Rating: 
Summary: Some of the worst apologetics out there
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A Decent Book for a Conservative
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Even-handedness Is Always Persuasive
Review: Habermas provides evidence that a man named Jesus really did live in Palestine in the first century, using the ordinary canons of historical research (artifactual evidence, inscriptional evidence, and literary evidence). Because Habermas concludes that Jesus was a real person in history, many atheists will be offended by this book (as evidenced by the negative reviews). However, the evidence that Jesus lived is actually better than the evidence that Mark Antony or Cleopatra lived. In one long negative review of this book, the reviewer embraced many statements by skeptics and critics exercising much less critical discernment than he used in evaluating the book. Also, the reviewer made statements like "it is virtually universal" when the statement being made actually is not. Do not be put off by negative reviews. Read this book and make up your mind for yourself. Another book on the same topic is Josh McDowell, "He Walked Among Us." Try stacking up the evidence these two books provide against, say, whether Mark Antony ever really existed. (E.g., were the ancient people that wrote about Mark Antony's life either eyewitnesses of Mark Antony, or did they at least have access to people who were eyewitnesses? This kind of corroboration in ancient history is rare indeed, but that is precisely the kind of corrobation one finds in both the Gospels and Paul). Of course, there will never be a debate about Mark Antony because there isn't as much at stake. Keep this in mind when you read negative reviews. Neither negative reviews nor positive ones are completely objective, a fact that is clearly evident in both types of reviews for this book.
Rating:
Summary: Let's stick to the facts...
Review: Habermas shows the difference between honest literary/historical investigation & bias proclamations. He's not afraid to take on skeptics, meeting their hypotheses head-on. He not only details opposing viewpoints, but provides heavily footnoted sources to back up his argument that Jesus is not a myth "created" by man, but a real man whose "historical" life is "reported" with so much evidence that it's hard to ignore. In several other book reviews, I noticed skeptics (giving poor reviews) don't meet Habermas' facts head-on. Instead, they fall far short by countering his well-documented thesis with bold opinions they can't back up with evidence. For instance, one reviewer wrote "How can we evaluate the evidence for Jesus? Our best account is the Gospel of Mark, written thirty years after Jesus died. ... Once Christians started mourning Jesus, historians recorded the movement. Does that mean Jesus was real? Okay, but it doesn't mean the Resurrection was real, or that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. All of these mythical touches were invented after Jesus died, so he could "predict" events that happened between the time he died and the time the Gospels were composed. All of this leads us to the conclusion that there is no real evidence whether Jesus actually lived or not. The story is what sold, and the story isn't true." What he fails to see is his own account contradicts his claim, and proves false itself. According to his own words, Mark, our "best account" (of Jesus' life) was written "30 years after Jesus died;" thus putting Mark written c.60-63AD, since scholars (even skeptics) agree Jesus' death was around 30-33AD. The reviewer says that doesn't prove Jesus was able to make predictions, which he claims were "mythical touches" invented after Jesus died and prior to the written Gospels. But he fails to see the mathematically logical problem with his thesis; how is it that Jesus' prediction of the Temple destruction is recorded in MARK's Gospel, which was written years before the predicted event? MARK 13:2 "And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down." Even the reviewer admits the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, a known historical fact not seriously challenged by anyone, but he fails to explain why it was recorded as prophesied by Jesus in Mark, which he admits is our "best source" written in 60-63AD, at least 7 years beforehand!!! Sorry--even reviewers must back up their claims with evidence! This IS what Habermas does well. Don't just take bold statements as fact; compare it with the evidence and see if it can still stand up to the beating. Habermas confronts opposing hypotheses. He doesn't shy away from stating when the evidence is weak nor when it is overwhelmingly strong. Those who read Habermas' book with an open mind, will see and appreciate the honest research that went into this book, and maybe even come to see the historical truthfulness of Jesus. Don't let negative/skeptical reviews deter you; Read the book for yourself and decide. Personally, I've added Habermas' book to my library with other great apologetic books, which I highly recommend: Jesus, The Great Debate by Grant Jeffrey, Letters From a Skeptic by Dr Gregory Boyd, and The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.
Rating:
Summary: Please! Faith and historical research don't mix well...
Review: It's not easy to talk about Jesus. The reason is that Jesus is a religious figure, revered by some and reviled by other. No matter what, though, you get a reaction out of him. Any discussion you have of Jesus will reflect one of two opinions you have: you believe Jesus is the Messiah or you do not. Whatever your opinion is will color your argument. Having said that, it is important to look for the historical Jesus. Did he live? Did he die? When? Where was he born? All these things are important not because we don't know the answers, but because Christianity claims to be historical faith based on the historical actions of an historical person. Those who would lambaste Christianity have decided the best way to do it is through Jesus; if he didn't exist, then neither does Christianity. That's why it is important to see someone like Hanabars look at the historical Jesus, but as a believer and scholar, as opposed to an agnostic scholar or worse. However, no matter how much evidence we find for or against, Jesus still has to be looked at in faith because without faith, it is impossible to please G-d.
Rating: 
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: The title and subtitle of this book suggest that the author will be presenting extra-Biblical sources to support the gospels and subsequent books of the New Testament. I was very disappointed with what I found. The author, in fact, states in his introduction that the Bible is to be taken as a completely reliable and accurate source of information about Jesus, and we are not to suppose that the Bible actually needs any outside sources to back it up. I can only ask, then, why Mr. Habermas bothered to write further. The only answer I could come up with was that Habermas wants not to prove the Bible true, but to prove other evidence or theories wrong in light of scripture. Most of the book proceeds in this fashion. Various evidence and ideas about who Jesus was are put forward, carefully reconstructed by the author to give us a clear picture of what this person thought or what that group believed. Then, in one or two sentences, he dismisses these things because they are not supported by the Bible. Often he will go on to quote the scripture that "disproves" the evidence or theory, and that's that. On to the next one. I will give this two stars because the book has one redeeming quality. If you skip the author's opinions and Biblical denouncements, you can find brief and succinct overviews of many of the ideas that have cropped up over the centuries about the identity and history of Christ. These actually prove fascinating to read and the author provides plenty of bibilographical data for us to go look up these other sources. On the whole, however, I cannot recommend this book to anyone who seriously wants to study history, archaeology, the church, or even Jesus. It simply does not live up to its titles.
Rating: 
Summary: More like 3.5 stars
Review: This book is a mixed bag, some good, some not so good. Habermas divides the book into 2 basic sections. The first section discusses the relevance, practicality, and even possibility of studying the historical Jesus. This section includes critiques of various strains of thought in this area, including a section examining the Jesus Seminar's alleged quest for the historical Jesus. The conclusion reached is that a sincere search for the historical Jesus is very possible and also relevant, but that not all of the 'searches' that have been and are being conducted are of equal intellectual and scholarly value. The second section of the book looks at various historical and non New Testament sources and what these sources say about the historical Jesus. The conclusion of this section is that contrary to claims that Jesus Christ is barely mentioned outside the New Testament, that Jesus Christ is in fact one of the more documented historical figures of ancient times. Both sections have positives and negatives. The first section is pretty good in evaluating the possibility that historical facts about Jesus are attainable and are worth attaining. But I found many of his critiques of various attempts to 'uncover' the historical Jesus to be too surface level. This section could have been improved upon greatly, but it also seemed like Habermas was trying to conduct the minimalist examination possible in order to set the stage for the second section. The result is a first section that doesn't dig nearly deep enough. To be fair, Habermas does refer the readers to other sources which explore some of the topics he did not explore in greater detail. The reader would be wise to examine these sources, since Habermas, in my opinion, glossed over a number of important issues. The second section was better than the first section. I thought that Habermas did a good job of demonstrating that many critical facts about the historical Jesus are attainable from non New Testament sources of ancient times, and that almost all of these sources confirm the accounts in the New Testament. This not only demonstrates that the historical Jesus is knowable and was known enough that critical facts about Him and the early church were documented in a number of preserved secular writings of the time, it also provides the Christian with formidable evidence that the New Testament accounts of Jesus and the attitudes about Jesus that were held by the early church are historical and authentic. This is of fundamental importance. Folks who reject Christianity on intellectual grounds, one way or the other, have to try to discredit the authenticity of the Bible in order to make their case. If they can't do that, then their rejection of Christianity is no longer an intellectual objection, but an emotional one - which can also be countered by the Christian through speaking the truth in love and asking the Holy Spirit to change that person's heart. I thought that Habermas put forth a pretty good case that ancient writings external to the New Testament confirm the accuracy of many tenets discussed in the New Testament. And while this does not automatically guarantee that the Bible is accurate and infallible, it helps make the case as part of a larger argument. The downside of section 2 was Habermas's qualified reliance on a few questionable sources. To his credit, he does clearly say at several points that the sources he uses are not of equal value in a historical context. But nonetheless, he does rely on at least a couple of questionable sources, albeit qualifiedly, in making the case for a knowable historical Jesus. Overall, the book is good for as far as it goes, and in a couple of important areas, I think Habermas's analysis is fairly thorough. But in a number of other areas, Habermas glosses over important points, and tends to rely far too much on scholarly consensus instead of conducting his own analysis. As he himself says in the early part of the book, a certain proposition isn't automatically right just because a number of scholars may have signed on to it, it is either right, wrong, or still in question based on the analytical reasons in support or against the proposition. Yet, Habermas then relies heavily on scholarly consensus throughout much of the book as opposed to presenting the very kind of detailed analytical argument he insists needs to be done in order to weigh the viability of the assertion. This is a major weakness of the book, and footnoting other sources doesn't adequately compensate for it. In conclusion, I think Habermas had a very specific goal in mind when he wrote the book - to conduct a quest for the historical Jesus. Unfortunately, such a quest requires an exhaustive exploration into the authenticity and veracity of many different sources, including the New Testament, and of competing quests. In Habermas's quest for the historical Jesus, many of these critical and necessary 'side roads' were glossed over, presumably because he felt he could reference other books and resources. And while he does do a good job of this, I was left with the impression that fundamentally important aspects of this issue were not covered well. As such, Habermas creates a self imposed ceiling on the relevance of his book, which didn't have to happen. A good resource, but clearly one that has to be a part of a much larger library of resources that deal with the issues that Habermas did not deal with extensively.
Rating:
Summary: Worth the purchase
Review: This is not the most exhaustive book on the evidence for Jesus, but it is certainly worthy of note, especially for the interested layman. His brief examination of the Shroud may hurt his case for some people, but it made me pay attention and put books on the Shroud on my reading list. In any case, I heartily recommend the purchase of this book, especially for those who are just starting out.
Rating:
Summary: A good addtion to the apologist's library.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Historically accurate using mostly secular sources
Review: 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.
|
