The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas & Licona - Part 3: Case Summaries

AN OUTLINE OF THEIR CASE

In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: CRJ), Gary Habermas and Michael Licona provide a detailed outline of their case on pages 219 to 247.  That is a 29-page outline, so there are lots of details.  But here are just the top two levels of that outline:

Because I'm limiting the total content of this series of posts to about 20 pages, I cannot cover all of these topics.  In Section I (Introductory Information), I have previously touched on (a).  I will skip over (b), but will cover (c) and (d) in this current post.

Because Section II (The Facts) is basically their positive case, I will cover all of that section.

There are many alternative theories discussed in Section III (Opposing Theories), so I will not be able to discuss all of them in this brief series of posts, but will discuss three or four alternative theories. This section also includes replies to various objections, and I will probably cover a few, but not all, of those objections and replies.

For Section IV (Other Issues), I will cover (a) and (c), but not (b) or (e). If I have enough space, I might cover a few of the objections discussed in (d).

THE MINIMAL FACTS APPROACH

Habermas and Licona use a "minimal facts approach" to the issue of the resurrection of Jesus:

This approach considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones....Most facts we use meet two criteria: They are well evidenced and nearly every scholar accepts them.     (CRJ, page 44)

An important motivation for using this approach is to avoid getting side-tracked into questions about the historical reliability of the Gospels and other New Testament writings. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR JESUS' RESURRECTION

Habermas and Licona summarize their case on pages 75-76, 149, 207 to 209, and 220.  Here is the summary they give in the Appendix (CRJ, page 220):

1. Jesus' disciples sincerely believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them.

2. External evidence and events support the authenticity of their belief in his resurrection: the conversion of the church persecutor Paul, the conversion of the skeptic James, and the empty tomb. 

3. Since no plausible opposing theories exist that can account for the historical facts, Jesus' resurrection is the only plausible explanation.

Also, the Appendix (CRJ, pages 219 to 247) provides a summary of CRJ and the case that it contains. 

THE (ALLEGED) FACTS (4+1)

Their case is supposedly based primarily on four "minimal facts" plus one other fact that comes close to meeting the criteria for being a minimal fact.  The four "minimal facts" are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion. (CRJ, pages 48 to 50)

2. Jesus' disciples sincerely believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them. (CRJ, pages 50 to 63)

3. The church persecutor Paul suddenly converted to Christianity. (CRJ, pages 64 to 66)

4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, suddenly converted to Christianity (CRJ, pages 67 to 69)

The fifth alleged "fact" is this:

5. The tomb where Jesus had been buried was found to be empty. (CRJ, pages 69 to 74). 

Although (5) is not accepted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, Habermas and Licona believe there is strong evidence for it, and that it is "accepted as a fact of history by an impressive majority of critical scholars." (CRJ, page 70).