I’m going to do you a favor and actually repost the link from Habermas that I already cited in the post:
In this article, Habermas surveys a range of arguments about the empty tomb (including going to some specifics). He also says the following:
A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event. But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.
Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.
Now see footnote 39, where Habermas cites Craig’s Assessing the New Testament: Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (1989), page 373-374. Both Craig and Habermas also cite an older 1981 work by Jacob Kremer (Die Osterevangelien–Geschichten um Geschichte), which is apparently where most of this trend of surveying scholars regarding the empty tomb begins. Craig reports that according to Kremer, there are 28 scholars supporting listing scholars who support the historicity of the empty tomb: Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehman, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, K. Schubert, Schwank, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, Wilckens. Craig then adds more names: Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Moule, Perry, J. A. T. Robinson, Schnakenburg, and Vermes. This is a total of 45 scholars in 1989. Doesn’t directly prove the 75% claim, but it’s a pretty long list to me as a mildly interested layman.
I’m also pretty sure reading that Habermas did not merely copy Craig in his 75% figure. He does say that he has performed a more systematic survey of the literature, and I have also heard Habermas sending the complete list to people who ask him for it.