A Review of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. By Gary R. Habermas and Michael L. Licona. Grand Rapids, MI. Kregel Publishers; 352 pages.

In the midst of countless intellectual assaults upon the historical tenets of Christian Orthodoxy that have taken place within the past few decades, there have arisen a few substantive and noteworthy texts that attempt to defend the veracity of such historical events as the Resurrection, the core of the Christian message (1 Cor. 15:14-17). One cannot help but think of The Son Rises written by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig or the hallmark historical work The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright. Yet, while being of immeasurable value, neither of these are quite as balanced in being both stereoscopic in their approach and accessible for the layperson as The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael L. Licona.
The book itself is divided into four major sections. While somewhat brief, Part One deals with the importance of the Resurrection as a crucial issue and an antecedent and causal issue to sharing the gospel. Further detail is given concerning the principles that historians commonly use in order to arrive at a cogent conclusion.
Part Two begins the task of explaining the popular “minimal facts approach” utilized by the authors and employed by numerous apologists. The idea here is that there should not be attached any unnecessary baggage to the Christian message when arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection. Thus, they consider only those claims that are accepted by virtually every single scholar, regardless of religious persuasion, that seriously studies the subject. This common ground acts as a sort of leverage or foundation. Once it can be shown that the best explanation of these facts is the bodily resurrection of Christ the task is done…well, almost.
The logical flow of the book leads to the critique of opposing theories in Part Three. What is unique and quite impressive concerning this work is the sheer amount of rival theories that are covered. The usual theories covered in other such books are mentioned (legend, non-historical genre, resurrection in other religions, fraud theory, wrong tomb, hallucination, vision, etc.) but others not treated elsewhere do not go unnoticed (gospel discrepancies, biased testimony, lack of records, historical agnosticism, alien theory and naturalism). These mentioned are not exhaustive of those covered and thus further illustrate the comprehensive nature of the text.
Part Four contains “other Issues” that are relevant and helpful for those attempting to become acquainted with related requisite information. The arguments presented are sound and great care has been taken to make them accessible to the reader. Such issues include the nature of the resurrection body, Jesus’ view of himself, God’s involvement and “the art of sharing”.
Finally, any review of this book would not be complete if there were no sort of commendation for the extra work performed in order to truly make it a tool for learning. The book includes a CD that is aimed at helping the reader test the knowledge they might have gained from the text. Furthermore, for those individuals that might want to participate in the dissemination of the truth of the Resurrection there is a detailed outline of all the arguments presented in the book and an extensive bibliography. This is intended to help facilitate teachers that might use this as a text in a classroom setting. This book should be, and for good reason, a text used by many to present the Christian faith as a historically viable option! Thanks Gary and Mike!

2 Responses to A Review of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

  1. John says:

    What do we really know about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago — or yesterday afternoon for that matter!
    This essay provides a spiritually informed perspective on the myth of “jesus”.
    1. http://www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm#idol

    In Truth we cant even account for our own (seeming) presence and appearance here.
    What are we?
    Where are we?
    Where is the “world”?
    These 3 related essays provide an Illuminated understanding of what we are and our inherent (latent) potential.
    2. http://www.dabase.net/dualsens.htm
    3. http://www.dabase.net/unique.htm
    4. http://www.dabase.net/dht7.htm

  2. Clint says:


    I began to read the first article you suggested and it said:

    “The popular Myth of Jesus is an Idol of mass religion. It was created by the exoteric Christian Church, when it moved to legitimize itself in the eyes of the secular State of Rome. That Idol is worshipped by popular belief, and many have been and continue to be deluded and oppressed by the Cult of that Idol.”

    On the very same standard of your historical agnosticism (or the ineffibility of historical knowledge) the author of this article cannot make these claims (how does he know these assertions?). Thus, I am not sure why you would want to reccomend this article to me. Is it b/c it is spiritually informing? But on your view how can you even assert something to be spiritually informing if you can’t even know that we can “account for our own (seeming presence) and appearance?” In other words, to what is this article spiritually informing…a spirit (that exists)?

    Further you say, “In Truth”. On your view can (T)ruth exist? I am not asserting here, I am curious as to your view. Please inform me so I can make a more informed assessment.

    I appreciate your comment and further dialogue. I will try and address the other 3 articles later, but right now I have to go to class.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: