Исторический Иисус. Древние свидетельства земной жизни Христа

by Gary R. Habermas

Иисус как историческая личность - тема, вызывающая сегодня немалый интерес и в научных кругах, и среди массовых читателей. В последние годы разные аспекты жизни, смерти и Воскресения Иисуса привлекают к себе гораздо больше внимания, чем прежде. Этот интерес характерен для богословов самых разных направлений. Количество книг, посвященных этой теме, впечатляет; сделать их обзор и дать им оценку - дело нелегкое.

Тема Воскресения Иисуса занимает особое место. Она - точно алмаз, имеющий множество граней. С одной стороны, Воскресение лежит в самом центре христианского Евангелия. С другой стороны, из всех чудес, о которых говорится в Писании (и, раз на то пошло, в других «священных книгах») именно Воскресение находит наибольшее число убедительных подтверждений.

С третьей стороны, Воскресение служит эмпирическим основанием христианского теизма. Наконец, в Новом Завете Воскресение - словно мост, по которому совершается переход почти ко всем главным доктринам христианской веры, которые, в свою очередь, имеют непосредственное отношение к практическим сторонам христианской жизни.

«Современное и своевременное научное исследование важнейшего вопроса христианской веры, произведенное одним из ведущих специалистов в области исторической апологетики».
- Др. Норман Гайслер,
Южная евангельская семинария, декан


Часть первая. Историчность Иисуса: современные проблемы
1. Исследования историчности Иисуса в новое время
2. Действительно ли Иисус жил на свете?
3. Ограниченность знаний об историческом Иисусе
4. Иные толкования исторических фактов об Иисусе
5. Новый гностицизм
6. «Семинар по Иисусу» и исторический Иисус
Часть вторая. Исторические факты жизни Иисуса
7. Первичные источники: вероисповедания и факты
8. Археологические источники
9. Древние нехристианские источники
10. Древние христианские источники помимо Нового Завета
11. Обзор и итоги
Часть третья. Приложения
Приложение 1: Историография
Приложение 2: Систематизация апологетики
Приложение 3: Избранная научная библиография нехристианских источников

Genres: Christian, Religion, History, Christianity, Nonfiction, Theology, Christian Non Fiction

269 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1988

About the author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews

[Barton Jahn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-written book by one of the preeminent experts and scholars on this subject…this is a non-technical book accessible to the general reading public…yet thorough and exhaustive in its coverage and information.

Author Gary Habermas makes a persuasive and compelling case from a number of varied historical sources…that the record we have of the life of Jesus Christ is accurate and believable …even outside of the parameters of faith…given only the proofs normally afforded us through standard historical research methods…and taking into account the consensus opinions regarding the factual evidence accepted even by skeptical scholars.

This is a very readable book providing a lot of information on this critical subject…that I would highly recommend.

[Lee Irons · Rating 2 out of 5]

There is a recent phenomenon among the online atheist community which tries to argue that Jesus wasn't a historical person. Richard Carrier is the most well known advocate of this view today, but the idea seems to be growing. He wrote a book in 2014 titled "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt." He argues that there is no independent (that is, outside of the New Testament) historical evidence confirming that Jesus existed. It seems that among the online atheist community, this view is getting some traction. This got me interested in wanting to explore the extra-NT evidence for Jesus more carefully. I knew about the Josephus quote and the fact that Tacitus mentions Christ, but I wanted to know if there was more ancient evidence, and also to examine the historical credibility of such evidence. That lead me to this book by Gary Habermas, although it was published in 1996, a couple of decades before this recent movement. I thought it might be a helpful resource to answer them since a similar position was argued earlier (1970s) by G.A. Wells. Habermas devotes a chapter to Wells and Michael Martin, an atheist who depended on Wells to deny the historicity of Jesus (ch. 2).

Habermas divides the book into three parts. Part 1 is "Contemporary Challenges to the Historicity of Jesus," which deals with things like the modern quest for the historical Jesus, the aforementioned ahistorical Jesus view of Wells and Martin, the Jesus seminar, etc. It includes a critique of the Humean a priori rejection of the miraculous. Part 2 is "Historical Data for the Life of Jesus," which is the heart of the book and the section that most interested me. Part 3 contains three appendices: an essay on historiography, an apologetic outline, and a selected bibliography for the non-Christian historical sources discussed in Part 2.

Looking now at Part 2, this section has four main chapters plus a summary and assessment. Chapter 7 is on the early Christian creeds imbedded in the NT (e.g., 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 1:3-4; and most important of all, 1 Cor 15:3-4). Chapter 8 is on archaeological sources: the Titulus Venetus (which supports the historicity of the census of Luke 2:1-5), Yohanan, a skeleton of a first century crucifixion victim, and the Shroud of Turin. Chapter 9 is the key chapter for me: the ancient non-Christian sources that refer to Jesus as a historical person (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Emperor Trajan, the Emperor Hadrian, the Talmud, the Toledoth Jesu, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, various Gnostic writings, the (lost) Acts of Pilate, and Phlegon). Chapter 10 is on ancient Christian sources outside of the NT (e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Quadratus, Barnabas, and Justin Martyr).

For me, the chapter on the archaeological evidence was exceedingly weak, especially Habermas's heavy reliance on the Shroud of Turin which he defends as authentic. I fail to see how it is relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus. Even if it were proven to be from the first century, it could be any man and doesn't point specifically to Jesus. Habermas also repeatedly argues that the image on the shroud was caused by a "scorch" emanating from the corpse. What in the world? I wasn't aware that dead bodies got hot. My layman's understanding is that they cooled off. That whole section was highly distracting and totally irrelevant to the argument of the book.

The problem is, Habermas is not a critical historian, and this comes out in his handling of historical documents in Ch. 9 (Ancient Non-Christian Sources). In this chapter, he includes too many works that are clearly historically worthless. For example, he includes the Toledoth Jesu, a late Jewish work from the middle ages that gives a scurrilous account of the life of Jesus as part of a clearly anti-Christian polemic. Then there are the Gnostic writings, which do not have any independent historical value and are clearly dependent on the canonical Gospels. It's not even clear if these documents are referring to Jesus as a historical person, since they are more interested in their Gnostic speculations. Habermas does this weird dance where he admits that the Gnostic writings are esoteric, theologically oriented, and freely incorporating Gnostic speculations, but then says these qualifications "do not necessitate unreliable reporting of historical facts about Jesus" (p. 215)--as if they were in any sense purporting to be reporting historical facts in the first place! He then concludes that we should be "cautious" about using the Gnostic writings as independent historical evidence. No, we shouldn't be cautious; we should set them aside. I am left with the impression Habermas is simply trying to increase the total tally of ancient historical sources that refer to Jesus. It is a shame, because there really are solid pieces of evidence in this chapter (especially the Greek and Roman sources, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, etc.). But by including the worthless amid the valuable, and giving "cautious" credibility to the worthless, it diminishes the credibility of the other evidence, or at least it diminishes our confidence in Habermas's overall argument.

Returning then to my quest for a response to the modern Jesus deniers, I must say that this book is not the answer. To be fair, Habermas wrote this book before the modern Jesus deniers (Richard Carrier et al), so it is perhaps not totally surprising that I was disappointed in my quest. My disappointment in the book is largely due to the fact that I wanted it to do something that it wasn't written to do. My disappointment was compounded by the poor historical reasoning, reliance on the totally irrelevant Shroud of Turin, and use of historically worthless writings like the Toledoth Jesu and the Gnostic documents. On the other hand, one can dig through the book and find some good nuggets, especially the argument about the early Christian creeds (ch. 7) and *some* of the documents examined in the non-Christian sources (ch. 9).

[Petter Häggholm · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is one of the most disappointing books I’ve ever read.

It’s not that it’s on the top ten list of WORST books. It is not shockingly terrible. It is merely quite bad. The reason why it is so disappointing is that I genuinely expected so much better. It’s a bit like C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity—to read a book that is merely okay-ish, when it has been praised to the high heavens by everyone and their godfather for years, is a tremendous letdown. This time I had somewhat lower expectations, but the book was also much worse, so the differential impression was similar.

Gary Habermas has, for some reason, a high reputation as an apologist and, I thought, scholar. Now, since he is a Christian apologist and I am an atheist, it was obvious from the outset that I would not agree with some of his conclusions. But, I figured, being Christian does not mean that you cannot be intelligent and honest. Sometimes, alas, I despair that maybe being an apologist is incompatible with both those things together (though, in fairness, while Mere Christianity was a similarly Great Disappointment, I did not come away thinking that Lewis was lying). I went in thinking I might learn something, I might face some tough questions, I would probably not have my mind changed but perhaps my perspective challenged.

And what a letdown it was.

First, the title is misleading bordering on the deceptive. While a little space near the end of the book is granted to providing a portrait that (other problems aside) does indeed fit into a book called The Historical Jesus, the book as a whole is not about that at all. It could perhaps have been called Miscellaneous Rebuttals to (Mostly Outdated) Critiques of the Resurrection Myth; it would have been more honest and I would not have bothered to pick it up. Perhaps Mr. Habermas needed the royalties.

If it were a book about Jesus from a historical perspective, you might expect some introduction to his historical milieu, but you will not find it in this book. The Sadducees and Pharisees are mentioned once or twice; the Essenes a few times, mostly to say that Jesus probably wasn’t one but if he was then so what—no sense is provided of who they were, what they believed, or what this meant. (Maybe because the dominant role of the Sadducees in 1st century politics ill comports with the inflated role of Pharisees in gospel disputes?) Jewish apocalypticism is, as far as I can tell, not even mentioned. Other messianic movements—apocalyptic movements and teachings—none of this gets any mention at all! Even if Habermas rejects the common historical view that situates Jesus in these terms, an honest overview of the historical Jesus would have to discuss them. But of course The Historical Jesus is not about the historical Jesus, it’s a deceptively titled pile of apologia…

Curiously, in a book that obviously (necessarily—as even a book genuinely about the historical Jesus must) mentions the New Testament writings a very great deal, I do not recall seeing the words pseudepigraphon or pseudepigrapha even once. Paul is quoted passim, but nowhere, not once, does Habermas suggest that a historical perspective might potentially treat the epistles to Timothy in any way differently from 1 Thess, 1 Cor, or Philippians. His project, I suppose, does not concern itself with matters where such distinctions are relevant.

Second, I was quite surprised at how bad it was even in this regard—even in terms of what it really is as opposed to what the title promises. To be clear, most of the things that Habermas spends most of the book arguing against are not things I agree with in the first place (Jesus mythicism, swoon theory, 19th century naturalistic rationalisations of miracle stories, etc.). I think those can be refuted fairly and honestly. But I kept having to put the book down in sheer annoyance and frustration at how duplicitous he seemed in refuting points I already reject. If I were frustrated by his approach to things I agree with, I might suspect my own bias of showing. But here, he was attacking things that he and I would agree are errors, and getting it wrong every time.

There are four major problems with the book as written, setting aside the fact that it isn’t what it claims to be. Three of them are methodological.

One: Habermas is a great believer in transubstantiation. In particular, he likes to transubstantiate claims to different categories of claims. For example, on page twenty he might make an assertion, and by page twenty-five it has miraculously become a demonstration, for he will refer to it with “as we showed” or “as was demonstrated”. A similar magic applies to sources, because what is introduced as “a witness” will, a page or two later, be “a reliable witness”, with no mere secular evidence or argumentation (or indeed acknowledgement) necessary for the adjectival promotion.

Two: the above magic often branches out to other books. Habermas is very fond of pointing out how the New Testament is reliable, how that was demonstrated earlier, etc. etc., when in fact the first time this was brought up in a real way, he basically said that he wasn’t going to bother since he wrote another book about that. Maybe that book is worth reading (though my hopes obviously aren’t high), but it doesn’t add any value to this one.

Three: He often treats sources and witnesses in ways that are typically found only in riddles where someone is either TRUTHFUL or they are (perhaps Cretan and) A LIAR. Establishing that something interesting asserted by a source is true is taken tacitly as justification for treating the source as reliable, and “reliable” here seems to be a binary, not a contextual or graduated evaluation. It has been commonly pointed out, and I wish it would not be necessary yet again, but if a comic book gives accurate geographical, political, historical, or other information of New York, that demonstrates verisimilitude of setting—not the historical reality of the Amazing Spider-Man. (It works as a negative criterion—a book that gets the setting all wrong is clearly not reliable at all—but not much as a positive one, especially for remarkable claims.)

Four: The non-methodological objection is that this book is, by its own logic, entirely pointless. Either Mr. Habermas really needed the money or he just deeply wanted to murder some trees. For, you see, the book assumes again and again that the New Testament is reliable. If you do not accept that premise (which, as mentioned, the book doesn’t even attempt to establish, referring it to another book), none of its arguments hold up at all. But then, if the New Testament were reliable, what possible use would this book be? There is no conceivable need for a book that says “from these people quoting scripture in the 2nd century, we can know that X and Y happened [given that the scripture they quote is reliable]”. What is the point? If the New Testament were reliable, we could just read it to find out what happened.

Finally, I get a strong sense that Habermas is frankly deceptive. For instance, he seems to be quite enamoured with the famous mediæval hoax called the Shroud of Turin. He doesn’t stake his reputation or rest his whole case on it, but he is clearly quite enthused about it, waxes lyrical about the “strong evidence” that it is not a forgery, and speaks of the “historical trail” it left across Europe. Yet, very curiously, not to mention very conveniently, he fails to mention the very first mention of it in the historical record. Surely that is a crucial part of the historical trail! But it would not fit his pious narrative. Because, you see, the first mention of the Shroud is in a letter from Bishop Pierre d’Arcis to Pope Clement VII where he describes it and tells the pope that the artist who created the forgery had confessed. Would this not be a curious part of the “historical trail” to omit from an honest man? It seems so to me, and unless I suppose that Habermas is a fool or incompetently careless—which I do not—then I can only conclude that he is dishonest, and am left wondering what he carefully omits to mention about other historical records.'

Another commonly employed tactic of dubious honesty is of presenting a weak case and admitting its weaknesses…long after the fact, in a brief parenthetical aside, once the accumulation of arguments has had time to work on the reader. For instance, a collection of ‘extra-biblical’ sources are cited to impress the reader with how many sources even outside of the New Testament tell us this and that about Jesus. They are enumerated, and within the discussion of each source, each datum is enumerated. This goes on for page after page after page. Finally, in the summary section of the chapter, Habermas briefly admits that of course these aren’t really independent data at all since the authors not only wrote after the canonical gospels but were in fact demonstrably familiar with them, so that virtually everything they say may simply be repeating New Testament claims. But a susceptible reader, after five or ten or fifteen pages of claim after claim will perhaps not be able to shrug it all off as irrelevant, as they ought to, when cautioned in a brief sentence or two that this is not an independent source. Unless I wanted to do him the unjustified disservice of suggesting that Mr. Habermas is entirely naïve or a very poor writer, I must assume that this was done with rhetorical motivation; but then, it is hard to regard it as innocent. This sort of thing happens passim (mild, lame admissions that maybe the Shroud could be a forgery—even though he doesn’t deign to mention the historical evidence—are another example).

In summary, this is not an absolutely terrible book about the historical Jesus, for two reasons: One, it is not absolutely terrible—I rate it very poorly because I came in with high expectations, but if you set your expectations low enough, it will probably seem merely bad or perhaps even mediocre; and two, it is not actually a book about the historical Jesus, and some of the ways in which it disappoints have to do with how it utterly fails to live up to its title. If you’re terribly bored and your only choices are Ray Comfort, Gary Habermas, Mein Kampf, and Piers Anthony’s Firefly, I recommend this book nine times out of ten. If, on the other hand, you are not under duress, it is best left alone. I got it for free, and I feel cheated.

[Terry Tucker · Rating 5 out of 5]

If one is interested in tracing the historical record of Jesus, I highly suggest that you start with this book. This book is both scholarly and readable. From cover to cover about 300 pages. The book is broken into three parts: Part 1, Contemporary Challenges to the Historicity of Jesus; Part 2, the Historical Data; and Part 3 the Appendixes. According to the introduction, "the book is chiefly an effort to examine the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; it is largely concerned with the pre and non - biblical evidence for these events." This book closely followed that framework. It provides ample objectives sources in which one can compare - both critical of and supportive of the historical record.
There were several non-biblical references that I was already aware of through previous study, this book mentioned several others that were new to me.

Additionally, I also bought the the book, The Historical Jesus, by John Dominc Crossan, but, because of statements made by Crossan and my study of the historical and archeological evidence, I cannot recommend him as a credible source.

Yes, Crossan is on many radio and TV shows and does regular seminars and sessions - however, his views are not substantiated by evidence. Crossan is also a member of the Jesus Seminar - both of which do not provide evidence or reason for their opinion; make no attempt to verify the rules of methodology for written evidence, except to say in essence, "because we said so." (My italics)

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very well researched book that provides an objective look at the evidence of Jesus's life, death, burial, and ressurection. Habermas lets history speak for itself by providing historical evidence from both Bibical and non biblical sources that support the historicity of Jesus and the accounts of the gospels.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A CREATIVE AND POWERFUL “HISTORICAL” CASE FOR JESUS’ HISTORICITY

Gary Habermas (born 1950) is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, and has written many books.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “For over twenty years, this incredible event has been the focus of my professional studies… This present volume … can stand alone in producing a crucially significant element in the total case for the resurrection… This book is chiefly an effort to examine the life, death and resurrection of Jesus from a different perspective. It is largely concerned with pre- and nonbiblical evidence for these events. The main body is devoted to a study of sources that date from before, during, and just after the New Testament, including creedal traditions recorded for the first time in the pages of Scripture. These fascinating subjects seem to be too frequently left unexplained.” (Pg. 9-10)

He explains, “The real issue is what the data tell us about the Jesus of history. What sources do we have at our disposal? Is there any material from non-Christians” When did Jesus live? What did he do? What did he teach? How did he die? Is there any truth to the New Testament contention that Jesus was raised from the dead? It is our purpose to pursue the answers to many of these questions both by addressing critical challenges and by ascertaining what sources support a traditional understanding of Jesus.” (Pg. 26)

He points out, “First, it is simply false to hole that there are no ancient sources outside the New Testament that speak of Jesus. It is true that none of these extrabiblical sources give a DETAILED account concerning Jesus, but there are nevertheless over a dozen non-Christian sources from ancient history that mention him. There are a number of early Christians sources that provide more information concerning him… It may even be the case that he is one of the most-mentioned figures of the ancient world!” (Pg. 66)

He continues, “there were very few ancient writers, comparatively speaking… At the beginning, we cannot be sure that Jesus or the earliest Christians made any such international commotion… Lastly, Jesus’ background as a peasant from a humble family would mitigate against him receiving any great amount of attention… we must not be misled by these considerations into the mistaken conclusion that extra-New Testament sources ignore Jesus. There are a surprising number of non-Christian sources that do tell us a number of things about him. There are also several reasons why even more is not reported.” (Pg. 66-67)

He notes, “For those who content that the Gospels are dependable sources that reveal a non-divine Jesus and that Paul (and others) perverted this message, it should be mentioned here that even the synoptic Gospels reveal that Jesus claimed deity for himself. For example, he referred to himself as ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man,’ he taught that salvation was found only in himself and claimed that only he had the power to forgive sin. He certainly claimed to be in a privileged relationship with God; his usage of ‘Abba’ (Aramaic for ‘Daddy’) is a very unusual name for God and is an indication of his unique sonship, as many critical scholars admit.” (Pg. 83)

He states, “Of course, some may think that the Jewish report of the empty tomb is simply an invention of the early Christians. But such an assertion is question begging.; it merely assumes that has not been proven. Once again, we ask for the evidence for such claims.” (Pg. 128)

He lists “At least TWELVE separate facts are considered to be knowable history. (1) Jesus died by crucifixion and (2) was buried. (3) Jesus’ death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended. (4) Although not as widely accepted, many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later. Critical scholars further agree that (5) the disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Because of these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection. (7) This message was the center of preaching in the early church and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before. As a result of this preaching, (9) the church was born and grew, (10) with Sunday as the primary day of worship. (11) James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he, likewise, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.” (Pg. 158)

He argues, “Since these core historical facts … have been established by critical and historical procedures, contemporary scholars cannot reject the evidence simply by referring to ‘discrepancies’ in the New Testament texts or to its general ‘unreliability.’ Not only are such critical claims refuted by evidence discussed in other chapters, but it has been concluded that the resurrection can be historically demonstrated even when the minimum historical facts are utilized… Neither can it be said that Jesus rose spiritually, but not literally. Again, these and other such views are refuted in that the facts admitted by virtually all scholars as knowable history are adequate to historically demonstrate the literal resurrection of Jesus according to probability.” (Pg. 165-166)

Of the recent carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, he argues, “perhaps most damaging of all to the carbon dating tests, a secret dating of shroud fibers in 1981 differed from the 1988 tests by centuries, and even suggested a date that could, with the plus-minus factor, date the cloth to the first century AD! Last, a few scientists have even remarked that if the shroud image was caused by Jesus’ resurrection, the… scorch could actually have made the cloth appear younger, due to neutron flux. As a result, the 1988 carbon testing appears to be less authoritative than one might originally think. At least it is not a closed case.” (Pg. 182)

Of the famous and controversial text in Josephus about Jesus, he comments, “There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is not textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore…. This we conclude that there are good reasons for accepting this version of Josephus’ statement about Jesus, with modification of the questionable words.” (Pg. 193)

He concludes, “These three major categories of arguments for the resurrection do not exhaust the ancient evidence for this event, but they do demonstrate this fact as a literal event of history, according to normal historical methodology. This event is the final capstone and fitting conclusion for the unique life, person, teachings, and death of Jesus. In the earliest church, the resurrection served the purpose of confirming Jesus Christ’s message and providing the basis for the truth of the Christian message.” (Pg. 254-255)

This book is “must reading” for anyone studying the “historical Jesus,” as well as the resurrection.

[Jonathan Burdett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty tortuous read. As a committed Christian who has no doubt about the historicity of Jesus or the accuracy of the Biblical accounts of his life, I was expecting a lot more from this book.

The first section was a rather pointless refutation of a number of arguments against the historicity of Jesus. It read like speaker notes from the Alpha course rather than a serious consideration of the issues. And it is completely unnecessary when we could just look at the evidence itself. But we have to wait until Section 2 for that.

Section 2 contained a wafer thin assessment of some of the key evidence for Jesus and an absurdly positive reading of a lot of other evidence. Including the Turin Shroud as evidence for Jesus death and resurrection is incredible and discredits the rest of the book. The gnostic gospels are not to be trusted ... apart from the bits that confirm our beliefs, then they can be considered as evidence according to Habermas.

It would have been better to give a more thorough consideration of the more substantive evidence than try to make more of some very weak evidence.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book on the evidence concerning the actual existence of Jesus. It deals with the most well-known non-Christian sources (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.) and several others. There are many Christian and non-Christian sources within 150 years of Jesus' death and resurrection that attests to his actual, earthly existence. Good read for those interested in the historicity of Jesus.

[Kyle Deming · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/br_...

[Steve Irby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quarantine-Book #24:

I just finished "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For The Life Of Christ," by Gary Habermas (who has some killer YouTube videos on NDEs; go watch them; I believe in the blue tennis shoe).

While this may be the go-to text for evidentialist apologetics I am reading it for the historical Jesus and Christ of faith argument.

This book is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus largely concerned with pre- and nonbiblical evidences for the events. But first whats all the historical-Jesus fuss about? Exactly what Habermas spends some ink saying: since the turn of the 19th century and the establishment of Protestant Liberalism at the publishing of Schleiermacher's "On Religion" everyone spent the next ~120 years trying to say how Jesus was real but there was nothing Divine there. The previous years seeing so many sold out to Deism set the stage for Jesus to be good and historical but not God and resurrected.

Already he's adding pieces to the puzzle of theology and biblical studies which I have missed. Pannenberg and Moltmann spearheaded a revolt to the second wave of historical Jesus seekers demanding that the revelation of God had to happen in space-time history: God-Man.

Habermas tackles if Jesus ever lived. Few scholars have postulated this position. Based on two naysayers' criteria he pokes holes in this argument. Basically if you accept 1Cor as authenticity Pauline you loose because of the creed at 15:3. They accept 1 Cor as Pauline circa 55-60ad, they loose.

He spends some time beating up on Bultmann and the historians disposition to dismiss miracles a priori.

Other theories are wrecked throughout this first part of the book like the swoon theory and theories that Jesus picked up His wisdom in India or Japan. Also books which were basically fiction but sold under assumption (Holy Bolld, Holy Grail) were ripped apart. He concluded the first section by dealing with some of the faulty logic in the Jesus Seminar.

Part two deals with the historical data for the life of Jesus beginning with the scriptural creedal information and scriptural information more general. Habermas suggests that the resurrection can be established based on 1. Jesus death via Crucifixion 2. The subsequent experiences by the disciples 3. The disciples transformation and 4. Paul's conversion (minimum facts).

He moves on to archeological evidence that sheds light on the historical Jesus, which he follows up with historical non canonical sources and some post apostolic fathers' witness.

Ot was much more apologetically focused than theologically. Still a good book.

#HistoricalJesus #ChristOfFaith #Habermas

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ascertaining whether Jesus Christ actually lived and died can be something I think each person must decide for themselves. The most trustworthy documentation of course is the Holy Scriptures themselves.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” II Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I think Habermas had done a good job of documenting that the secular, historical writings do not refute what the Bible says. If Jesus Christ was not everything He claimed to be and, as such, the perfect sacrifice, then even the elect are still in our trespasses and sins.

But the greatest confirmation is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and sits at the right side of the Father.

“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” I Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭14‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[Melanie Schaab · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part I was very difficult to get through, not because it was uninteresting, but because it was so detailed and so thorough that I would forget what he was talking about and had to start the chapter over if I didn't finish that chapter in one day. However, it was very good information and, as I said, very thorough, as well as heavily referenced. Part II was very easy to get through. I spent several months on Part I and a few days on Part II. The author did an excellent job of considering alternative explanations and bringing the subject back to the important points. He occasionally uses technical language (e.g., kerygma) without defining it, leaving the layperson slightly disadvantaged. For the average layperson, I recommend primarily reading Part II.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a recent Catholic and continue to read and explore to learn more.

For half the book, the author challenges the work of other historians who denied many aspects of Jesus (his life, death, teachings, healings, and the resurrection). Perhaps this may be interesting information for me as I read other materials in the future.

What I wanted to learn was in the second part of the book - Primary Sources, archeological Sources, Ancient Christian and Non-Christian Sources. These Ancient sources also included the early fathers of the church, which was interesting.

When I consider that Jesus' apostles ran away and denied him as he was crucified, and then became (with Paul) fervent believers who were willing to share the Gospels and become martyrs. That is humbling and amazes me.

[William Corrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 50 pages (out of a total of 290 pages) deal with arguments against studying the historical Jesus. To me, with such a small amount of space to work with, this seemed an unproductive waste of time. I didnt buy the book to hear arguments for or against what the book was about. I bought it to learn about what historical evidence outside of the New Testament was available for the proof of Jesus' life and Resurrection. Thankfully, Habermas recovers from this and proceeds to actually provide said evidence. Even then though, there is a lot of repetition in this work. On top of this, each piece of evidence is briefly examined.

Overall, Id say while it's worth a read, I can barely justify the space it takes on my bookshelf.

[TJ Grant · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a dry, detailed analysis of the evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus, which is exactly what I wanted. I had no idea the evidence was so overwhelming. All the evidence from followers and foes agree that he existed. There aren't really any denials until 400 years afterward. He's well documented in Jewish records of the time. We've lost the Roman records, but we have references to them from before they were lost. Even more interesting, we have ancient scholars trying to figure out why the sun went dark for 3 hours on the afternoon of Jesus' death, and noting the earthquakes. They point out that it couldn't be an eclipse because it was a full moon, and eclipses don't last for 3 hours. Anyway, this book puts tons of sources together.

[Carrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me a while to get through this as I was genuinely studying it and not just reading through it.

Great research and knowledge has been put into this book and I genuinely recommend this to anyone who wants to know more or who has questions about the history of Jesus. This book even goes into details of the authenticity of the Gospels and other things which for me I enjoyed. 😄👏

It’s quite eye opening and is backed up with proof which is why I took my time with it.

I loved that it covered a variety of different issues and theories that have spanned over the years. I highly recommend this book.

[Javier G.-Verdugo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Libro apologético que se centra en las evidencias literarias, históricas y arqueológicas sobre la vida, muerte y resurrección de Jesús de Nazaret. Empieza con una primera parte que responde a las críticas más frecuentes, y pasa a una segunda parte en la que examina las evidencias positivas. Deja para un primer anexo una reflexión útil sobre la posibilidad del análisis histórico de llegar a conclusiones ciertas, y un segundo anexo con un resumen esquemático de todo lo que puede extraerse de las distintas evidencias.
En resumen: un gran trabajo, útil, quizá más para referencia que para lectura.

[Danny Biles · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's always been amazing to me that our pop culture has many people believing that atheism is the intellectual choice. I've been studying this issue for about four decades now, and I've come to the conclusion that Christianity is the more intellectual choice. I've come to believe that people who reject Christianity either 1) do not know the solid evidence behind it, or 2) just don't want to be Christians. A true thinking person should read books like this one, and decide for themselves which is the better choice.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book methodically goes through biblical archeological and non biblical evidence that Jesus’ life death and resurrection. Very detailed. Discussed references that denied these events and the problems with their approach

[KR · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book for studying and when needing specific facts! Well organized and very logical. A little dry for pleasure reading.

[Anonymous · Rating 5 out of 5]

Logical arguments

Well written, logically argued and worth your time if you like reading about Jesus…historical sources outside the NT are cited and discussed.

[judy weaver · Rating 3 out of 5]

covers creeds and facts, archaeological sources, ancient non-Christian sources and ancient Christian sources. almost everyone believes Jesus lived. historical fact that Jesus and the apostles lived. Apostles and Paul were Eyewitnesses. enjoyed chapter on Shroud of Turin. in 1988 shroud deemed not authentic because of carbon dating. but all evidence points to shroud being the real thing.

Michigan author

[Katherynne Boham · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book. The language is a bit dry and academic but not difficult to read or understand. I was recently asked why there were so few sources of information to verify the historical existence of Jesus and then this book came to my attention. It's not an emotionally written book and takes a very honest view of historical references to Jesus. I look forward to reading other books by Mr. Habermas.

[Jake Manning · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Habermas' book, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, he analyzes and critiques various approaches to the historical Jesus and ultimately defends the evangelical view that Jesus was, and still is, the Son of God. If one studies the Bible you will find it full of evidence for the life of Christ. Yet, Habermas believes that apologists should not stop there. Yes, Scripture is a sufficient source of knowledge for the life Jesus, but there is also pre- and extrabiblical material that contain apologetic value and therefore strengthens the case of Jesus derived from Scripture.
Rating: 4.3

[Peter Ashraf · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is so reasonable and logical .. He first stated that some of Paul's letters were authentic showing that some people quoted and/or cited or mentioned Paul's letters just a very short time after Paul meaning that they know that Paul is the real author of those letters ... And then he examined and analyzed Paul's life from his letter and how he knew Christ and changed from a church persecutor to an apostle ... This book was written in a smart way and it proved the Bible historically and in logical arguments ..

[Eclectic Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

A scholarly examination of the evidence

My husband and I read this book in order to address questions from a friend of ours about how much of the New Testament can be trusted to be Jesus’ words and teachings. This was VERY helpful and provides a solid foundation for what the Holy Spirit has already confirmed in our lives.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides a scholarly examination of the historical evidence for Jesus Christ, analyzing both Christian and non-Christian sources. It's a valuable resource for anyone interested in the historical foundations of Christianity, offering well-researched insights and addressing common questions with clarity.

[Tre Brickley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written from an evangelical Christian perspective, this book is nonetheless an excellent introduction to the issues concerning deducing the facts about Jesus of Nazareth. While I would have appreciated a more in-depth treatment of mythicists (especially the arguments of Richard Carrier) I think this book is a well-written and fairly comprehensive tome for the average inquirer.

[Luke Nix · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome book! Habermas uses the standard methods of historiography to establish the historicity of the Jesus of the Bible. Look for my full chapter by chapter review on Faithful Thinkers in the next couple weeks.

[Mikkles]

Recommended by Dr. Myatt