[.ca] The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of ... (ISBN 0899007325)

A good addtion to the apologist's library.:
This was the first work I have ever read by Habermas, and I must say that I enjoyed his writing style. Although it may seem dry to some readers, I enjoy his approach of laying out the facts in a clear and concise manner. He doesn't waste much time going off on tangents, but he sticks to the topic at hand and offers a great collection of evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as depicted in scriptures. One thing I really enjoyed about this book was Habermas' effort to critique just about every single theory that differs significantly from the Biblical account. He even deals with theories that most people laugh off as a joke, and I thank Habermas for his completeness. No matter how bizarre, every theory must be answered eventually, and Habermas is the man for the job as he consistently and efficiently demolishes wacky theories of an alternate Christ. This book also contains a discussion about the Shroud of Turin which I found very good. Habermas is careful not to be dogmatic about the issue, but he actually lays out a good case for the Shroud being actual physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Other interesting sections include a discussion of the secular references to Jesus and a discussion about early creedal statements found in the New Testament. Also, this work is heavily referenced, which means that the interested reader can follow up on some of Habermas' points, which is something I would like to do in the future. As it stands now, however, I feel that The Historical Jesus is a solid apologetic work for the intermediate apologist or for the sincere intellectual seeker.

Some of the worst apologetics out there:
For my full review of this book, do a Google search for "Review of Habermas" by Peter Kirby. On p. 10, Habermas writes, "The present volume is another puzzle piece in the overall topic, but a piece that can stand alone in producing a crucially significant element in the total case for the resurrection." It is clear that Habermas is not content in arguing merely that there was some historical Jesus, although Habermas does mount such an argument in some portions of the book. The mere acceptence of the historicity of Jesus is not sufficient, as Habermas seeks to convince the reader of the resurrection of Jesus and, ultimately, of the truth of Christian faith. Unfortunately, the book is a failure in that regard. I can give two examples of the specious arguments made by Habermas within the confines of this review. Habermas writes on an inscription about tomb robbing (p. 176): "In 1878 a marble slab measuring approximately fifteen by twenty-four inches was discovered at Nazareth, describing itself as an 'ordinance of Caesar.'" However, Richard Carrier writes, "the inscription's origin is not clearly known. It was found in the collection of a man named Fröhner when it was donated to the Paris National Library in 1925. His notes on the item state nothing more than 'Dalle de marbre envoyée de Nazareth en 1878.' That's it. This translates as 'Slab of marble sent from Nazareth in 1878.' Zulueta observes that this does not say "found" in Nazareth (découverte à), but sent from there, and it has been shown that Fröhner's 'notes on the provenance of his treasures are very exact,' thus he can be counted on to have chosen his words carefully." It is highly unlikely that the slab was originally posted in the tiny village of Nazareth. Habermas writes (p. 177): "Upon examination, Claudius could well have discovered the Christian teaching that Jesus had risen from the dead and may also have heard the Jewish report that the disciples stole the body." On the other hand, Carrier argues: "Note the details here that require explanation: (1) the law is prefaced by a reference to the importance of family burial cult, and thus the motivation for the law seems to have been a grievance against those who were depriving people of the right to pay cult to their dead ancestors, a circumstance that has little connection with the supposed case of the missing body of Jesus; (2) the first thing it aims at preventing is not the taking of bodies, but the moving of entire tombs and graves, which makes no sense as a concern that would arise from the mere theft of a body; (3) the second thing it prohibits is the destroying of tombs, which again makes no sense in the case of the empty tomb story; (4) the edict goes out of its way to mention a worry that body-snatchers are stealing bodies to do injury to them, which again makes no sense as a concern that would arise from the empty tomb account; (5) the law goes out of its way to prohibit stealing a doorstone, yet none of the empty tomb accounts mention the stone being carried off, and it is not clear what this would even have to do with that case; (6) then the law prohibits switching stones, which likely refers not only to doorstones but to all stones, since the actual word for doorstone is used in the previous section while the generic 'stone' is used here, and this is very likely a law against taking a stone from a tomb's walls or alcoves, in order to use it elsewhere, and perhaps putting in its place an inferior stone, a worry that has no link at all with the story of Jesus' tomb, and thus begs for an explanation." For the reasons of provenance and content, the attempt made by Habermas to connect this inscription to early Christianity can be judged a failure. The other example is the Shroud of Turin. Yes, Habermas is a Shroudie and has two other books devoted to the subject. Habermas objects to the 1988 carbon dating tests. He writes (p. 182): "For example, various cloth samples with known dates were pretested by a number of major laboratories, but achieved incorrect dates of up to many centuries!" Habermas provides no details. In fact, the greatest variation was of three hundred years in the five measurements made by Arizona (but not the other two labs) on the two thousand year old Egyptian linen. Obviously, this is no basis on which to claim that all three laboratories could have gotten results that were a mere third as old as the actual date of the Shroud. There remains a 95% confidence that the material was manufactured between 1262 and 1388 CE. Habermas writes (p. 182): "With regard to the shroud sampling itself, the material was not taken from three different locations, but came from the same portion of the material, known as 'Raes Corner.' Although this is the most contaminated section of the famous cloth, there was an absence of controlled recognition and removal of contaminants." This last statement is false, as the cloth underwent a standard treatment to remove contaminants in preparation for the carbon dating tests. Even so, the amount of bacteria that would have to be included with the cloth is 60% of the total mass for the test to show the material to be as young as it is. The test could only be faulted if this section of the Turin Shroud had been added at a later date than the rest; but if there was any such addition to the shroud, it is entirely invisible. Habermas even throws in some nonsense about "a secret dating of the shroud fibers in 1982" (p. 182). Habermas totally bungled in his treatment of these two artifacts, and the rest of the book doesn't get much better.

Historically accurate using mostly secular sources:
To fully understand this book and the reviews posted here one must comprehend that in modern day world there are three distinct groups that research the bible they can be broken down as follows 1 The Christians (Those people who believe that the bible is the word of god of which Gary Habermas would fall under) 2 The Liberal Scholars (This group is made up of people who are trying to show that the bible is completely wrong and man made and in some cases that Jesus was not a historical figure.) 3 The Secular Historians (The largest of the three groups whose goal seems to be historical accuracy without commenting on the theistic aspect, they virtually unanimously agree that Jesus Christ did exist and probably preformed miracles although they label them as magic and was considered to be either the son of god or a great prophet.) What is surprising about this book is that while it is written by a Christian to help forward his Christian beliefs it is quite obvious that the author has stuck mostly to the work of the Secular Historians. In some cases he has erred on the liberal side of the secular historians sometimes not presenting the cases as strongly as one would think he could. This raises an interesting point in reviewing this book. While I would think that he would rely solely on Christian sources he does not, instead he proves his point in a highly convincing way using Secular sources. I applaud the author and I hope that more of the naysayers and negative reviewers could be so truthful. It would be interesting to see if a liberal scholar could uphold their position using only secular sources. I doubt it, but I don't think they would even try. Anyhow back to this book, I found it fair, historically accurate, slightly dated, but then again any book dealing with history is dated as soon as it is written and best of all enjoyable for those who are non-Christians but enjoy history.

Great book! You must buy this one!:
Wow! Great book, Great author! This man is awesome, I have seen some of his debates with top atheists, they can't seem to counter his arguments. I have read some of the more negative reviews of this book and they make me wonder if they read it at all. I don't think that Dr. Habermas would exactly tremble at any of the objections raised in these reviews! If you want to listen to some of these debates I was talking about paste this: http://www.johnankerberg.com/TV/ankjasrd.html Then look for 'Did Jesus raise from the dead' this particular debate is with one of the top atheists, Dr. Antony Flew. I must say, Dr. Habermas did quite well in this debate and after listening to him I think you might realize that some of the objections raised here might not have as much validity as you think, but if you do still cling to them I suggest mailing them to someone who is going to debate Dr. Habermas and see your objection lasts 2 minutes. I'm sorry if I seem harsh,it's just that I'm sick and tired of people who don't know what they're saying, taking cheap shots in their reviews of books written by very smart men who could tear their arguments to shreds! PLEASE NOTE I'm not just talking to Atheists/Skeptics ect., but Christians, when you review, say, an Atheist's or a Muslim's book, do it honestly! I know this is should be a review, not a lecture. I'm sorry. But at any rate, read this book honestly and give it an honest review with your biases out of the way! God bless you all

A Decent Book for a Conservative:
Habermas does a decent job of providing some evidence for Christianity. On the positive side, this book often provides good aurguments either for Christianity or against it's opponents. The downside is Habermas is often inconsitent and after "establishing the credibility of the NT" he uses it as a source supporting his position quite often. Based on the title you would expect a much deeper look into non-canonical sources. The author is also guilty of both making assumptions and a priori conclusions, two problems he often points out (coreectly) in other. Since I consider myself a moderate, i feel that this book is a good addition to my library as it provides a good balance to book by liberal authors such as John Dominic Crossan who are guilty of the same problems as Habermas (primarily focusing on the conclusion rather than the facts). If you are looking for a more scholarly work I would suggest N.T. Wright.