What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Resurrection, Volume 3: Scholarly Perspectives
Published in four volumes, On the Resurrection serves as Gary R. Habermas’s magnum opus – a comprehensive defense of the authenticity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, built from Habermas’s lifetime of scholarly study.
In the third volume, Habermas identifies and collects hundreds of scholarly treatments related to the resurrection. Spanning both believers and nonbelievers, the collection provides a strong overview of everything that has been written about the resurrection and its impacts.
The volume includes summaries of scholarly sources covering:
The nature of historical research and New Testament preliminaries
Facts about Jesus’s existence, minimal historical facts of the Resurrection, and other known historical facts
Critiques and questions surrounding the Gospel accounts
Alternative theories and responses
Scholars commenting on other scholars and trends
How the resurrection impacts theology
On the Resurrection, Volume 3: Scholarly Perspectives offers a thorough “lay of the land” for anyone wanting to pursue an in-depth study of Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection.
In the third volume, Habermas identifies and collects hundreds of scholarly treatments related to the resurrection. Spanning both believers and nonbelievers, the collection provides a strong overview of everything that has been written about the resurrection and its impacts.
The volume includes summaries of scholarly sources covering:
The nature of historical research and New Testament preliminaries
Facts about Jesus’s existence, minimal historical facts of the Resurrection, and other known historical facts
Critiques and questions surrounding the Gospel accounts
Alternative theories and responses
Scholars commenting on other scholars and trends
How the resurrection impacts theology
On the Resurrection, Volume 3: Scholarly Perspectives offers a thorough “lay of the land” for anyone wanting to pursue an in-depth study of Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection.
992 pages, Hardcover
Published May 15, 2025
1 person is currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 26, 2025
In this volume Habermas publishes his notes that he used to create his first two volumes and footnotes them. He’s defending a myth by using the myth and footnotes the crap out of it, and what remains is crap.
To illustrate the shoddy work in this volume, Habermas made a multipage defense with footnotes on how he won his debate with Antony Flew. I watched the debate; there was a copy on Youtube from 13 years ago. Habermas offered nothing but his standard apologetics and I would suggest skip the Flew parts and see if Habermas convinces you that the resurrection happened. I was not convinced by Habermas’ assertions with no supporting evidence beyond ‘the Bible says so.’ Also, note the debate is at least 13 years old. Habermas stopped updating his expertise along time ago and relies mostly on older notes.
Habermas made the absurd statements that only a skeptic thinks Jesus wasn’t resurrected and that only a skeptic would deny the divinity of the Christian religion because of its rapid growth. Tell that to the 2 billion or so Muslims alive today. They doubt the resurrection and their religion grew at a faster rate than Christianity. They are believers (not skeptics) but with different myths. I don’t think Habermas quoted from a single Muslim scholar or Mormon scholar. That seems like a move by an apologetic who doesn’t care about the truth beyond his own special pleading.
How does having martyrs for the religion prove the resurrection is true. Habermas plays fast and loose with the word ‘disciple.’ Dorcas was a disciple and was resurrected and she didn’t die for the faith. I suspect she never really existed. She’s in the Book of Acts. Habermas pretends Acts is real when he defends his apologetics but ignores the other parts. Eutychus was (luckily) risen from the dead as he fell out the third story after falling asleep from boredom as 5000 people quickly converted while Paul was preaching. Habermas ignores these resurrections. Isn’t it a giveaway that the Eutychus story is a fake when his name translates to “Lucky?”
Habermas claims the prophecies prove Jesus is the Messiah and that the second coming is to be in the future. The Bible says differently. Read the NT. The messianic prophecies were not fulfilled nor did Jesus return as promised. It’s clear there is a fight going on between the Jerusalem Jews for Christ and Paul’s gentiles within the NT. According to Paul, he learned nothing from James and Peter and stuck with his personal vision as truth. In the end, Paul’s brand of Christianity won out.
The skeptic does not need to refute claims of second-hand reported visions. Habermas makes group visions real. How many times did Peter deny Christ before the cock crowed? Three times, nope six times. Read the stories in the gospels and count the different people Peter denied Christ to. It is at least six. Second-hand accounts can easily be fabricated to support the preferred narrative.
When Paul referred to the ‘gospels’ he can’t possibly mean the first four books of the NT. I wish Habermas noted that as he spoke about Paul. Paul claimed a vision that made him a zealot. Paul visits Peter and James in Jerusalem. Paul states he learned nothing from them. All it takes is Peter to have a vision and convince others.
The ‘five hundred at one time who saw the risen Jesus,’ that is not evidence that is a claim. It would have been more convincing if it was five people with their names given.
Jesus on the cross said “I say to you: this day you shall be with me in paradise.” Where did Jesus spend the next three days? In Hades arguing with Satan over the bones of Moses. The Bible as a source gets convoluted. Aquinas had a slick response to that when he said Jesus’ spiritual body was in Hades and his physical body was in Paradise. Habermas dismissed the promise that Jesus would return by saying the Transfiguration fulfilled it spiritually. When confused claim spiritual fulfills promise. Jesus was never an earthly King while his followers claim he spiritually reign in heaven and the prophecies are specific that Jesus must be a King.
Habermas is using the Bible to prove his point that Jesus resurrected. Why doesn’t Habermas just use the Bible itself to say that Jesus resurrected. Minimal facts seem superfluous when the primary source is the Bible.
How does Habermas know that Jerusalem was abuzz with Jesus-mania when he was crucified? The empty tomb and Joseph of Arimathea seem more fictional than real.
Habermas spent his life studying a myth. There is nothing there except claims with scant real evidence. This book is bad apologetics with footnotes to show seriousness. Habermas loves quoting Bart Erhman when he agrees with him.
There’s another thing I noticed in this book. Christians don’t agree with themselves about most things. The Resurrection’s meaning goes all over the map as well as Jesus as God, the messianic prophecies, the virgin birth, and what kind of visitation Paul had and the second coming and so on. Habermas quotes from his scholars and they don’t agree among themselves. Also, once again Habermas did not quote from a single Muslim or Mormon scholar who have vastly different opinions abut the second coming and so on.
Habermas hurts his case more than helps it. He thinks his old notes with their many footnotes are worthy of consideration. Watch that debate between him and Flew and skip the Flew segments and see how unconvincing Habermas’ arguments are by themselves. Apologetics hurt their faith more than help it. It’s best to start with the facts then reach a conclusion, clearly, Habermas starts with the conclusion and has his facts based on claims fit his belief.
To illustrate the shoddy work in this volume, Habermas made a multipage defense with footnotes on how he won his debate with Antony Flew. I watched the debate; there was a copy on Youtube from 13 years ago. Habermas offered nothing but his standard apologetics and I would suggest skip the Flew parts and see if Habermas convinces you that the resurrection happened. I was not convinced by Habermas’ assertions with no supporting evidence beyond ‘the Bible says so.’ Also, note the debate is at least 13 years old. Habermas stopped updating his expertise along time ago and relies mostly on older notes.
Habermas made the absurd statements that only a skeptic thinks Jesus wasn’t resurrected and that only a skeptic would deny the divinity of the Christian religion because of its rapid growth. Tell that to the 2 billion or so Muslims alive today. They doubt the resurrection and their religion grew at a faster rate than Christianity. They are believers (not skeptics) but with different myths. I don’t think Habermas quoted from a single Muslim scholar or Mormon scholar. That seems like a move by an apologetic who doesn’t care about the truth beyond his own special pleading.
How does having martyrs for the religion prove the resurrection is true. Habermas plays fast and loose with the word ‘disciple.’ Dorcas was a disciple and was resurrected and she didn’t die for the faith. I suspect she never really existed. She’s in the Book of Acts. Habermas pretends Acts is real when he defends his apologetics but ignores the other parts. Eutychus was (luckily) risen from the dead as he fell out the third story after falling asleep from boredom as 5000 people quickly converted while Paul was preaching. Habermas ignores these resurrections. Isn’t it a giveaway that the Eutychus story is a fake when his name translates to “Lucky?”
Habermas claims the prophecies prove Jesus is the Messiah and that the second coming is to be in the future. The Bible says differently. Read the NT. The messianic prophecies were not fulfilled nor did Jesus return as promised. It’s clear there is a fight going on between the Jerusalem Jews for Christ and Paul’s gentiles within the NT. According to Paul, he learned nothing from James and Peter and stuck with his personal vision as truth. In the end, Paul’s brand of Christianity won out.
The skeptic does not need to refute claims of second-hand reported visions. Habermas makes group visions real. How many times did Peter deny Christ before the cock crowed? Three times, nope six times. Read the stories in the gospels and count the different people Peter denied Christ to. It is at least six. Second-hand accounts can easily be fabricated to support the preferred narrative.
When Paul referred to the ‘gospels’ he can’t possibly mean the first four books of the NT. I wish Habermas noted that as he spoke about Paul. Paul claimed a vision that made him a zealot. Paul visits Peter and James in Jerusalem. Paul states he learned nothing from them. All it takes is Peter to have a vision and convince others.
The ‘five hundred at one time who saw the risen Jesus,’ that is not evidence that is a claim. It would have been more convincing if it was five people with their names given.
Jesus on the cross said “I say to you: this day you shall be with me in paradise.” Where did Jesus spend the next three days? In Hades arguing with Satan over the bones of Moses. The Bible as a source gets convoluted. Aquinas had a slick response to that when he said Jesus’ spiritual body was in Hades and his physical body was in Paradise. Habermas dismissed the promise that Jesus would return by saying the Transfiguration fulfilled it spiritually. When confused claim spiritual fulfills promise. Jesus was never an earthly King while his followers claim he spiritually reign in heaven and the prophecies are specific that Jesus must be a King.
Habermas is using the Bible to prove his point that Jesus resurrected. Why doesn’t Habermas just use the Bible itself to say that Jesus resurrected. Minimal facts seem superfluous when the primary source is the Bible.
How does Habermas know that Jerusalem was abuzz with Jesus-mania when he was crucified? The empty tomb and Joseph of Arimathea seem more fictional than real.
Habermas spent his life studying a myth. There is nothing there except claims with scant real evidence. This book is bad apologetics with footnotes to show seriousness. Habermas loves quoting Bart Erhman when he agrees with him.
There’s another thing I noticed in this book. Christians don’t agree with themselves about most things. The Resurrection’s meaning goes all over the map as well as Jesus as God, the messianic prophecies, the virgin birth, and what kind of visitation Paul had and the second coming and so on. Habermas quotes from his scholars and they don’t agree among themselves. Also, once again Habermas did not quote from a single Muslim or Mormon scholar who have vastly different opinions abut the second coming and so on.
Habermas hurts his case more than helps it. He thinks his old notes with their many footnotes are worthy of consideration. Watch that debate between him and Flew and skip the Flew segments and see how unconvincing Habermas’ arguments are by themselves. Apologetics hurt their faith more than help it. It’s best to start with the facts then reach a conclusion, clearly, Habermas starts with the conclusion and has his facts based on claims fit his belief.
July 9, 2025
Thus far, Volume 3 is the best of Habermas’s magnum opus. All his works have been good, but this one is extremely useful. The volume offers numerous resources on different data points of Jesus’s resurrection. The text provides insights from both critical and orthodox scholars. “Scholarly Perspectives” is must-have for anyone interested in the research on the resurrection of Jesus.
July 2, 2025
Fine large read packed with opinions on the Resurrection from liberal secularist to orthodox believers....great resource for new believer or old believer.....
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews