I have long thought that Dr. Gary Habermas was the best defender of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. The recent publication of two large volumes by Habermas on this issue demonstrates that my previous opinion was correct. No 21st-century skeptic can reasonably claim to have cast serious doubt on the resurrection of Jesus without dealing with the arguments of the Christian philosopher and apologist Gary Habermas.

QUOTES ON HABERMAS AND THE FIRST VOLUMES OF HIS SERIES ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

Here are some quotations (from the back covers) about his recently published volumes on the resurrection of Jesus:

This series confirms Habermas’s status as the leading voice among an increasing number of eminent scholars openly affirming the strong evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

– Craig Keener, professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary

Professor Gary Habermas has made studying the resurrection of Jesus Christ his life’s work. Probably no one else on the planet has researched or documented the relevant arguments in greater detail.

– Peter Williams, principal, Tyndale House, Cambridge, United Kingdom

After many decades of hard work and detailed scholarship, Gary Habermas is now producing a four-volume series that is and will be, to my knowledge, the most detailed treatment of this crucial subject in Christian history.

– Ben Witherington III, Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies, Asbury Theological Seminary

Reading this book is like taking a semester-length course with a master teacher on the resurrection of Jesus. This is hardly surprising given that Gary Habermas has studied the resurrection longer and more thoroughly than anyone who has ever lived.

– Robert B. Stewart, professor of philosophy and theology, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Beyond any reasonable doubt, this massive, rigorous, highly informed tome increases Dr. Gary Habermas’s standing as the world’s leading expert on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

– J.P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Dr. Habermas began his reading on the resurrection of Jesus when I was one year old. And I am sixty-one! This first volume of his magnum opus on the subject is the most comprehensive on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus ever written. Habermas is today’s top scholar on the topic.

– Michael R. Licona, professor of New Testament Studies, Houston Christian University

Keener and Witherington are excellent Evangelical Christian NT scholars. Moreland is a respected Evangelical Christian philosopher and apologist. Licona is himself a leading N.T. scholar on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus, so his statement that Habermas is “today’s top scholar” on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus should be given significant weight.

I agree with Licona’s evaluation of Habermas as the top scholar on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. I agree with Witherington’s statement that the series of volumes that Habermas is producing on the resurrection of Jesus will be “the most detailed treatment of this crucial subject in Christian history.” And I think that the comment by Williams that “Probably no one else on the planet has researched or documented the relevant arguments in greater detail.” is correct.

EXAMPLES OF THE SUPERIORITY OF HABERMAS’S DEFENSE OF THE RESURRECTION

William Lane Craig is another Christian philosopher and apologist who is widely viewed as a leading defender of the resurrection of Jesus, but his work defending the resurrection of Jesus does not even come close to the depth and quality of the case made by Gary Habermas.

For example, in his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition), Craig defends the resurrection of Jesus in Chapter 8, which starts on page 333 and ends on page 400. So, Craig’s defense of the resurrection of Jesus is provided in just one chapter that contains 68 pages. But in just the first volume of Habermas’ series on the resurrection of Jesus, there are an introduction, 24 chapters, a conclusion, and three appendixes, presented in 1,015 pages. Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus in Reasonable Faith is less than one-tenth the length of Habermas’ first volume on the resurrection of Jesus.

If we add the contents of the second volume of Habermas’ case for the resurrection of Jesus, Craig’s case is even more massively overshadowed by Habermas’ case. Volume 2 in the series by Habermas has an introduction, 19 chapters, and three appendixes, presented in a total of 854 pages. If we add the 1,015 pages of Volume 1 with the 854 pages of Volume 2, we get a total of 1,869 pages for the first two volumes by Habermas. Craig’s 68-page case for the resurrection of Jesus is less than 4% of the number of pages in those two volumes by Habermas.

Habermas and Craig are both professional philosophers who have expertise in New Testament scholarship. They both write clear and well-organized paragraphs, pages, and chapters. Craig does not have a magical ability to communicate over 1,800 pages of information and arguments in just 68 pages. Given that their ability to write argumentative prose is roughly equivalent, Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus contains only about 4% of the information that is presented in the recently published first two volumes of Habermas’ case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Let’s compare the defense of the claim that “Jesus died on the cross” made by Gary Habermas in On the Resurrection, volume 1: Evidences with Willaim Craig’s defense of this claim in Reasonable Faith.

Craig’s main argument for the resurrection of Jesus is based upon just three historical claims (see Reasonable Faith, p360):

1. The tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion.

2. Various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive.

3. The first disciples came to sincerely believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

This short list of historical claims has a HUGE and fairly obvious GAP. Craig left out one of the most basic historical claims needed to establish the resurrection of Jesus:

4. Jesus was crucified and he died on the cross on the same day he was crucified.

Apart from establishing claim (4), Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus would completely FAIL. Because Craig’s main argument for the resurrection of Jesus is based on just the first three historical claims listed above, his case for the resurrection of Jesus clearly FAILS.

Craig is about the only Christian apologist who does not understand that he must first establish that Jesus died on the cross, in order to have any hope of showing that Jesus rose from the dead. As the Christian apologist Norman Geisler rightly stated:

Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die.

(When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, p.120)

Craig says very little in support of the historical claim that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross, because he does not understand that this claim is absolutely crucial to any case for the resurrection of Jesus.

However, when Craig discusses the Swoon Theory (also called the Apparent Death Theory), he does very briefly argue for the claim that Jesus died on the cross. Craig only writes about one page on the Swoon Theory (p.373-374), and only four sentences in that discussion provide reasons for the claim that Jesus died on the cross. It would be absurd to believe that someone has established the historical claim that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross in just four sentences. It is clear that Craig did NOT pull off any such miracle in his book Reasonable Faith.

On the other hand, we have Volume 1 of Gary Habermas’s series On the Resurrection. In that book, Habermas devotes an entire chapter, Chapter 9, to presenting evidence and arguments in support of the claim that Jesus died on the cross. Chapter 9 begins on page 283 and ends on page 365. So the case that Habermas makes in support of this crucial historical claim is presented in 83 pages of On the Resurrection, volume 1: Evidences. Craig wrote about 1/7 of a page arguing for the death of Jesus by crucifixion, but Habermas wrote 83 pages arguing for the death of Jesus by crucifixion. So, Craig’s case for Jesus’ death on the cross is less than 1% of the length of Habermas’ case for Jesus’ death on the cross. There is no comparison between the four sentences written by Craig and the 83 pages written by Habermas. Craig’s effort on this crucial point is a joke.

The same point goes for Craig’s criticism of the Swoon Theory. No case for the resurrection can be successful if it fails to show that the Swoon Theory is false (or highly improbable). So, if Craig has not show that the Swoon Theory was false (or highly improbable), then Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS. But Craig wrote only about one page of arguments against the Swoon Theory in Reasonable Faith.

Compare that to the critique of the Swoon Theory presented by Habermas in Volume 2 of his series On the Resurrection. Once again, Habermas devotes an entire chapter, Chapter 11, to criticisms of the Swoon Theory. Chapter 11 begins on page 469 and ends on page 505. So, the case Habermas makes against the Swoon Theory is presented in 37 pages. Thus, Craig’s case against the Swoon Theory is less than 3% of the length of Habermas’ case against the Swoon Theory.

Craig is thought by many to be a leading Christian apologist on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus, but his case for the resurrection is only 68 pages, compared to the 1,869 pages in the case for the resurrection by Habermas presented in the first two volumes of his series On the Resurrection. Craig does not understand that in order to establish the resurrection of Jesus, he must first establish that Jesus was crucified and that Jesus died on the cross. Habermas, by contrast, not only understands that he must establish those historical claims but he presents an entire chapter consisting of 83 pages of evidence and arguments in support of this crucial historical point. Finally, Craig writes only about one page of criticism of the Swoon Theory, but Habermas devotes an entire chapter to making a case against the Swoon Theory. For these reasons, Craig’s effort to establish the resurrection of Jesus FAILs, and his case for the resurrection is clearly not in the same league with the case for the resurrection presented by Habermas in his new series of books On the Resurrection.

MY CONCLUSION ABOUT HABERMAS

Gary Habermas is the best defender of the resurrection of Jesus, by far. His recent volumes in the series On the Resurrection stand head-and-shoulders above the efforts of all previous Christian apologists.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CONCLUSION

Because Gary Habermas is the best defender of the resurrection of Jesus, the FAILURE of the case made by Habermas in On the Resurrection would provide a powerful reason to believe that NOBODY ever has established that God raised Jesus from the dead.

My view is that Habermas’ attempt to prove the death of Jesus on the cross FAILS, and that Habermas’ attempt to refute the Swoon Theory also FAILS. Thus, I conclude that the attempt by Habermas to establish the resurrection of Jesus in On the Resurrection FAILS. If that is so, then we have very good reason to believe that NOBODY has ever established that God raised Jesus from the dead.