin his fascination with the topic that has never lessened.

Habermas continued his search as an undergraduate student at Tyndale College, graduating in 1972 with three majors and three minors. Foremost on his mind was still the question of whether it could be known if there was any basis for answering his religious questions. Habermas went straight to graduate school at the University of Detroit. Studying philosophical theology and the world religions, he earned an M.A. a year later, in 1973. After taking a year off, he pursued a Ph.D. at Michigan State University, graduating two years later (1976), after keeping up a torrid study schedule.

Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the most comprehensive case for the resurrection I have found. Historian, philosopher, and professor Gary Habermas, along with his coauthor (also a historian), make the case for the resurrection using minimal facts, or rather facts that an overwhelming majority of critical scholars accept, and peer-reviewed academic data. Using these facts he shows us that the resurrection is the best explanation for the appearances of Jesus to the apostles. Never once does Habermas appeal to the authority of the Bible to build his argument. This book really solidified by faith and I do like the approach they chose. I do hope Habermas gets to debate Bart Ehrman someday.

[Justin Effler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Licona and Gary Habermas have written a very careful and informative historical approach at proving, with relative historical certainty, that Jesus rose from the dead from all the evidence provided. What is more impressive is that this approach doesn't have to assume biblical inerrency (that the bible has no errors). Although there are many methods at determining the best, and most historically sound answer to Jesus rising from the dead, there are 3 points that stood out to me that gave a sound and consistent answer to the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in which I will summarize below.
Without spending too much time, there are certain criterion we have to use when it comes to determining what happened in the past, historically. Unfortunately we cannot observe things in the past like we can test things in the science lab, presently. We have to go off of the available evidence and determine what is the most consistent, and probable approach to what happened in the past.
The first method in determining reliable history is Licona's "Five Historical Points". Off these we can determine what is the most historically certain:
1.) Multiple Independent Sources
2.) Enemy Attestation
3.) Embarrassing Admissions
4.) Eyewitness Testimony
5.) Early Testimony

These 5 criteria help determine what is the most reliable history. I will spare the great details as to why, for I don't have the patients in this short review. :)
The second method in determining what probably happened has to do with 3 small, but nevertheless, powerful, additional criterion:
1.) Explanatory Scope
2.) Explanatory Power
3.) Plausibility

With these three criterion we are able to determine what 1.) Best covers all the available evidence, 2.) Is powerful in its soundness, and 3.) Is the most plausible answer

Finally, the third available evidence is accepted by most of scholarship. From here is where be builds the case from:
1.) Jesus died by crucifixion
2.) Jesus disciples believed he rose from the dead
3.) Paul suddenly changed
4.) James the brother of Jesus changes from skeptic to believer
5.) The empty tomb

The five above listed facts, once again, are at a near consensus by all historians of different flavors. This includes, Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Christian, etc.

Without getting into all the details of the book (each point is elaborated on in chapters) given the 5 facts agreed upon in scholarship, and the evidence of a creator (which he goes into later in the book), it is convincing that Jesus rising from the dead is the only plausible explanation given the facts.

[Chad Kettner · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought Habermas and Licona did an excellent job in outlining the most convincing arguments for the resurrection - as well as responding to the most common rebuttles. I've actually been waiting for a book like this, but didn't want to sort through the pile to find one that did a good job. So thanks to my friend, Ryan M., for recommending it.

For now, since I don't have time to provide a full response (though I'll be working on one), I'll just say that...

Habermas and Licona do a good job presenting their 'facts' that:
1) Jesus died on a cross
2) After Jesus' death the disciples believed they saw him
3) So did Saul/Paul
4) Jesus' brother James, who previously disbelieved, became a believer
5) Jesus' tomb was found empty

But... there are reasons why I am not convinced of the supernatural resurrection event - reasons that the authors did not address, as well as reasons as to why I wouldn't consider the above to be granted as "facts" and reasons why even if they were granted it would still not necessarily lead to the conclusion of "therefore Jesus rose from the dead". And that's what I'll get into when I get some more time.

Edit: Okay... for now go here: http://losingmyreligion.ca/rambling/i...

(Argh... and the dreaded "rate a book". I hate it when I enjoyed the book but wasn't convinced of the intended conclusion. I could easily go up to a 4 with this one, but won't based solely on that reason.)

[Evan Minton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is one of the best books on the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection that I've read. I have been thoroughly trained by it myself (you can see the influence of these scholars in my own writing on the subject), and I think anyone, Christian and non-Christian will benefit from this book. The book is geared toward the believer with the intent on training him or her to be able to defend their faith when pressed by unbelievers (in other words, to obey 1 Peter 3:15). That said, I think unbelievers can benefit from this book too (hopefully by being converted). Licona and Habermas start out by explaining their methodology, then they go on to list and defend "The Minimal Facts" (Jesus' death by crucifixion, His empty tomb, His postmortem appearances to the disciples, the conversion of the church persecutor Paul, and the conversion of the skeptic James), and after that, Licona and Habermas spend chapters examining various non-supernatural explanations, concluding that only the resurrection can best explain the data. For the believer, the book comes with a CD game called "Resurrection Challenge" which quizzes the reader to see how much of the information they have retained. This is a book on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection that I cannot recommend strongly enough.

[David Mamdouh · Rating 4 out of 5]

In very concise space, Gary Habermas and Michael Locina discuss the most important evidences of the Resurrection

This book is suitable for both the layperson and academic one ... With many illustrative charts and valuable notes

Highly recommended

[Michael Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The Case for the Resurrection Habermas and Licona set forth their evidentialist approach to apologetics. They call their system of positive apologetics (how best to present the case that Christian theism is true) the Minimal Facts Approach. They believe Christianity can be proved by widely accepted crucial facts using historical evidences. Because Christianity is a historical religion (i.e., its truth claims are thoroughly rooted in and dependent upon historical events), it can be tested like any historical fact.

Their approach’s strength rests on the fact that there is common ground between the believer and unbeliever. Both can agree on the reliability and usefulness of sensory data, scientific theories, and general rules of inference for examining historical data. There is no special pleading that Christianity should not be subject to the same criteria as other historical events.

The minimal facts they rely on to build their case have two characteristics: they are well-evidenced and generally admitted by critical scholars. In other words, they focus on the facts for which there is strong internal and external evidence and with which even critics/atheists agree. Appealing to critics has the advantage of avoiding the charge of bias. The primary advantage of this strategy, though, is that it does not require one to argue for the reliability of entire Bible. Inspiration and inerrancy are not required. After all, the unbeliever mighty say individual stories could be wrong even if the Bible is generally historically reliable. In other words, even if we could convince them to accept the general reliability of Scripture, they could still discount its supernatural claims.

Of course, if you are going to claim strong evidence for historical events narrated in the Bible, you must have some criteria you will use to evaluate those historical evidences. The authors put forward five commonsense principles used to make such judgments: multiple independent witnesses, neutral or hostile testimony is better, people won’t make up details that weaken their story, eyewitness is better than secondhand, and testimony close in time to the event is better than later in time. The authors do not claim that by using these criteria we can obtain absolute certainty about historical events of any kind, but the criteria will lead to a degree of historical certainty, ranging from very doubtful to very certain (though always short of 100%).

Having set the stage for the case they will present, they then introduce the Four Minimum Facts Plus One upon which they will build their historical case for the resurrection:
A. Jesus died by crucifixion. They present historical sources both biblical and extra-biblical: Josephus, Tacitus, Talmud, Lucian.
B. Jesus’ disciples believed they saw him after he rose. They examine the witnesses to this and emphasize that it was an early belief, not a legend that grew over time.
C. Paul was suddenly changed. His later suffering for the faith suggests sincerity in his belief that he saw the risen Christ.
D. James was suddenly changed.
E. The empty tomb (Only 75% of critical scholars believe this to be true, hence it’s the Plus One).

Even critical scholars admit to the minimum core of facts surrounding death and following events. The authors then provide a thorough critical examination of naturalistic explanations. They argue that the resurrection is the best explanation of the data. The Christian theistic framework accounts better for the data and is internally consistent.

Once the resurrection has been proven, the apologist can move on to examine what the Bible says about it and about the Christ so resurrected. This leads to the gospel message being presented clearly. So, this book is not just about defending the resurrection against doubters or naysayers. Instead, it presents the resurrection to prove the entire Christian story. Find this one minimal thing we can agree on about Jesus, then build on top of it the entire Christian worldview. It reminds me of Descartes’ cogito ergo sum: doubt everything until you reach that bedrock of indubitable truth, then build back the entire edifice of knowledge on top of it.

Evaluation

Overall, Habermas and Licona’s approach is refreshing. It focuses on historical events rather than rationalistic arguments. Perhaps its greatest value is the way it narrows down the amount of information the would-be apologist must master. Granted, there is a lot of detail provided and a lot of answers to criticisms, but at least the apologist is focused on one thing – prove the resurrection – and that one thing is directly tied to Christian theism rather than some general theistic worldview. The flowcharts, schematics, and lengthy outline of their arguments provide an incredibly useful, practical tool for an apologist. I am all for anything that makes it easier for Christians who want to commend their faith to get out there and do it. They have worked hard to make their method as easy as possible to learn and use.

Their method has its critics, even within the Christian apologetic community. One of the major pushbacks against their method regard their philosophy of facts. Facts do not come with meaning attached. They are a combination of brute event and mind-dependent interpretation. The mind recognizes the significance of the event. In other words, even if you could prove these events happened, that does not mean their meaning is obvious or necessary. You still must interpret them. The authors would agree with this in general, but say that facts do point to their interpretation, and we can use that to posit the best explanation.

Other apologists also worry that if we argue for resurrection/miracles to God, we are open to the charge that God is an ad hoc hypothesis, a God of the gaps. Here’s an unusual and unexplained event, so we need to invent some explanation. Why not God? But it isn’t necessary to posit God as the explanation. The classical apologist, like Craig, would say that even if you can prove the resurrection, you haven’t proven theism since it is possible to deny that God is the cause of the resurrection. This is theoretically true but does not seem to be a major hurdle to using this approach. There would likely be very few people who would sincerely agree that the resurrection did happen but deny there was any divine intervention necessary to accomplish it.

The big question for me – as it is with all these approaches – is whether there is any data on how successful it is. Does this work? How well? With which audiences? Anecdotal accounts of success are encouraging, but some empirical data would be very helpful.

One last point. It would be helpful to know how many and which scholars they have consulted to build their list of critically accepted facts. What exactly are these critics agreeing with? Who are they? What are they credentials? Some apologists, like Lydia McGrew, have cited a lack of clarity around what these scholars are actually willing to grant about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. I am a little hesitant to use this method without knowing more about this foundational element of their work first, since I would be employing an argument that I cannot independently verify. That is usually not a wise thing to do. They may have provided such information outside of this book, but I did not see it reference anywhere in the book or its footnotes – though I could have missed it.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book I’ve read on the Resurrection. While I might not agree with every point Habermas and Livonia hold, their studious and well-researched approach is both assuring and convicting. A must read for every Christian and every skeptic

[Ferris Mx · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is sophistry at its worst.

In the introduction, the authors state "... intellectual integrity requires that we set aside biases to the point that we can recognize them for what they are. Then we can ask tough questions and conduct responsible research". Reading the text quickly disproves this red herring. Not only does the book present every bit of evidence in a lopsided and biased manner, but it explains to the reader how to marshall the arguments in the book to maximize effectiveness against an unwitting conversant. There are even "certificates of completion", which I have never found as a reward for reading a serious book.

The standard of logic is a stark double standard. The book is rife with phrases such as "the vast majority of scholars agree with X", without presenting hard evidence, sourcing the claim, or identifying the scholars who do not agree. Any argument that refutes one of the tenets of the authors' thesis is discarded as not disproving any other tenet and thus falling short. Any attempt to refute the entire theory is criticized as being probabilistically unlikely, as though probability favors that a human being with siblings and parents was God incarnate and rose from the dead. Sorry, fellas, probability isn't on your side. And your argument is pedantic and tedious.

"...in his capacity as a scientist or historian, he perhaps could not draw the conclusion: 'God raised Jesus from the dead', since he is unable to detect God's actions with the tools of his trade. Of course, this would not prohibit the scientist or historian from believing that God raised Jesus, as many of them do." Thank you. It's a question of belief, not evidence.

I'd like to single out for special distaste the idea that every potential miracle must be examined and discarded before we can disallow the supernatural in our lives. That's a ridiculous standard, and completely contrary to the probability argument offered previously. It's not my obligation to spend my life debunking miracles in order to have a consistent philosophy/theology.

Bart Ehrman's answer to this logic is way more compelling than this drivel. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...

Evangelists like this do a disservice to humanity. They are exceedingly lucky that there is no afterlife. Jesus' message of 2,000 years ago falls on their deaf ears.

I could go on. But I've got better things to do. This lamely closed-minded and predetermined argument undermines the assumption of fact in these ancient texts, because assuming so requires BELIEF in the integrity of the authors that is shockingly lacking here.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read book for Christians. I've read some other apologetics books that touch on the subject of the Resurrection but this book is focused entirely on it. I greatly appreciate its 'minimalist facts approach' which presents some powerful evidence for the resurrection that almost all scholars agree upon (including skeptical scholars). These facts can generally be universally agreed upon by scholars because they do not rely on the inspiration of the Biblical texts.

There are a few parts that get a little redundant because the answers to some skeptics questions tend to be the same, but its pretty simple to breeze through those sections when you've already got the ideas down. Still, this is a book to be studied for the most part and not breeze through. It's one that I'll read again for sure to get a better grasp of the facts and sources.

I found one mistake that almost got me in trouble already though. At one point, the authors quote a Nobel Prize winning astronomer, Donald Page. I loved the quote but couldn't find any evidence that he'd won a Nobel prize of any sort. I hope that these are corrected in forthcoming editions.

[Sarah]

I just couldn't get into this book. I might try it again.

[Walter Harrington · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to read this book because it was co-authored by Licona and I wanted to get a taste for his approach to the case for the resurrection of Jesus. I will admit that I am a bit skeptical when it comes to Habermas' approach as in the past his arguments have come across to me as overstating his case and conclusions. Not that I disagree with the case he makes, but rather I'm not sure it is the best approach for convincing skeptics.

However, I did appreciate the author's approach in this book. This book is not written for skeptics or seekers, but rather for Christians to prepare them to dialog with skeptics and seekers. And the language is quite toned down from the strong-man apologetics of the modern era. The arguments are much the same, but the conclusions are not stated with 100% absolute confidence, and I appreciate that as I think this is truly what will open the door to skeptical hearts. Humility.

The authors take a similar approach to Bass in "The Bedrock of Christianity", focusing on 4+1 historical facts (the 4 granted by practically every scholar, and the 1 granted by the majority) to make a case for the resurrection:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed he rose from the dead
3. Paul the church persecutor was converted
4. James the brother of Jesus was converted

and

5. The empty tomb

After going over these facts and the evidence that supports these facts, they respond to common objections and alternative theories for the facts. Their case is made not by saying alternative theories can't explain some facts, but rather they can't explain all the facts. The resurrection can. One point I appreciate that they make is that even when someone presents an alternative theory (and people can make all kinds of alternative theories), they also need to back up the theory with supporting evidence for it to be worth exploring. Anyone can come up with a theory, and we need not spend all our time addressing these theories until they are serious enough to be addressed.

Overall, I think this is a pretty good prep book for Christians who want to make the case for Jesus' resurrection based on history. It is not an approach that will land for everyone, but I think a rational case for the resurrection is a necessary arm of apologetics that need not be abandoned just because it isn't what everyone needs.

[Russ Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently finished reading "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" and found it to be a deeply engaging and informative book. The authors, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, have done an exceptional job presenting a comprehensive examination of the historical evidence and arguments surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What sets this book apart is the authors' systematic and logical approach to the topic. They present various alternative theories that attempt to explain the events surrounding the Resurrection and then meticulously scrutinize each one. This objective analysis allows the reader to appreciate the strength of the historical evidence supporting the Resurrection while also understanding the weaknesses of other explanations.

The writing style is clear and accessible, making complex historical and philosophical arguments easy to follow for readers of various backgrounds. Furthermore, the authors provide ample references and citations, enabling those interested in further study to explore the sources and materials used.

One minor drawback of the book is that some sections can feel slightly repetitive. However, this repetition serves to reinforce the key points and arguments being made, and it did not significantly detract from my overall enjoyment of the book.

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" is an essential read for anyone interested in exploring the historical basis for Christian faith, as well as for skeptics seeking to challenge their own assumptions. It provides a thought-provoking and well-argued examination of the most significant event in human history. I would highly recommend this book to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the Resurrection and its implications for Christianity.

[Garrett Cash · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I had to recommend any two apologetics books for a Christian to read it would be this one and Dr. William Lane Craig's On Guard. This book does a phenomenal job of teaching you the best argument for the resurrection in my opinion, which is based on only facts that the majority of scholars agree on and makes a case based on 4-5 of these solid "minimal facts."The book isn't just about giving you the argument and bidding you adieu, there's significant time taken on teaching you how to implement what you've learned to have actual conversations with people you know. Being that I believe the argument for the resurrection of Jesus is the most important apologetic a believer can have under his belt, and that this is the best and simplest one to remember, I couldn't recommend it to believers enough. Of course I also recommend it to skeptics who want to examine the evidence offered here for an event that, if true, is the most important one in all of history and to your life.

[rara ➶]

LOL! i need to get my work done, so i will not be writing a long review. essentially, this is a step by step checklist on how ch***tians can convince u they're right, and after having read the whole thing, i'm not convinced 🙏🙏 let me leave out the blatant ignorance towards other groups. so many other things u could read to waste your time with, dare i say, even *** *****.

as always, i will share a pro: the authors say to approach all convos with peace and love! so real! (even if they don't exactly do the same)

[Min · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a concise and well-organised summary of the case for the resurrection. While this is targeted towards Christians with an interest in apologetics, I think it's also a fascinating overview for skeptics or any one who is curious or has an open mind, of what historical arguments there are for the most important event we believe in. Loved this!

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's a reason the Minimal Facts approach to the Resurrection is incredibly popular... it's because these guys do an excellent job of navigating the relevant issues.

If you want to have historical reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead, this book is a great place to begin!

[Anna M · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was incredibly logical and provides a strong foundation for proving the historicity of the resurrection. This book has strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ and I feel better equipped to defend that faith.

[Heshua Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s a very good book, I feel like it’s when I would one reference often if I was having the conversation with somebody about the resurrection. It’s not complex, but rather until someone practices the arguments frequently review is probably needed.

[Dylan Tysinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gives great tips on how to show the historicity of the resurrection.

[Adam Bloch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on the Minimal Facts of Jesus’ Resurrection approach to apologetics. I was familiar with the approach but hadn’t yet read the book. It’s a worthy read.

[Manola · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing book for both believers and non believers, it offers some pretty good evidence using mainly non Biblical sources and historical analysis.

[Jonathan Essapour · Rating 4 out of 5]

The minimal facts approach is a solid approach for those who are talking to atheists who are new to the religious discussion and Christianity but not to those who are deeply engrossed in the literature.

One has to go further in order to show that the resurrection is more probable than not but this book is a phenomenal starting point for those first getting into the evidence for the resurrection.

[Peter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Circular, prices nothing , like Strobel’s awful “ the case for Christ “ with bigger words , less posturing though as little actual evidence.

Christ in a box , there is no case

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

TWO PROMINENT APOLOGISTS PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT DEFENSE OF THE RESURRECTION

Gary Habermas (born 1950) is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University. Michael R. Licona (born 1961) is Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University.

They wrote in the Preface to this 2004 book, “At some point in their Christian walk, may believers ask some difficult questions: Is Christianity really true?... Could it be that God does not really exist?... The authors of this volume did not these questions as young men. We determined to find some answers. We cannot tell you that we looked at the evidence without presuppositions or biases… However, intellectual integrity requires that we set aside these biases to the point that we can recognize them for what they are… After several years, we have arrived at a strong conclusion: The evidence suggests that God exists and has actually revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ. The evidence attests that Christians have the most accurate view of reality.”

They state, “When Jesus predicted his resurrection from the dead, we are told that the disciples did not seem to have a clue what he was talking about or simply did not believe… Even when his empty tomb was discovered, it is reported that the first conclusion was that someone had stolen the body… When the women reported that they had seen him risen, the disciples thought they were telling an idle tale… Upon viewing the empty tomb, they still did not know what to think… Thomas simply refused to believe… Now it seems quite unlikely that the disciples or early Christians who highly respected them would invent sayings of Jesus that would place them in such a bad light. This is what is referred to as the ‘principle of embarrassment’… and argues strongly in favor of the authenticity of the predictions of Jesus concerning his resurrection.” (Pg. 29)

They outline, “let’s become familiar with some of the principles historians employ to determine whether a particular account of history is credible… These are the principles that will be used throughout this book… 1. Multiple independent sources support historical claims… It is important to determine whether the source is really independent… 2. Attestation by an enemy support historical claims… An enemy generally is not considered to be biased in favor of a certain person, message, or cause… 3. Embarrassing admissions support historical claims… 4. Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims… 5. Early testimony supports historical claims. The closer the time between the event and testimony about it, the more reliable the witness, since there is less time for exaggeration, and even legend, to creep into the account.” (Pg. 36-39)

They present four facts “that are so strongly evidenced historically that nearly every scholar regards them as reliable facts… A fifth fact will be added that enjoys acceptance by an impressive majority of scholars, though not by nearly all… The first fact: Jesus died by crucifixion… The second fact” Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them…. The third fact: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed… The fourth fact: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed…. The Fifth fact: The tomb was empty.” (Pg. 48-69)

They argue, “The skeptic may respond, ‘But this is from the Bible, and I don’t believe the Bible,’ as though you are using the Bible to prove the Bible. This blanket rejection will not do. We are not assuming inspiration of even the general reliability of the New Testament in our case for Jesus’ resurrection… we are only regarding the New Testament as an ancient volume of literature containing twenty-seven separate books and letters. Then we are entertaining only those data that are well-evidenced and accepted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones… We must remember that, although all of the writings of the New Testament were composed during the first century, it was not until later that they were compiled into a single volume that we call the New Testament.” (Pg. 51-52) Later, Habermas adds. “On the state of resurrection studies today, I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French… perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.” (Pg. 60)

About the “guilt theory” for Paul’s conversion, they state, “First, there is not a shred of evidence from Paul’s writings or Luke’s account of Paul’s actions in Acts that he experienced guilt while conducting his persecution. However, even if he did, this would more likely have led to the cessation of his terrorism toward Christians … rather than his becoming one… Second, Paul’s own testimony indicates the very opposite---that he was very content in Judaism and confident of his actions…. Third, even if guilt could account for Jesus’ appearance to Paul, it does not account for his appearances to the others. Finally, guilt does not account for the empty tomb.” (Pg. 116)

Of the seeming discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and appearances, they state, “It is often suggested by critics that the Gospel writers themselves cannot seem to agree on some details surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. For example, were there one… two… or three women who visited the tomb…? Did they see one … or two angels…? Did they see and angel(s) before they told the disciples that Jesus’ body was gone… or after…? Because of such tensions, some critics suggest that we cannot know what really happened if the … alleged eyewitnesses cannot even correctly report the events… There are several problems with this conclusion: First, the discrepancies in the Gospels … at most call into question the issue of complete accuracy of the Gospels, but not their general trustworthiness when recording historical events. Second, historians do not conclude that an event did not occur because the accounts contain discrepancies… Third, the discrepancies in the Gospels may indicate that they were independent accounts, since copiers would have been more unified on the facts… Fourth… coherent and plausible explanations exist that account for many if not all of the discrepancies.” (Pg. 122-123)

They also point out, “The phenomenon that has come to be called a ‘near-death experience’ also provides a substantial challenge to naturalism. It might even be said that… NDEs offer evidence that naturalism is mistaken at a key point—that of life after death… The challenge provided by NDEs is just an example of numerous indications we might cite that this is most likely not a naturalistic universe.” (Pg. 146-147)

They observe, “Regarding the identity of the ‘some’ who doubted, there is no agreement. Some scholars hold that different groups of people also were present on this occasion. Perhaps the group surrounding Jesus and the Eleven included other followers of Jesus… If [this] is correct, we must remember that this appearance was reported to have taken place in Galilee, where most people had only HEARD that Jesus had been crucified and may have doubted that he really had… it may be that a few of the Eleven had mixed thoughts that led to hesitation on their part… Why did they hesitate?... it could have been for any number of reasons. For example… Jesus’ post-resurrection body could have been different enough that he was difficult to recognize at first… We can see that several plausible explanations exist for this verse without having to resort to requiring that the disciples experienced visions, which does not appear to be plausible.” (Pg. 159)

In their conclusion, they recommend, “we may start off by saying, ‘I believe there’s some pretty good evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.’ When asked to provide that evidence, we respond by saying, ‘Because not everyone believes the Bible in its entirety, how about if I only use facts that are so strongly evidenced historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar[?]… We can then follow up by providing something like the following… *The disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and had appeared to them. *A number of outside evidences support the truth of their belief in his resurrection. *Since no opposing theories can adequately account for all of the historical evidence. Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection is the only plausible explanation.” (Pg. 206-207)

This book will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the resurrection, or Christian apologetics.

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best introductory book on the Minimal Facts case for the Resurrection. I use this as a textbook in my apologetics course. Highly recommended.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent book! While there are books on the topic that go further and deeper on this subject, this book really made the "on the surface" case without expounding 500+ pages to do so. In a couple hundred pages, it articulately elaborated on the fundamental facts of the historicity of Christs' resurrection. In addition, it laid out convincing refutations of the traditional atheistic objections (examples - hallucinations, New Testament was mythologized, New Testament texts were purposefully altered for the benefit of the early church, disciples forgot which tomb Jesus was placed in, Jesus never really died on the cross, and many others) to the resurrection. For any person, believer or skeptic, desiring to gain a scholarly perspective on this all-important matter of the historical reliability of Jesus' resurrection, Mike Licona and Gary Habermas are two of the most respected New Testament scholars currently active in this field. Their "minimal facts" approach is highly effective when speaking with someone that fails to acknowledge the Bible as authoritative. I was very satisfied with this book.

[Dwain Minor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona teamed up to write about what they call the 4+1 method of presenting historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. It is a very intriguing thought process. And, I believe, one that is very compelling.

Licona and Habermas have narrowed down the evidence presented for the Resurrection of Jesus to five pieces. Four of them are held by the vast majority of historians while one is held my most historians. They present both biblical and extra-biblical support for all five positions, showing why they hold such high support among historians. These 5 facts are what they call the minimal facts approach to presenting the case for the Resurrection.

After presenting the 5 minimal facts they look at what the common objections are to them. They then show why Jesus' actual bodily resurrection from the dead makes more sense and explains the facts that are widely held by historians better than anything else.

I found the book to be well written and the points to be well documented and well argued. I found the book to be very helpful in thinking about the Resurrection and the defense of it actually happening in history.

[Ryan Manns · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent, easy to read book. Presents a very clear and convincing case for the resurrection of Christ. The book is broken down into four parts and an appendix. I found the first three parts to be excellent and the appendix has so much good information cited from the case for the resurrection that it alone would be worth buying the book for. Part four would really only be beneficial to read if one had no experience in talking and debating God, theism, and atheism. Anyway the book was definitely worth the read since I did not have much background in the historicity of the resurrection and I thought the authors made a fairly strong case. I'll probably say more about it later on.

[Daniel MacDonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good (not great) compilation of the evidence we have for Jesus’ resurrection. Limits had to be taken by the authors due to the desired audience (popular). I greatly appreciate the attention to opposing arguments! Most of the book is dedicated to this. In the future, I wish Habermas would make a more scholarly book on this topic (one which could cover all the grounds he wants to, even though this would take up nearly a thousand pages). Good on Habermas for addressing his bias!

A great compilation of evidence (although specified) is The Resurrection of the Son of God, by NT Wright. It’s dense, it’s long, and it’s fantastic.

[Jill Van prooyen]

A very logical approach to understanding and sharing the facts we know about Jesus' resurrection. The authors take a long time studying every aspect and comment argument so that we can walk more firmly in our understanding of Jesus, and share with others.