On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences

by Gary Habermas

The first volume of Gary Habermas’s magnum opus, On the Evidences represents the culmination of fifty years of research on the probability of Jesus’s resurrection. Using his “minimal facts argument,” Habermas demonstrates why we ought to trust the biblical and historical testimony of Scripture regarding the resurrection. This book is a must-read for pastors, students, and scholars interested in the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Genres: Christianity, Theology, Christian, History, Religion, Nonfiction, New Testament

1072 pages, Hardcover

Published January 15, 2024

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first rule of writing a book is give the reader something they don’t already know. The author needs to assume their reader is interested in the topic and have read other books on the topic. Habermas fails from the first chapter (philosophy of history) to the last chapter (Near Death Experiences) at doing that.

Bart Ehrman must rent space in Habermas’ mind. I kid you not he used ‘Even Ehrman’ over thirty times in the book and one would think Even Ehrman was another person besides Bart D. Ehrman, also he would say when he disagreed with Bart Ehrman some variation of ‘agnostic atheist scholar Bart Ehrman’ says…. It’s possible to see this book as a long rebuttal to Bart Ehrman’s books. The problem is Habermas doesn’t reasonably present his own assertions using his own criteria.

His first chapter consisted of defending his historical approach and saying how he is justified in using that methodology. I’m sympathetic to his approach to use unreliable miracle laden books and strip out its real meaning and get a reliable history from that. He mentioned some of my favorite books such as Livy’s, Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius, Dia Cassius, Plutarch, Philo of Alexander, Josephus and Tacticus. I’ve read all but Tacticus. They all have miracles (except for Thucydides) as a given, but at the same time they have a history that’s possible to squeeze out of them. Livy spoke of virgin births, signs and so on and it was clear he believed the super-natural was true. Dia Cassius would speak of the known divinity of Augustus as if his life depended on and I suspect it did. The divinity of Augustus would be more reliable than Jesus’ divinity in the year 50 AD. Josephus is an unreliable narrator and accepts the supernatural when it serves his narrative. There is still history that can be gleamed from each author.

One thing is clear, those authors believed the non-sense and/or thought their audience would accept the miracles. The near contemporaneous audience in Hellenistic Palestine were more than willing to accept the fantastic. Habermas’ approach to philosophy of history also must include the willing credulity of the audience of the period, just as readily today people still believe in myths. Trump has 48% of America believing that a tic-tac was a USB card containing secret voting ballots, and half of that group that believe Trump’s myth accept the myths of the bible.

It seems to me that Habermas had notes in his files from 30 years or more ago and decided to use them even when time had passed them by. He must have cited and spoke about the “Shroud of Turin” over 30 times and would cite books written about it with a 1975 publishing date. The Shroud is irrelevant whether if Jesus resurrected and there is no credible evidence whatsoever that it is real. He didn’t need to spend that much time on that. I suspect most readers would gladly just stipulate the existence of a non-supernatural Jesus and move on from there.

Habermas also stated over 30 times that Jesus was a well-known ‘healer and exorcist’. Demons aren’t real and all one needs to do is go to any Pentecostal Church on a Sunday and note the Pastor will also be a ‘healer and exorcist’ and interview any congregant for their testimony for its substantiation. Habermas had a set of notes and he was going to use them in this book regardless of their redundancies and irrelevance to his main thesis.

Habermas does more against his conclusion than he realizes. There is no ‘the Christian Church’ in the period he is talking about as he will often refer to the early church as if it was one entity. There are at least two churches that are opposed to each other. The Paul churches and the Jerusalem churches. All one needs do is read the New Testament to realize that and from this book one easily gleams that schism. Habermas ultimately lays out a time-line that shows the natural development of what happened and it is devasting for his evidences for the resurrection.

Habermas focuses on Paul’s homologia concerning the early creed of the Jerusalem church. Paul’s authentic letters speak volumes. For Paul resurrection means spiritual and one of Habermas’ six minimal facts is that martyrs died for the faith with Paul being one of those martyrs. Thomas Aquinas in his third volume of his ‘Summa Theologia’ says that Paul’s experiences were a vision. I’m working my way through Aquinas for a reason and I’m currently on the fourth volume concerning Jesus’ incarnation and the perpetual virginity of Mary. BTW Aquinas told me today that James is the half-brother or cousin of Jesus not his full brother and Mary was always a virgin.

Who among us today would accept Paul for anything but a dangerous man who was prone to hallucinations? Habermas accepts him and for him his martyrdom means he was telling the truth. Peter was ‘amazed’ by a linen cloth in the empty tomb according to the Book of Luke. It takes the Book of Matthew before the ressurected Jesus appears to the disciples, and the Book of John well later in the history for Jesus to appear directly to Peter. Jesus says in the Book of John after he is dead another will come, the comforter, and that is the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is a feeling. Paul clearly had an experiential feeling that he reports directly on, Peter was amazed by a linen cloth in the Book of Luke then it takes 30 more years later for the author of John to say Peter saw the risen Christ.

Origen in 185 AD saw Jesus and God as separate substances and Marcion of Sinope in 100 AD thought the God of the Old Testament was a different God. The Bible and its traditions at this period were still being formed and harmonization was still happening as a canon was being agreed to by men with different beliefs. Habermas' philosophy of history approach gives him the opportunity to pick and chose sections of his Bible, but at times he loses sight of the fact that people are flawed and that the Bible was compiled and written by flawed men.

Habermas said that when Paul went to Jerusalem to see James and Peter they talked about the creed and the resurrection as if it was an agreed upon fact commonly understood between each other, but it doesn’t seem that way to me after having read Paul’s letters. In one of Paul’s authentic letters, he says that his version of the truth about Jesus didn’t change after his visit to Jerusalem and he knew what he knew as if he was at odds with the Jerusalem church. Paul also clearly states that prophecies and the holy spirit are still present in the church and that ongoing prophecies are to be believed and he has a clear eschatological belief in the imminent return of Christ. Christianity needed Paul’s zealousness and Paul needed the early Christians. The Gospels come after Paul’s vision-based ramblings and he gives a message more conducive to the gentiles and puts faith in Christ’s resurrection before circumcision, dietary restrictions, and the Law. The Gospels at times follow Paul’s version. Hebrews, Jude, Matthew, I and II Peter, and other books adhere more to the Jerusalem church precepts. Btw Hebrews is the best written book in the Bible. I don’t think Habermas mentions the book of Hebrews except in passing.

Habermas justifies the Gospels by ‘proving’ the bodily resurrection of Jesus thus for him proving the certainty of the Gospels. Jesus predicted his death and resurrection within them and the Gospels become relevant because of that. He’ll say the tradition supported and Jesus was aware of the events to come. Therefore, his message must be true. Here’s a quote from within the book: Lastly, that Jesus had specific prior knowledge of these events is one of several clear indications that he shared in the overall plan itself along with the inherent worldview significance and meaning of his life. That he stood at the apex of the central proclamation of world history points forcefully to the sorts of rare events that shape the meanings of these and other events, thereby critiquing ideas that fail to measure up to this central teaching. To know ahead of time, understand, interpret, and be the chief participant in the epic event of the resurrection yields huge clues of worldview significance.. Habermas enters an epistemological bubble and it only makes sense for those inside the bubble.

The empty tomb is another one of his minimal facts. Book of Mark is written first and has no mention of a tomb, and latter tradition has different women witnesses. Habermas makes a big point that since the witnesses were women that shows that the authors must be telling the truth since no one would expect that in that time as if that is positive evidence. So, Mary Magdeline saw an angel and it rolled a stone away for her and there was an empty tomb. What does an angel look like? I don’t know, I’ve never seen one. Mary M. knows and she goes tells the disciples what she saw and they are in Jerusalem, Habermas made that statement that this proved they weren’t dispersed. Now, next the disciples tell the world and the good news spreads and then 35 years latter somebody writes it down in the book of Matthew. At best that chain of communication is multiple people spread out over many years.

Habermas’ minimal facts has the disciples as martyrs and witnesses, Habermas never really defines what he means by disciples and he relies on the Gospels for his main sources and the least reliable book in the bible, Acts. The disciples mostly disappear from history, except for the book of Acts, and Acts is the most important fictional book ever written. Peter raised Tabitha as reported in Acts from the dead and Habermas did not mention that once in this book. Habermas never said that she is the ‘daughter of God.’ Acts is dangerous to use, and is not reliable whatsoever, besides Wiki tells me it was written in 80 AD well after the myth became fact.

Habermas never explains the homologia and where the 500 witnesses to the resurrection at the same time happened or even when. Also, he never explained what is meant by ‘Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.’ By scriptures Paul must mean Old Testament since the NT doesn’t yet exist, and Paul has a twisted convoluted theory that involves Adam, Eve and original sin and a blood sacrifice is needed for compensation. Paul thinks faith in his version of resurrection is all that is needed and gentiles only need to believe for eternal life. James and Peter think the Law and good works are required. For Habermas the creed as stated by Paul is proof for James experiencing the resurrection.

Habermas quotes more from the Gospel of Peter than he does the First Epistle of Peter, but I want to note something. When Christ was on the cross, he said to his condemned neighbor near him on the cross ‘Truly, I say, this day you shall be with me in paradise.’ The letter of Peter will say that Jesus spent the next three days in hades while fighting the devil for the bones of Moses. Peter (or more obviously a follower of Peter) wants to make sure that Paul’s version of Christianity is not the version that wins out because Moses is the prophet of the Jews and the Jerusalem church prioritizes the Law and good works.

Habermas would talk a lot about things that did not matter for his main thesis. What difference does it matter if we don’t have the original biographies of Alexander the Great? Or if Buddha’s religious books were written 500 years later. It adds nothing to the assertion whether Jesus bodily resurrected. Alexander or Buddha can be fictional, but it doesn’t change Habermas’ evidences for the resurrection at all and it doesn’t mean I’m willing to accept poor reasoning by him.

At times Habermas would act like it made sense that the Gospels were written by witnesses or by people who were there. I would refer to the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overvie... when I would get confused by the author.

Habermas thinks that since ‘Even Ehrman’ didn’t have an alternative explanation that means Bart Ehrman doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I think it’s possible to look at the information presented by Habermas and couple it with the wiki and even assume good intention by the Gospel writers and Paul’s authentic letters and realize that the bodily resurrection is fictional. The fact that there was a battle going on between Paul and James the brother of Jesus with Peter seems obvious. Paul, the zealot, cannot reconcile his differences with the others. A Christian Church existed that Paul persecuted and Paul was directed by voices in his head (‘I don’t know if I was in the body or out of it’) and he believed sincerely that he was chosen and he believed he knew the truth and forms another Christian church in the process, and his version prevails overtime. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the dispersion of the Jews the differences recede into the background since Jerusalem no longer mattered to the world.

Habermas did give me one fact that I didn’t know: ‘Q’ and ‘Gospel of Thomas’ make no mention of the resurrection. That doesn’t add to Habermas’ thesis. Paul’s resurrection is different from a bodily resurrection. The homologia doesn’t specify what the resurrection meant to James and Peter.

The Gospels reveal a higher Christology as each Gospel gets further from the death of Jesus. The Book of John features Jesus on steroids and he is at his most incoherent and at his most threatening to those who do not believe in him. By the time John is written his audience is willing to accept the weird and at time gnostic beliefs with a promise of eternal life and a threat of darkness for those who don’t believe or act accordingly.

Habermas at the end of the book looks at each Gospel separately and the Book of Acts. The supernatural mumbo jumbo does come out when each book is looked at separately while Habermas does his utmost in defending it while providing ad hoc justifications for the weird as needed. It takes a harmonization of the Bible to not realize the weak reasoning within each book. The Roman soldiers standing guard at the tomb and the angels at the gateway, they all seem to make sense when Habermas presupposes his conclusion and ignores the context, relations, and relative nature of the claims to reality based presuppositions.

This book could have been so much more than what it was. There are things the author could have said that would have been compelling. His last chapter is a hoot. What does Near Death Experiences (NDE) have to do with his minimal facts? NDE doesn’t really matter to me. He thinks that non-believers always reject the supernatural and their mind is closed because of that. I would take good arguments and open my mind to reason based positions, but Habermas offers nothing but juvenile arguments for his belief in resurrection of the dead.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. It still is nothing but a myth even when printed. James the brother of Jesus called Jesus crazy in the Book of Mark, but not in the later Gospels. Habermas claims that James and Peter were martyrs and had resurrection experiences involving personnel experiences of some kind. Most of Japan believed Hirohito was God and were willing to die for him, that does not make him a real god. Their personnel experiences aren’t good enough to convince me, and I suspect that Habermas is not convinced of the divinity of Hirohito either. Peter was awed when he saw a robe in an empty tomb. It took the Book of John to give a named visitation to Peter. Thomas wasn't one of the disciples either who had seen the resurrected Jesus until the Book of John. Habermas owes the reader explanations for those kind of things and does not provide them.

Habermas writes a book that has excessive needless redundancies and asserts facts beyond the given and muddles who the disciples were beyond cartoon depictions from the Gospels while ignoring the differences that Paul had with the Jerusalem Church, and relies on a circular logic justifying his resurrection thesis. I want to summarize the stupidity with an actual quote from this book The nonrecognition question is an intriguing one, especially since there are a few potential reasons, given the differing circumstances. But it could be that in Luke, God caused the event so that the two men could later learn an easy but important lesson about Jesus’s presence. Or it could be a psychological issue—one does not normally go to a funeral and then admit to a friend just a few days later that he thinks he walked and talked for a few miles with a dead man! Potentially, it may simply not occur to someone. It could also be physical—the apostles fishing out in the boat could be excused for not recognizing Jesus when he was 100 yards away (John 21:8). Some paintings depict the situation with Mary, with her looking down or away, weeping and forlorn, without making eye contact, though Paul teaches that our resurrection bodies will be substantial, and that it will be our own body too. But that does not mean there will be no changes whatsoever . See the special pleading, the ad hoc assertions he makes in defending the Gospel texts as if the are real. Isn’t the real answer that Habermas is searching for already in his book: the Gospel writers (30 to 60 years later) sincerely believed what they were told by rumors and tradition and would with good intention harmonize what they thought was truth while being a legend that they fell for hook, line, and sinker.

Everything that ever was happened for a reason and within a context and its relevance comes about through its relations and Habermas wants to ignore the background that existed to strengthen his poorly reasoned conclusions. Men (and it was men in this case) are fallible and sincerely believe absurdities when their presuppositions are not tethered to reality.

[Bogdan Podgaisky · Rating 5 out of 5]

A critical examination of the historical evidence for and against the Resurrection of Christ. The evidence speaks for itself.

[Stuart Pyclik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gary Habermas’ Evidences (Vol. 1) is his magnum opus on research surrounding the resurrection. This is a dense read where every possible bit of data or evidence that could be found surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ is brought together into a single volume. Many of the pages are taken up by just introductory material, first outlining a brief history of historical research and outlining how one should think of historical analysis. This is followed up by lengthy survey most of the historical knowledge of Jesus. The purpose is to help readers who are not familiar with the study of history academically or the specific topic of Jesus as a historical figure get caught up on all the data to better understand and interpret the arguments made in the following chapters and next three volumes. Finally, almost three hundred pages in, Habermas delves into his minimal-facts argument in great detail. His argument mostly centers around twelve facts concerning the resurrection that have rigorous historical support and eighty percent agreement among scholars, including skeptic, liberal, and conservative. These facts are divided into two categories: the six most agreed upon and certain are deemed the minimal facts while the remaining six other known historical facts fall just shy of his standard for the previous six, but are still quite rigorously attested by historical evidence and scholarly consensus. The core thesis stems from these minimal facts of the resurrection: whatever hypothesis one has concerning the supposed resurrection of Jesus, it must at minimum be able to explain all six minimal facts and preferably the other known historical facts as well. Any hypothesis that cannot do such does not stand up to the evidence. Habermas proposes that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament Scriptures, is the hypothesis that best explains these facts, and as they hypothesis with the best explanatory power, is the most reasonable conclusion one can draw from the historical record surrounding the resurrection.
This is quite a in-depth study where no stone is left unturned. Anything not covered in this volume is covered in one of the three that will follow it. Not only do his minimal facts require a large consensus from a huge variety of scholars, but most of his evidence he cites comes from skeptics who themselves admit to many of the facts or pieces of evidence needed to formulate this argument. This shows the extraordinary caution Habermas took in limiting any bias on his own end and simply putting the best argument forward for the minimal facts and the resurrection he believes they point to. Sometimes it felt like I read Bart Ehrman’s name more than Jesus’s. Something to warn about however is that Habermas repeats himself a lot. There were multiple instances where I swore the exact line I just read I had read in an earlier chapter. Understandably there is a lot of crossover in information between each fact, argument, and bit of evidence, so some repetition is understandable. But it feels like too much sometimes and like Habermas uses cltr + c, cltr + v too often. He obviously thinks it is very important the reader keeps certain things in mind, but the deja vu jarring. Additionally, since this is the beginning of a four volume work, there are multiple instances where relevant topics are set aside to be addressed in later volumes. Given the tome before the reader, setting many of these topics aside is necessary to keep the work on track, but can be annoying as questions one thinks of are deliberately not addressed in this particular volume. That being said, while a slow read, it is quite a thorough investigation into the resurrection, and is a perfect for anyone who wants to go deeper into the historicity of the resurrection.

[Brian Chilton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Habermas’s first volume of his magnum opus is a beast. It is not the easiest read, but it does offer a superb lay of the land when considering resurrection studies.

Strengths:
1) Overview and Important Resource: The book offers a great overview of the viewpoints concerning the resurrection and provides excellent resources to consider.
2) Compilation of 30 Years of Research: This book is important to have for an apologist as much for the resources for future studies as anything else. It is a treasure trove of valuable information.

Weaknesses:
1) Perhaps a Bit More Argumentation and Less Focus on Consensus: Around 2/3rds through the book, particularly with the handling of the Gospels and oral traditions, the book exposed an argumentation issue. At times, the argument relied more on consensus than evidence. This leads one to ask, is truth found in where the data leads or where popular opinion lands? At certain points, the book could have made a stronger case by making clearer assessments rather than appealing to consensus.
2) Too Repetitive with Limited Scope in Parts: Some parts of the book are too repetitive. A significant portion of the book could be taken out due to the repetitive nature of the content. Additionally, with the massive amount of footnotes and resources used, only a handful seem to garner most of the attention. Ehrman is quoted at least 30 times, whereas conservative scholars are not evaluated nearly as much. The book also seems to offer favors by endorsing certain scholars without critically examining their claims or those who may differ.

All in all, the first volume of “On the Resurrection” is a must-have for the serious academic student. Hopefully, the remaining volumes will provide more argumentation with less repetition and reliance on consensus alone. Nonetheless, I highly recommend this book. I give it 4.95/5 stars.

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary: Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus based upon a minimal historical facts approach comprehensively researched and documented.

Philosopher and apologist Gary R. Habermas has made a career of arguing for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Now, fifty years later, he has embarked on what is likely his magnum opus, a projected four volume work On the Resurrection. This work, Volume One, examines the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus based upon a minimal historical facts approach. He offers a comprehensive treatment, surveying theological scholars and historians across the spectrum from evangelical to skeptic, with meticulous and extensive documentation. Consequently, this is a big book, running to 1072 pages. For all that, I was delighted rather than daunted by prose that flowed and by the meticulous way Habermas laid out his material. In this review, I will outline the work of Volume One and offer a few concluding comments.

Part 1: The Nature of Historical Research

Habermas begins by laying the philosophical foundation for his minimal historical facts approach. He begins with a survey of approaches to historiography from ancient historians through logical positivism to post-modernism, concluding that none of these have rejected outright the possibility of historically knowable facts. He discusses the tools of historiography and how the authenticity of sources is assessed. Most important is that sources are early, derived from eyewitnesses, multiple attestation exists, including enemy attestation, there is dissimilarity from other contemporary sources, embarrassing detail that disparages the source, and more. After a defense against post-modern skepticism, Habermas explains his minimal historical facts methodology. This includes his criteria, what is meant by the “vast majority of critical scholars and the breadth of his work. Habermas lists six minimal historical facts strongly supported by critical scholarship and six other facts that enjoy substantial but not as extensive support.

Part 2: Jesus: The Preliminaries

Before coming to the historical facts, Habermas establishes several preliminary facts on which the resurrection of Jesus depends. Most basic is the existence of Jesus. While doubted by some skeptics, Habermas shows that the existence of Jesus is supported by numerous early sources, including hostile sources. He defines the concept of miracle as “a dynamic, specialized event that nature is incapable of producing on its own, that temporarily supersedes (or appears to supersede) the normally known pattern of nature. Such an event would be brought about by the power of God or another supernatural agent for the express purpose of acting as a sign or pointer to verify or draw attention to a person or message.” Finally, he considers the case for Jesus as a healer and the important connection the resurrection has to this healing work

Part 3: The Minimal Historical Facts
Having laid the groundwork, Habermas proceeds to the minimal facts and the considerations that warrant their broad scholarly acceptance. They are:

1. Jesus Death: that he died, how he died and its significance
2. The Disciples Experiences: The appearances and the earliest sources including 1 Cor. 15:3-7.
3. The Earliest Proclamation of the Gospel: Nine layers of early testimony
4. The Disciples Transformations: From flight and despair to bold proclamation and martyrdom
5. The Conversion of James: From skeptical brother to believer after the appearance of the risen Jesus.
6. The Conversion of Paul: From persecutor to apostle after the resurrection appearance.

With each of these six, Habermas delineates the considerations (ten or more for each) that support acceptance as minimal facts. He also surveys scholarly opinion across the spectrum. Perhaps most notable is the support of scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan for many of these facts. And this despite their own skepticism about the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Part 4: The Other Six Known Historical Facts

Having covered the six minimal facts, Habermas outlines support, substantial, though not as extensive for six other facts:

1. The empty tomb: Over twenty supporting considerations and a shift among recent scholars to support of the historicity of the empty tomb.
2. Jesus burial: While noting dissent from the burial, shows evidence and support including the significance of joseph of Arimathea.
3. The despair and disillusionment of the disciples following the crucifixion.
4. Christian preaching and teaching began in Jerusalem, the site of the events proclaimed.
5. The Church began meeting on Sunday and spread
6. The centrality of the message of Jesus’s death and resurrection.

Part 5: The Gospel Resurrection Data

After considering twelve historical facts, Habermas now considers these in the context of the gospel resurrection narratives. Habermas devotes a chapter to each gospel. Before that, Habermas devotes a chapter to recent gospel studies. He highlights the early creedal foundations behind the gospel and the research on the traditions behind the gospel, especially Richard Bauckham’s work asserting the eyewitness basis for gospel testimony. Also, he includes N.T. Wright’s arguments for early dates for the resurrection material. Finally, Habermas reviews the material from noncanonical Christian authors writing between AD 95 and 160.

Conclusion and Final Comments

It is clear that Habermas believes that the historically supportable facts are best explained by the idea that Jesus actually arose bodily. He briefly discusses alternative explanations that he will address more fully in Volume Two on refutations. He also includes two appendices. The first discusses the evidence for near death experiences as authentic out of the body experiences, including a patient who claimed to have risen out of her body, seeing a red shoe on the hospital roof. A janitor found that shoe. The second appendix outlined the data favoring the minimal facts.

In conclusion, Habermas makes an impressive case for the resurrection. On one hand, he shows the extensive evidence and support for that evidence, growing in recent years, across the scholarly spectrum. At the same time, he deals fairly with contradictory evidence. Above all, he has created a massive reference work for both scholars and apologists. But, as he would admit, this does not compel belief, as is evident among scholars skeptical of the resurrection. But it does mean that skeptics need to either show the facts unsupportable or offer a better account of them.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

[La-Sean M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gary Habermas’ On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidence is an absolute must buy for any serious Christian apologist. In this 1000-page volume, Habermas brings us the most comprehensive study ever on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Habermas begins in Part 1 of his discussion with a detailed overview of the nature of historical research touching on the philosophy of history, the tools and rules of historiography, and a brief overview of the pros and cons that arose out of historical postmodernism. Regarding the latter, Habermas revealed how historical postmodernism has taught Christians to think more critically about historical research. Specifically, Christians can learn a lot from historical postmodernism’s claim that virtually all historical scholars, Christian or otherwise, have the potential to allow their personal biases to distort their research data (pg. 57). Habermas then lists out six specific minimum historical facts that have been established by an abundance of strong evidences and are almost unanimously recognized by the vast majority of published contemporary scholars with credentials in the relevant field of study: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion; (2) The disciples afterwards reported experiences they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus; (3) These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief; (4) The teaching and proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection and subsequent appearances took place very early after the disciples experiences; (5) James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before his conversion, most likely believed after he also thought that he saw the risen Jesus; and (6) Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him (pg. 149).

In Part 2, Habermas really delves deep into the topic of miracles and offers up an excellent definition for the same (pg. 238). Part 3 discusses the Minimum Historical Facts in more detail with a heavy focus on early creedal traditions, such as 1 Cor 15:3-7. For example, the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is very important for resurrection studies because, as noted by Habermas, it provides “a narrow window that supplies data regarding the early and eyewitness claims made in the early church and chiefly by the apostles themselves” (pg. 514) In other words, 1 Cor 15:3-7 provides answers to questions pertaining to the direction Christian preaching and teaching took in the initial years after the crucifixion and before the writing of the earliest New Testament works.

Parts 4 surveys six other known historical facts concerning the end of Jesus’s life that are well known and accepted by the majority of researchers but not all of them: (1) The empty tomb; (2) Jesus’s burial; (3) Jesus’s death lead the disciples to despair and lose hope; (4) The resurrection message was at the center of early Christian preaching; (5) The resurrection message was proclaimed initially in Jerusalem; and (6) The Christian church established and grew with Sunday as the primary day of worship. And, finally, Part 5 discusses the gospel resurrection data from each of the four canonical Gospels plus the opening verses of the book of Acts. Some early noncanonical sources from Christian authors are also discussed in this section.

I believe that Habermas’ Minimal Facts Argument makes an excellent case for the resurrection of Jesus by utilizing only information agreed upon by virtually all historians of various worldviews - Christian, secular or otherwise (pg. 128). Specifically, any resurrection-related event must be established by an abundance of strong evidence, usually by multiple critically ascertained, independent lines of historical argumentation (pgs. 91-92). Moreover, Habermas’ Minimum Facts approach does not require, as a pre-requisite, a belief in the inspiration or reliability of Scripture (pg. 103). Hence, Habermas’ approach is quite effective even with harshest of critics who reject the inspiration or general reliability of the New Testament texts.

Overall, I think this first volume of Habermas’ magnum opus on the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an absolute treasure and a must buy for any serious student of the resurrection of Jesus and the birth of the Christian faith. My only slight criticism concerns the amount of repetitive material within this volume, such as the discussions on the 1 Cor 15:3-7 creed. Perhaps, if the repetitive material were removed, the book could have been made a bit shorter than its current approximately one-thousand pages. Nevertheless, this is an amazing book!

La-Sean Caselberry

[Jim Crookes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gary Habermas' "On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences" is a 1,072-page tome that is the first installment in a projected four-volume series dedicated to defending the historicity of Jesus Christ's resurrection. Habermas’ approach is known in scholarly circles as the Minimal Facts Method (MFM). MFM uses a two-step approach: first, it uses recognized tools to isolate historical facts (i.e., events known with a high degree of probability) from historical documents which may not be generally reliable. Second, the MFM measures the level of scholarly consensus for each of the historical facts identified in the first step.

Volume 1 begins with a discussion on the nature of historical research. Habermas accepts the reality of subjective bias, but he endorses the tools and rules that contemporary historians use to reach conclusions that have a high probability of being true. Criteria of authenticity such as early sources, eye-witness accounts, multiple attestations, originality and coherence can root out subjective bias, while leaving the foundation of a realist notion of representation and truth intact. Habermas then applies these methods to each of his minimal facts, starting with Jesus’ death, the disciples’ experience of the risen Christ, the conversions of James and Paul, Jesus’ burial, and the empty tomb. Each chapter draws on a vast array of biblical and extra-biblical sources to build a cumulative, probabilistic, case. Habermas meticulously documents his arguments with extensive footnotes. The MFM has been described as a sociological approach because Habermas often uses surveys of scholarly opinion, rather than epistemological arguments, to support his case. So the reader should expect a particular focus on those critical scholars like Bart Ehrmann who occasionally make concessions that Habermas finds helpful.

I found the most significant fact for advancing the case for the resurrection to be the fact that the disciples became convinced that they had seen the risen Christ, both singly and in groups. The evidence for this fact comes in two forms: the incredibly early dating for the creedal statement about Christ’s resurrection appearances to Peter and James in 1 Cor 15:3-7, and the undeniable transformation in the Apostle’s lives. Habermas is at his most compelling when he shows how contemporary critical scholars, using various literary analysis techniques, now believe that the 1 Corinthians creed was composed before Paul’s conversion. So Christians in Jerusalem were testifying that the Risen Christ had appeared to James and John, along with others, just a couple of years after the crucifixion. The MFM deserves enormous credit for bringing this conclusion to light, because it undercuts the 19th Century view that the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus were legends that accreted on to the Christian story centuries after Jesus lived. MFM is also very helpful in establishing the fact that Jesus died by crucifixion. It undermines some of the most popular naturalistic theories about the resurrection, such as the swoon theory or the idea that the disciples stole the body.

However, the big question with MFM is: how far should one take it? It seems to me that the plausibility of the resurrection rests on the grand theological story of the Son of God’s victory over sin and death. Habermas himself defines a miracle as a “sign that points to” a theological reality. But MFM, as an evidentialist method, cannot locate the resurrection claim in a theological framework. And because it makes no attempt to establish the general reliability of the New Testament documents, we have very little insight into the person who, it is claimed, rose from the dead. Unless the person of Christ is allowed to convince us that he is who he claims to be, then we are left with six lonely little probable facts that float in an ocean of naturalism. It is helpful to contrast MFM with the methods employed by the Apostles in the book of Acts. They consistently preached the resurrection as the fulfilment of God’s plan to redeem humanity. In other words, they always embedded the factual claim in the theological story. Because MFM does not establish the general reliability of the Gospel records, it cannot open up a pathway for people to encounter that theological story. So, while MFM has enormous strengths, and accomplishes some truly important goals, it cannot, in my view, provide a compelling case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

At the risk of being mean, I found Habermas' writing style to be diffuse and repetitive.

[James Louis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This first volume of Habermas’s multi volume project is a massive historical case for the resurrection of Jesus built around his well known “minimal facts” approach. The book’s stated aim is to identify a cluster of events surrounding Jesus’s death and post death experiences that are both strongly evidenced and granted as historical by the vast majority of qualified scholars across the theological spectrum, and then to ask what best explains those data.

Part 1 sets the philosophical and methodological foundation, addressing historiography, postmodern challenges, and defining the minimal-facts approach, which distinguishes establishing facts from interpreting them. Part 2 turns to essential preliminaries, Jesus’s existence, the nature of miracles, and his reputation as a healer, before moving to the resurrection itself. Part 3 presents the core argument: six minimal facts supported by strong historical evidence: Jesus’s crucifixion, the disciples’ resurrection experiences, their radical transformation, the early proclamation of the resurrection, James’s conversion, and Paul’s conversion. A seventh, the empty tomb, is well supported but less universally accepted. Habermas stresses that evidence, not mere scholarly consensus, establishes these claims. Part 4 adds six further historical facts that support the case, while Part 5 analyses resurrection accounts in the Gospels, Acts, and early post-biblical writers. Habermas concludes the disciples had real post-mortem encounters with Jesus, reserving theological questions for later volumes. Appendices address near-death experiences and summarise both minimal and broader historical facts.

This reference-level work is clearly written but dense, best suited for students, pastors, apologists, and serious skeptics rather than casual readers. Its scope and scholarship justify Licona’s praise as perhaps the most comprehensive study of the resurrection’s historical evidence.

Part 1’s methodological foundation is one of the book’s greatest strengths. Habermas carefully surveys philosophy of history, historiography, and postmodern concerns before presenting his minimal facts. He shows why broad “biblical reliability” arguments cannot bear the weight of specific historical claims, especially amid competing miracle traditions. This makes Part 1 invaluable for dialogue with non-Christian or non-inerrantist readers. A further strength is Habermas’s breadth and fairness. He highlights non-Christian and liberal scholars, often letting these “hostile witnesses” establish key points. Despite interpretive disagreements, he shows strong consensus on Jesus’s crucifixion and the disciples’ post-mortem experiences. His six-plus-one minimal facts provide an accessible framework for teaching and engaging skeptics. Habermas’s treatment of the disciples’ experiences and the “nine early layers” of testimony shows the resurrection claim arises from sources traceable to within years of the crucifixion, not later legend. His sensitivity to non-evidential causes of doubt adds a pastoral dimension, preventing the book from becoming purely technical.

A key weakness is the method’s reliance on scholarly consensus. Though Habermas stresses that evidence, not headcounts, establishes facts, his emphasis on “near-unanimous” agreement and exclusion of non-credentialled scholars may seem selective. Greater transparency about his database and how he quantified agreement would make the approach more convincing to skeptical readers. Another drawback is the book’s density. Clear prose cannot fully offset its length, heavy footnoting, and detailed excursuses, which may overwhelm non-specialists. A clearer reader roadmap or concise summary chapter would help. As it stands, it functions best as a definitive resource after simpler introductions.

Overall, On the Resurrection, Vol. 1 is a deeply researched, methodologically self aware, and impressively even handed defence of the historical foundations for the resurrection. For anyone seriously interested in the evidential side of the question, whether believer or skeptic, it is hard to imagine a more thorough single volume, provided you are ready for the work it demands.

[Brian Bauer]

The genesis of this book was the research that Dr. Habermas conducted as a part of his doctoral studies at Michigan State University in the 1970s. In the intervening forty-eight years, he appears to have collected nearly everything written on the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection, giving particular attention to the writings of skeptical scholars such as Bart Ehrman. The premise of the book is that there are certain historical facts concerning the life and death of the historical Jesus that are widely accepted by a substantial majority of Christian and non-Christian scholars, and that such facts provide a reasonable basis for concluding that Jesus was in fact resurrected from the dead.

In Volume 1, Habermas begins by describing the tools and rules that historians and other scholars use to determine whether a person ever lived, or an event ever occurred, and the criteria for establishing those events. This enables the reader to determine for themselves the veracity and weight of the evidence. He then lists twelve know facts about Jesus and his disciples, which he culls to six (the “minimal facts”), that provide a logical and rational basis for concluding that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. These include: (1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, (2) Jesus’ disciples afterward “reported experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus,” (3) “these experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed,” (4) “the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection…took place very soon after” his death and the disciples experiences, (5) “James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before his conversion, most likely believed after he also thought that he saw the risen Jesus,” and (6) “Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus.” Following his introduction of the minimal facts, Habermas devotes at least a chapter to presenting the evidence and scholarship supporting each of these facts. Habermas discusses the arguments that are often raised to explain the empty tomb or generally challenge the occurrence of the resurrection of Jesus in a subsequent volume.

The breadth and depth of Habermas’s treatment of this topic is quite impressive. He seems to leave no stone unturned. He thoughtfully presents the evidence and addresses the arguments that some have raised. His concept of identifying six minimal facts (twelve in total) that can be historically validated, and then providing the basis for such validation, allows one to move beyond the mere existence of such facts. This approach permits the reader to move on and consider the implication of those facts. Although not strictly required for the argument, the fact that all six of these minimal facts are generally accepted by most secular scholars should further alleviate concerns about the reliability of these minimal facts. Some readers (both skeptic and Christian alike) may wish that Habermas had gone into a little greater detail with some of the arguments. However, he has provided very extensive notes and an author index that provide the reader with the ability to delve much deeper into those issues that are of particular interest to them. Plus, the limitations of space prevents Habermas from going much beyond what he has already provided. Some readers may also find his writing style a bit clunky at times, but the quality of the content easily offsets any frustration with style. Overall, this book is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to evaluate the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in a scholarly manner.

Spoiler alert: if you are a thinking person who has never believed that the historical claims made about Jesus and his resurrection merited any serious consideration, the arguments presented in this book may cause you to reconsider your beliefs.

[Jonathan Mason · Rating 5 out of 5]

In volume 1 of Gary Habermas’s analysis on the resurrection, Habermas is primarily focused on building a historical case for the resurrection of Jesus. He does this through his “minimal facts” approach, which only utilizes historical data that is accepted by nearly all critical scholars from their applicable fields. Since his approach is only using facts that both conservative and skeptical scholars agree on, he is able to build a strong historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus. The way scholars determine these facts is through early sources, multiple attestation, and eye witness proximity. There are two main facts on which this case is built. First Jesus actually existed and died by Roman crucifixion. Second, the disciples had real experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.

Habermas also examines the different worldviews and how the assumptions that arise from those worldviews shape the way historians interpret the data for the resurrection. He argues that the historical evidence cannot be separated from the lens through which someone views reality. He critiques the naturalism perspective for assuming supernatural events are impossible, without any justification for this stance apart from a philosophical bias which stems from this worldview. Habermas shows how these biases cause people to predetermine a particular conclusion rather than allowing the conclusion to arise from the evidence itself. Habermas argues that a worldview must be evaluated on their ability to explain the historical facts, and how many naturalistic theories fail to account for the facts as well as a theistic worldview does. Habermas shows how dismissing the resurrection simply because supernatural events are deemed impossible is a philosophical judgement rather than a historical one. In this first volume, he slightly discusses research on near-death experiences to help build confidence in the supernatural, but he mainly grounds his discussion in the weakness of a naturalist worldview for explaining the facts, and argues that even without the possibility of miracles, historians can affirm that Jesus died by crucifixion, and many claimed to see Jesus alive after his death.

Some of the things I really appreciate about this book is that Habermas regularly engages with scholars that hold different viewpoints than him, and decides to make his case based on facts that even scholars who widely disagree with him will affirm. There were two things in particular that were interesting to me. First, there is a section where Habermas discusses a shift in the scholarly consensus away from naturalistic theories. This is largely because these naturalistic theories for the resurrection do not explain the historical data well, and to build a true naturalistic case, one would have to combine multiple theories together, and in the end, the Christian account still explains the data better. The second thing that I found insightful was the worldview analysis. This was helpful because it shows just how much we allow our beliefs to determine our conclusions, rather than allowing the evidence lead us to a conclusion. It made me realize that I need to check all my assumptions when engaging in any topic, and if I want to find the truth, I need to be open to anything and follow the evidence, even if it conflicts with my worldview. Even though I found the critique of the naturalistic worldview to be strong and compelling, people who prefer arguments based on more hardline data might not appreciate that section as much, as it is more of a philosophical argument.

The book is well written and academically grounded with many citations from a wide array of scholars. The book has 1054 pages, so I do not think it is for casual readers. I would say this book is most suited for seminary and apologetic students, historians, and anyone seeking to engage with true scholarly material regarding the resurrection.

[Lisa Rometti · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Gary R. Habermas’s On the Resurrection, volume 1: Evidences was published in 2024 by B&H Academic and is 1054 pages. Habermas conducts a comprehensive investigation of the historical data of the “status of the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and subsequent appearances of Jesus.” He uses the “minimal facts method” as the best evidenced approach to argument specifically for historical reliability of the facts.
The Minimal Facts Approach is a systematic assessment of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This approach is accepted by a vast majority of scholars regardless of their theological beliefs. This method looks at the quality and quantity of data by a scholarly perspective. It is strengthened by the fact that the evidence presented is not solely on the scriptures being the inspired or inerrant word of God, but on historical data though this critical method.
Habermas looks at historical research, Jesus’s existence as a real person, miracles, Jesus as healer, and arguments favoring the minimal facts approach. The core minimal facts are: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion, (2) the disciples had real experiences of the risen Jesus, (3) the timing of the disciples’ experiences and teachings, and (4) early creedal traditions. These facts then are the historical foundation and of which all hypotheses for the resurrection can be evaluated. He looks at alternative theories, such as the stolen-body or hallucination theories, and why they fail against the unified experience of the disciples’ willingness to die for the witness to Jesus Christ.
The Minimal Facts Approach by Habermas is strong foundationally for assessing evidence in a methodology that is grounded in a recognized and attested data. By doing so, he levels the ground bypassing theological assumptions and debates that both Christian and skeptical scholars take issue on regarding Biblical authority. Habermas says, “the best-established historical events are those confirmed by painstaking research into the relevant data, without evidentially feasible challenges, especially having repeatedly withstood the eye of critical scrutiny.” This methods strength lies in the historical evidence of multiple independent sources and even consensus of critical scholars and skeptics as having accepted it. The early sources, such as the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition, is some of the earliest text attesting to the resurrection.
One caution to this method is subjectivity since consensus can shift based on scholarly trends of interpretation of the data. This can be framed by bias and varying interpretations of text. This could be a limitation.
Habermas’s work is one of if not the most through investigations and most academically rigorous written text on the resurrection of Jesus. It shows that the claims of Jesus’ death and resurrection can be argued using historical data. This is supported by a wide scholarly audience.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book Review 1: On the Resurrection: Evidences
Book Review Link:
The resurrection of Jesus Christ has been the subject of extensive debate throughout history. While many scholars and historians alike agree that Jesus was an actual historical figure, many disagree on the validity of His resurrection. In volume 1 of his four-part series On the Resurrection: Evidences, Gary Habermas explores the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and subsequent appearances of Jesus by analyzing historical and biblical evidence. He uses the "minimal facts method" to successfully argue for the death and resurrection of Jesus. The minimal facts approach favorably argues for the resurrection of Jesus by focusing on religious and non-religious evidence that the vast majority of scholars (including skeptics) agree with. He states, "There are at least two major requirements for an occurrence to be designated [as a minimal fact]. Each [fact] must be established by an abundance of strong evidence, usually by multiple critically ascertained, independent lines of historical argumentation, and [the vast majority of published scholars] with credentials in relevant fields of study must acknowledge the historicity of the event." Habermas lists 12 minimal facts total; however, he closely examines six of the most well-known accepted historical facts. Those six facts are as follows: Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion, He was buried (most likely in a private tomb), after Jesus' death, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and hopeless, the tomb that Jesus was likely buried in, was discovered to be empty soon after his interment, the disciples genuinely believed that they encountered a risen Jesus and that teaching and proclamation of the resurrection began shortly after the disciple's experiences. In exploring the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection, Habermas appeals to both skeptics and believers. Ultimately, he establishes that the arguments for the resurrection outweigh those against it.
Habermas does a great job of countering his critics. He does not simply argue favorably for the resurrection without addressing claims made against his "minimal facts approach" and against the resurrection in general. Addressing counterarguments with religious and non-religious sources strengthens his argument. Although Habermas does a good job of analyzing the resurrection from multiple disciplines, I found the book difficult to read. Even as an apologetic studies student, it was hard for me to fully grasp some of the theories and terminology used in the book. Some of the arguments felt dense and difficult to follow. Nevertheless, it is essential to know how to engage with critics using nonbiblical sources when defending the resurrection. Although, someone new to the field of apologetics may find the book's depth challenging, it remains an invaluable resource.

[Jeffrey C · Rating 5 out of 5]

In On the Resurrection: Volume 1: Evidences (2024), Dr. Gary Habermas conducts an exhaustive analysis of the resurrection of Christ, exploring claims from both Christian and secular scholarly sources. His work meticulously evaluates numerous events surrounding and following the crucifixion. Key among these are five "minimal facts" that form the foundation of his argument: Jesus' death, the disciples’ experiences of His resurrection, their proclamation of the gospel, the conversion of James (Jesus' brother), and the dramatic transformation of Paul, a former persecutor of Christians.

The author takes a historical approach, and analysis is a methodology for understanding early ancient history, considered within one hundred years of the events. The evaluation is to understand whether the early disciples experienced a genuine event or at least believed that they had experienced the risen Christ.

Habermas's "minimal facts" approach centers on evidence widely accepted by most historians, including skeptics. He emphasizes that these facts are well-attested by various sources, establishing a solid historical case for the resurrection. While additional facts surrounding the resurrection exist, Habermas acknowledges that they lack the near-universal scholarly consensus (approximately ninety percent) of the core five. Nevertheless, these peripheral facts lend further support to the resurrection narrative.

Moreover, the author provides extensive footnotes that examine various positions and counterarguments in detail, making it easier to explore the historical resurrection debates over the centuries. This includes a detailed analysis of a given position by exploring non-Christian sources. This detailed examination highlights how the acceptance of the minimal facts has grown over time. The increased consensus is attributed to applying more rigorous criteria for evaluating historical events, strengthening the argument for their validity in contemporary scholarship.

The breadth of Habermas’s research is remarkable, yet his reliance on a consistent group of secular scholars to corroborate his core argument leaves some room for critique. Introducing broader perspectives, even from minority positions, could enhance his argument’s scope and engage a broader academic audience. Despite such considerations, Habermas's comprehensive use of sources and meticulous methodology make his case compelling, presenting the resurrection as a plausible and historically grounded event.

This book is highly recommended for college students and scholars seeking an in-depth exploration of the arguments surrounding Christ's death and resurrection, supported by extensive research and critical analysis.

[David Jung · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Gary Habermas is a distinguished scholar who has dedicated over fifty years to the study of the resurrection of Jesus. He is widely regarded as a leading authority in historical apologetics; his extensive publication history and engagement with critical scholarship demonstrate this. This series on the resurrection, of which this is the first volume, represents a culmination of his career, consolidating decades of peer-reviewed research into a single, comprehensive reference material.
The central objective of the volume is to build a historical case for the resurrection of Christ using the “minimal facts” approach. This approach bypasses debates regarding biblical inerrancy or the general reliability of the New Testament documents. Instead, Habermas outlines the historical facts that are accepted with a high confidence level by a vast majority of scholars, conservatives and skeptics alike: the crucifixion of Jesus, the disciples’ subsequent experiences of the risen Jesus, the radical transformation of these disciples, the very early proclamation of the Gospel, and the conversions of James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul, the church persecutor. Then, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible historical explanation of these minimal facts, with the evaluation of and responses to the criticisms reserved for the second volume of the series.
Readers may find some parts of the book repetitive, as Habermas is extremely methodical, and similar historical materials and lines of argument are used across several historical facts. One of the most repeated lines of argument is the agreement of the vast majority of scholars, which Habermas uses as a key criterion of a “minimal fact”. While he details the literature review process he undertook over the years, a visual representation of the quantitative analysis would have added value to readers, especially those accustomed to more scientific disciplines and hence quantitative measures.
Further, when a church leader reads this book and communicates its lessons to their congregants, the nuance of the minimal facts argument should be carefully noted. There is a danger of superficial reading, leading to the misunderstanding that this approach undermines the authority of Scripture and, therefore, should be rejected. Instead, it is a strategic method for finding common ground and starting the dialogue from there, which can be highly effective when conversing with a skeptic.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gary Habermas’ On The Resurrection: Evidences offers a thoroughly researched defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event. The book employs a “minimal facts approach,” a method that assesses evidence accepted by a wide range of scholars across various theological perspectives. Such minimal facts include Jesus' death by crucifixion, the discovery of the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection appearances reported by His followers. To this end, Habermas lays out his approach by defining and examining the historical criticism of each event, while offering the critic’s argument for the defense or evidence listed. By this, Habermas effectively offers a well-rounded understanding of both sides of the debate. In his analysis, Habermas utilizes historical data, eyewitness testimony, and the transformation of the apostles while connecting these points with broader theological implications.

I argue that the book’s greatest strength is the depth to which it presents complex evidence, both historically and theologically. Habermas is effective in communicating material that is engaging for scholars to read. His use of citations from a wide range of sources– both proponents and opponents of a topic– adds credibility to each argument. Further, the book’s format makes it easy for readers to access desired information with ease.

However, while the content is robust and insightful, I believe that the readability of the text may be difficult for some to get accustomed to. Due to the academic rigor of Habermas’s discussion, the tone could potentially pose a challenge to casual readers who are looking for a conversational approach to these discussions. With this in mind, the numerous footnotes do make it easier to immerse oneself in Habermas’ survey of each assessment and have proved to be extremely useful when reading.

Overall, On The Resurrection: Evidences is a beneficial resource for those interested in the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Its methodical analysis makes it a must-have for the apologetic toolbelt, and the inclusion of critics’ arguments further strengthens readers’ understanding of the event.

[Justin Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary: Dr. Gay Habermas’s On the Resurrection: Vol.1 Evidences is an outstanding work that systematically covers the details of his Minimal Facts argument. He starts with the philosophy of history to ensure that the reader understands how historians interpret history, along with other philosophical views, and then takes this approach to the historicity of Jesus. By starting from the foundation he is able to establish the existence of Jesus and how a miracle is defined which allows the reader and historian to apply this criteria to the documents surrounding Jesus and early Chrisitanity. Dr. Habermas then dives into what constitutes a minimal fact and how we come to know each of these claims as an established scholarly fact. He does this for the first six facts that build the core of the argument along with six other facts that support the argument to include the empty tomb and Jesus’s burial. Finally, he analyzes each of the Gospel accounts and other non-canonical sources and considers them in detail and in the context of the established minimal facts. Finally, he includes appendices that provide supporting data like Near Death Experiences (NDEs) which answers a big objection about philosophies that reject the supernatural along with outlines that help the reader frame the argument and evidence.
Analysis: This is an extremely helpful resource for those looking to study the resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Habermas charitably presents skeptical views but then meticulously critiques them. In fact, he establishes his minimal facts argument as those facts which only a certain criteria of skeptical scholars affirm. Each fact is analyzed with detail including footnotes that probe the depths of each fact to ensure clarity in positions and conclusions. Perhaps the only thing missing from this argument is the plethora of data from the Old Testament literature that anticipates the arrival of the Messiah. However, given the structure of his argument, this 1054 page work is incredibly sound and is essential for anyone looking to study the resurrection of Jesus.

[Liz Cobo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Gary Habermas's research and writing into the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is both remarkably extensive and refreshingly approachable. As a seminary student, this first volume, part of a four-volume tome, offers critical, in-depth scholarly research arguing a "positive case for the resurrection of Jesus." As a Christian, interested in the evidence for Christ's resurrection, this volume offers that evidence in an accessible manner that doesn't require a theological degree to understand. Habermas makes an organized and effective, yet modest argument, in favor of the resurrection as a historical fact using his "minimal facts methodology." Not only does he expertly present the facts, Habermas, a seasoned professor of apologetics and philosophy, teaches throughout the text, engaging the reader not just in the information but in the process by which various the information should be considered. From explaining the nature of historical research to explicating the historical evidence for the life of Christ, Habermas does the work of providing not only a positive case for the resurrection but also addresses head-on the opposition from well-known skeptics like Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar. For those looking for further discussion of the arguments raised against the validity of Christ's resurrection, Habermas's second volume in the series, On the Resurrection: Refutations is essential. This is no doubt an extensive text that can be utilized as a textbook for students, a research companion for scholars, but also a guidebook for lay Christians who desire to learn the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Habermas's years of research and expert handling of the data has culminated in the most extensive work ever available on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is without a doubt a tremendous gift and contribution to resurrection scholarship and Christian apologetics.

[Remington · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first volume of Gary R. Habermas’s On the Resurrection is the quintessential guide to the evidence of the death, burial, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ. The book is easily accessible to audiences unfamiliar with the discipline of history, as it begins with an explanation of how historical research is done. Habermas tackles different philosophies of history and their implications for his research. He also clearly defines what a miracle is within the context of his research, extrapolating on differing definitions of what constitutes the miraculous and why it should not be considered entirely out of the bounds of rigorous historical research. Habermas then uses a minimal facts approach to establish the most certain facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ. This approach delivers only the historical events that are practically undeniable regarding this topic. Habermas is able to prove that these events are as close to historical certainty as is possible within the discipline, utilizing a wide range of primary sources and the works of contemporary historians.
Habermas does an excellent job presenting his case for the minimal facts supporting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. By treating the New Testament as the collection of exceptionally reliable historical documents that it is, and pairing them with a plethora of extrabiblical sources, this volume is able to convincingly argue for the resurrection of Christ in a way that is acceptable to even the most staunch of critics. This makes the book highly accessible for secular audiences questioning the historicity of Christ’s resurrection, as well as Christian apologists trying to absorb the wisdom of the book’s approach. This volume is rightly considered a must-read for anyone interested in the historical reality of what is commemorated by Christians every year on Easter, whether one believes or not.

[Garrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

In On the Resurrection: Evidences, Gary Habermas presents a thorough examination of the historical and philosophical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Drawing on scholarly research, Habermas argues for the credibility of the resurrection event through a combination of early Christian testimony, the empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and the transformation of the disciples. He also addresses common objections and critiques, offering responses rooted in historical data and logical reasoning. The book seeks to provide a robust defense of the resurrection, emphasizing its central role in Christian faith and its grounding in historical evidence.
One of the greatest blessings this book offers is its approachable nature, welcoming both the academic and layperson to its great magnitude of pages covering the many evidences for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether you are a Christian looking to delve deeper in the evidences for your faith or a skeptic who wants to see if there is any weight to the claim that Jesus rose from the grave, this is the book for you. As a Master’s of Christian Apologetics student, I found each chapter engaging and thoughtfully articulated. The amount of research done by Habermas is self-evident and because he walks you through his methodology early on in the book, you find yourself analyzing the evidence in the same way. My only critique, or rather recommendation I would make to Habermas is how nice it would be to have a smaller, more readable version made available to help increase the number of readers to the work. Due to the sheer size of the book, I know many will decide not to read it, but for those of you who do, I guarantee you will be all the better for doing so! God Bless!

[Ye Jun Song · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gary Habermas’s comprehensive study presents a methodologically rigorous approach to establishing the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection through what he calls the “minimal facts” method. The book’s central thesis rests on identifying historical facts about Jesus’ death and resurrection that meet two criteria which are overwhelming evidential support and near-unanimous acceptance among prominent scholars. Scholars are from across the theological spectrum, from conservative evangelicals to atheist New Testament critics. Habermas identifies six core minimal facts: Jesus’ death by crucifixion, the disciples’ post-crucifixion experiences, their radical transformation and willingness to die, the remarkably early emergence of resurrection proclamation, and the conversions of former skeptics James and Paul. The book thoroughly documents how even highly skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman and members of the Jesus Seminar concede these minimal facts while offering naturalistic interpretations, revealing that contemporary debate centers not on what happened but on how to explain it.
By ground his argument in facts acknowledged even by Christianity’s scholarly critics, he effectively shifts the burden of proof and creates genuine common ground for dialogue. But the book’s greatest insight lies in revealing the surprising extent of scholarly consensus on core historical data. It becomes clear that modern critical scholarship has moved away from the radical skepticism and Habermas’ book makes this shift undeniable. For potential readers, this book is essential for understanding current resurrection debates.

[Jonathan G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary: This series of volumes focuses on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. In volume one, Habermas presents his minimal facts method in significant detail. He goes through each fact in what appears to be a cumulative case, engaging with various scholars, especially those who are critical of his position. His approach is focused on a more historical method, rather than a strictly theological or hermeneutical one.

In volume two, Habermas engages with skeptics, and specifically with the popular theories that are opposed to the resurrection of Christ. He analyzes each theory and brings forth the evidence up against his minimal facts method. He ultimately demonstrates that these alternative, popular theories struggle to tip the scales in the opposite direction, and that the minimal facts method is the much better explanation of what happened to our Lord.

Analysis: In his magnum opus, Habermas deals with an exhaustive number of historical sources. He argues his case with the facts that are most universally accepted, particularly by those who are against his position. With this, he marshals the case of the resurrection and dismantles the idea that those in the academy should not believe in the resurrection of Christ. The only recommendation that I would perhaps have liked to see is a chart with both minimal facts and refutations, side by side, allowing the reader to have a vivid illustration. Nevertheless, if you are looking for the best book dealing with the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, this is the one to get.

[Tavaris Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re looking for a serious, scholarly defense of the resurrection of Jesus, this is the gold standard. Habermas doesn’t rely on preaching or assumptions, he builds his case using historical facts that are widely accepted by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. What stood out most to me was the minimal facts approach. It forces you to deal with the data instead of dismissing it.

This is not a light or casual read. It’s dense, academic, and extremely detailed, but that’s exactly why it’s so valuable. Habermas engages skeptics honestly and doesn’t avoid difficult objections. If you’re a student, pastor, or anyone who wants a research-level understanding of the resurrection, this set is worth every page.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here's my evaluation as found in the January/February 2025 edition of Christianity Today:

"Words like epic and monumental can be so overused as to be nearly meaningless. But they truly apply to Habermas’s first thousand-page volume of a projected four-part series. Paul tells us that if the Resurrection didn’t happen, our faith is useless. What, then, could be more crucial than establishing its historical factuality? With compelling arguments that treat opposing views with unwavering fairness, paired with meticulous research presented in readable prose, Habermas offers the bountiful fruits of a lifetime of investigation."

[Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Volume 1 of 3, written by the top academic on the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. It is a little too dense for me, at over 1,000 pages for this volume alone. I would choose Michael Licona’s « The Resurrection of Jesus » as it is a little more concise (at still just over 700 pages). But I much prefer William Lane Craig’s «The Resurrection of the Son of God » as that book is concise, clearly argued and its contents can be practically used even in everyday conversation on the topic. In all, this book by Habermas is only for people who really want to delve in depth and well beyond what has already been competently written on the topic. This was a real slog to get through.

[Francis Szarejko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gary Habermas was one of my professors in grad school. No one living knows more about the resurrection of Jesus than Habermas. This is not an easy read but if you take the time to work through it you will be rewarded for your efforts. If you are interested in Christian apologetics, this is a must read. I have already purchased volume 2 and ready to dive in.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Studying the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is fascinating. That there could be good reasons for believing such a stupendous event has been a focus of research for Gary Habermas and other capable Christian scholars. In this volume, Habermas comprehensively brings together all the evidences. A great book.

[Marcy Kennedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good treatment of the evidence, but the writing itself was clunky at times and should have (in my opinion) been made more accessible so that this valuable information could reach more people.

[Collin Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Said to be Gary Habermas's magnum opus, I wanted to like this one a little more than I did. It has a lot of good information, but can be long and repetitive, mostly due to single pieces of evidence being useful in defending several different "minimal facts" in a case for the resurrection. Still, a lot of good information, though at times I felt that the details were not covered as in depth in the book as I would have liked for a work of this scale, and often I found myself just being pointed to other books in the footnotes for things I wanted to go deeper on.

Edit: I lowered from 4 to 3 stars because it has been pointed out and pretty well documented that Habermas seems to embellish and/or misread the support that certain minimal facts get from skeptical scholars. Additionally, I’ve seen that when he is pressed on things like his lack of actual counting of scholars in coming to what he considers a minimal fact, he can become quite defensive, and it just makes me question where he falls in with the many great resources on the resurrection that exist.