The question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection has been repeatedly probed, investigated and debated. And the results have varied widely. Perhaps some now regard this issue as the burned-over district of New Testament scholarship. Could there be any new and promising approach to this problem? Yes, answers Michael Licona. And he convincingly points us to a significant deficiency in approaching this question: our historiographical orientation and practice. So he opens this study with an extensive consideration of historiography and the particular problem of investigating claims of miracles. This alone is a valuable contribution. But then Licona carefully applies his principles and methods to the question of Jesus' resurrection. In addition to determining and working from the most reliable sources and bedrock historical evidence, Licona critically weighs other prominent hypotheses. His own argument is a challenging and closely argued case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. Any future approaches to dealing with this "prize puzzle" of New Testament study will need to be routed through
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Licona has tackled his subject energetically, with near-obsessive thoroughness....I am not aware of any scholar who has previously offered such a thorough and fair-minded account of the historiographical prolegomena to the resurrection question." Richard B. Hays, Duke Divinity School
"Michael Licona's thorough study of beliefs in Jesus' resurrection is to be recommended, since it is informed of the social sciences, ancient data, . . . attends to the New Testament witnesses and engages most of the recent discussions. He rightly argues that the early Christians did not interpret Jesus' resurrection in a metaphorical or poetic sense to the exclusion of a literal event that had occurred to his corpse." (James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary)
"At first glance this book is very provocative even for a theologian who is convinced that the Easter faith is based on an authentic encounter with God. But at second glance I became aware that Michael Licona is not dealing with the 'resurrection faith' but more modestly with the 'resurrection hypothesis'--in other words, with those aspects of the resurrection faith that are accessible to historical arguments. It is fascinating to follow his arguments step by step in his investigation of the resurrection of Jesus as a unique event in history. I once learned that historiography is limited to events with analogies, immanent causality and sources that must be criticized. These are, according to Ernst Troeltsch, the great theologian and philosopher of historicism, the three principles of modern historical research. Must we revise these principles? Must we reformulate them? Perhaps! In any case, it is refreshing to be confronted with quite another approach that evaluates carefully the historical data, discusses respectfully the arguments of opponents and demonstrates a humility concerning the results, claiming only historical degrees of plausibility for its own hypothesis. Many arguments are valuable also for readers who do not agree. It is a necessary book, and I recommend it to all who are interested in a responsible way to interpret the Bible and the Christian faith." (Gerd Theissen, University of Heidelberg)
"With impressive erudition, Licona marshals all possible evidence of Jesus' resurrection and considers its significance in a careful, methodical way. He then compares several alternative explanations of the disciples' faith in the resurrection, judging them according to important criteria, and concludes that Jesus' bodily resurrection provides the best explanation of their conviction, and so is worthy of belief. This is an astonishing achievement and a major contribution to the ongoing debate. It is clearly written and full of fresh insights and arguments that will enrich discussion for years to come." (C. Behan McCullagh, author of The Logic of History)
"Licona has tackled his subject energetically, with near-obsessive thoroughness. He concludes that if one approaches the sources without an a priori commitment to the impossibility of resurrection, the 'Resurrection Hypothesis' is the interpretation that most adequately accounts for the evidence. Thus, the book boldly challenges the naturalistic presuppositions of post-Enlightenment historical criticism. At the very least, Licona has shown that the usual naturalistic explanations of the resurrection tradition are, on the whole, weak, speculative and often tendentious. "I am not aware of any scholar who has previously offered such a thorough and fair-minded account of the historiographical prolegomena to the resurrection question. Furthermore, Licona's discussion of the 'bedrock' historical evidence is appropriately nuanced and carefully modulated, not claiming more than can be supported by the consensus findings of qualified scholars. This lends credibility to his conclusions. Licona has presented a fair and vigorous case for his position. No doubt many readers will be unconvinced by his arguments, but no one can accuse him of naiveté or of ignoring counterarguments. "This study spans fields that are too rarely brought into conversation: New Testament studies and historiographical theory. Licona is to be commended for this undertaking and for producing a study that has both wide range and significant depth." (Richard B. Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament and dean, Duke Divinity School)
"No episode in the life of anyone in history is more important than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Vehemently denied or vigorously defended, it has intrigued the world for twenty centuries. A host of scholars have addressed the phenomenon, so what more could be said? In The Resurrection of Jesus, Michael Licona tells us indeed. In brilliant detail, he begins with the anomaly that I, as an ancient historian, have noted for years: that secular historians often have a much higher regard for the New Testament as source material than do many theologians and scholars of religion. The latter tend to overlay their research with preconceived and hopelessly subjective opinions, often ignoring the basic rules of historiography. Licona corrects all this in showing how the research and writing of history ought to be done objectively, especially in dealing with Jesus. I warmly commend this book to all who want to know if the resurrection of Jesus really happened." (Paul L. Maier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University)
"The most important event in the story of Christian beginnings is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was widely believed by his followers to be the Messiah of Israel and the very Son of God. Their conviction that Jesus was such a being was confirmed by the resurrection. Without the resurrection of Jesus there really are no grounds for Christian faith. Consequently, there is no topic more important than this one and this is why Michael Licona's book on the resurrection of Jesus is so welcome. Licona demonstrates expertise in every field that is germane to the question. He knows the philosophical arguments inside and out, as well as the relevant historical, biblical, cultural and archaeological data. This is the book for believers and skeptics alike." (Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, Nova Scotia, Canada)
"Treatments of the resurrection from various angles have become fairly common in recent years, though careful assessments are rare. But efforts that place the resurrection of Jesus against the meticulous backdrop of historiographical principles are perhaps the rarest of all. The brilliance of Mike Licona's approach is his attempt to look far beyond his own discipline of New Testament studies in an effort to develop a rigorous method by which he could analyze and evaluate a historical claim such as the resurrection. His approach is original, and accompanied by painstaking honesty regarding the prospects of arriving at the best answer on this matter. Those who take the time to work through the various conclusions will, in my opinion, be rewarded by a cautious, thorough and painstaking study that could scarcely be outdone. I can vouch for the extent of Mike's gut-wrenching level of soul-searching before and during this time of study, and can attest that it was a real effort to come to grips with a final conclusion, wherever that might lead. There is no question that the reader is the one who will benefit from this process. This is simply required reading for anyone who wants to master this subject." (Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University and Theological Seminary)
"What Licona calls a new historiographical approach is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is an old, time-honored approach still found among the great majority of historians. What is new is the application of genuine, rigorous historical investigation--methods and theories as defined by professional historians, not biblical scholars--to the question of whether Jesus was raised from the dead. He leaves no stone unturned in his examination of the evidence, and engages those with different views fairly yet with a tour de force that unmasks their lack of explanatory adequacy concerning the resurrection. "The book is clear and logical, written in an irenic, respectful tone, yet with passion, self-criticism and an engaging style. In short, Licona models what a true historian should do as he investigates the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. He has succeeded in making a compelling case with which all biblical scholars, as well as any who are concerned with whether Jesus was raised from the dead, must wrestle. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, the metanarrative of our lives hangs in the balance. But that metanarrative goes beyond what Licona has presented. An unbiased reader (if there were such a thing!) will have to work out the implications for him- or herself." (Daniel B. Wallace, executive director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, and professor of New Testament studies, Dallas Theological Seminary)
"This rich volume is not only a storehouse of valuable information pertinent to the historical credibility of the resurrection of Jesus, but also an important contribution to the discussion of the historiographical problems raised by the investigation of so singular an event. Licona rejects the pessimism that characterizes many historical Jesus scholars with respect to a resolution of these problems. He explodes the myth of a postmodern historiography while recognizing the ineluctability of personal horizons. As a friend of Mike Licona, I know how mightily and honestly he wrestled with the issue of his own horizons in tackling the question of Jesus' resurrection. The result is as objective an assessment of the evidence as one might reasonably demand." (William Lane Craig, author of Is God Real? and contributing editor, God Is Great, God Is Good)
"This book is the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date, useful also to those studying the intersections of philosophy of science, history and theology. Drawing masterfully from a wide range of disciplines, Licona builds a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus' historical resurrection. Licona's research also makes clear that the frequent skepticism about this claim in much of the academy reflects not serious historiographic consideration but the mere inheritance of outdated philosophic assumptions." (Craig S. Keener, professor of New Testament, Palmer Theological Seminary)
"The resurrection of Jesus is--in many ways--too important a topic to be left to theologians! In this thoroughly researched and well-argued volume, Mike Licona brings the latest in discussion of historiography to bear on the question of Jesus' resurrection. In a discipline that is often overwhelmed by theological special-pleading, it is refreshing to have this sober and sensible approach to the resurrection that evaluates the historical data and the arguments of many of the scholars writing on the subject. There are few biblical scholars who will not learn something from this important book." (Stanley E. Porter, president, dean and professor of New Testament, McMaster Divinity College)
"Michael Licona's thorough study of beliefs in Jesus' resurrection is to be recommended, since it is informed of the social sciences, ancient data, . . . attends to the New Testament witnesses and engages most of the recent discussions. He rightly argues that the early Christians did not interpret Jesus' resurrection in a metaphorical or poetic sense to the exclusion of a literal event that had occurred to his corpse." (James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary)
"At first glance this book is very provocative even for a theologian who is convinced that the Easter faith is based on an authentic encounter with God. But at second glance I became aware that Michael Licona is not dealing with the 'resurrection faith' but more modestly with the 'resurrection hypothesis'--in other words, with those aspects of the resurrection faith that are accessible to historical arguments. It is fascinating to follow his arguments step by step in his investigation of the resurrection of Jesus as a unique event in history. I once learned that historiography is limited to events with analogies, immanent causality and sources that must be criticized. These are, according to Ernst Troeltsch, the great theologian and philosopher of historicism, the three principles of modern historical research. Must we revise these principles? Must we reformulate them? Perhaps! In any case, it is refreshing to be confronted with quite another approach that evaluates carefully the historical data, discusses respectfully the arguments of opponents and demonstrates a humility concerning the results, claiming only historical degrees of plausibility for its own hypothesis. Many arguments are valuable also for readers who do not agree. It is a necessary book, and I recommend it to all who are interested in a responsible way to interpret the Bible and the Christian faith." (Gerd Theissen, University of Heidelberg)
"With impressive erudition, Licona marshals all possible evidence of Jesus' resurrection and considers its significance in a careful, methodical way. He then compares several alternative explanations of the disciples' faith in the resurrection, judging them according to important criteria, and concludes that Jesus' bodily resurrection provides the best explanation of their conviction, and so is worthy of belief. This is an astonishing achievement and a major contribution to the ongoing debate. It is clearly written and full of fresh insights and arguments that will enrich discussion for years to come." (C. Behan McCullagh, author of The Logic of History)
"Licona has tackled his subject energetically, with near-obsessive thoroughness. He concludes that if one approaches the sources without an a priori commitment to the impossibility of resurrection, the 'Resurrection Hypothesis' is the interpretation that most adequately accounts for the evidence. Thus, the book boldly challenges the naturalistic presuppositions of post-Enlightenment historical criticism. At the very least, Licona has shown that the usual naturalistic explanations of the resurrection tradition are, on the whole, weak, speculative and often tendentious. "I am not aware of any scholar who has previously offered such a thorough and fair-minded account of the historiographical prolegomena to the resurrection question. Furthermore, Licona's discussion of the 'bedrock' historical evidence is appropriately nuanced and carefully modulated, not claiming more than can be supported by the consensus findings of qualified scholars. This lends credibility to his conclusions. Licona has presented a fair and vigorous case for his position. No doubt many readers will be unconvinced by his arguments, but no one can accuse him of naiveté or of ignoring counterarguments. "This study spans fields that are too rarely brought into conversation: New Testament studies and historiographical theory. Licona is to be commended for this undertaking and for producing a study that has both wide range and significant depth." (Richard B. Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament and dean, Duke Divinity School)
"No episode in the life of anyone in history is more important than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Vehemently denied or vigorously defended, it has intrigued the world for twenty centuries. A host of scholars have addressed the phenomenon, so what more could be said? In The Resurrection of Jesus, Michael Licona tells us indeed. In brilliant detail, he begins with the anomaly that I, as an ancient historian, have noted for years: that secular historians often have a much higher regard for the New Testament as source material than do many theologians and scholars of religion. The latter tend to overlay their research with preconceived and hopelessly subjective opinions, often ignoring the basic rules of historiography. Licona corrects all this in showing how the research and writing of history ought to be done objectively, especially in dealing with Jesus. I warmly commend this book to all who want to know if the resurrection of Jesus really happened." (Paul L. Maier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University)
"The most important event in the story of Christian beginnings is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was widely believed by his followers to be the Messiah of Israel and the very Son of God. Their conviction that Jesus was such a being was confirmed by the resurrection. Without the resurrection of Jesus there really are no grounds for Christian faith. Consequently, there is no topic more important than this one and this is why Michael Licona's book on the resurrection of Jesus is so welcome. Licona demonstrates expertise in every field that is germane to the question. He knows the philosophical arguments inside and out, as well as the relevant historical, biblical, cultural and archaeological data. This is the book for believers and skeptics alike." (Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, Nova Scotia, Canada)
"Treatments of the resurrection from various angles have become fairly common in recent years, though careful assessments are rare. But efforts that place the resurrection of Jesus against the meticulous backdrop of historiographical principles are perhaps the rarest of all. The brilliance of Mike Licona's approach is his attempt to look far beyond his own discipline of New Testament studies in an effort to develop a rigorous method by which he could analyze and evaluate a historical claim such as the resurrection. His approach is original, and accompanied by painstaking honesty regarding the prospects of arriving at the best answer on this matter. Those who take the time to work through the various conclusions will, in my opinion, be rewarded by a cautious, thorough and painstaking study that could scarcely be outdone. I can vouch for the extent of Mike's gut-wrenching level of soul-searching before and during this time of study, and can attest that it was a real effort to come to grips with a final conclusion, wherever that might lead. There is no question that the reader is the one who will benefit from this process. This is simply required reading for anyone who wants to master this subject." (Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University and Theological Seminary)
"What Licona calls a new historiographical approach is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is an old, time-honored approach still found among the great majority of historians. What is new is the application of genuine, rigorous historical investigation--methods and theories as defined by professional historians, not biblical scholars--to the question of whether Jesus was raised from the dead. He leaves no stone unturned in his examination of the evidence, and engages those with different views fairly yet with a tour de force that unmasks their lack of explanatory adequacy concerning the resurrection. "The book is clear and logical, written in an irenic, respectful tone, yet with passion, self-criticism and an engaging style. In short, Licona models what a true historian should do as he investigates the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. He has succeeded in making a compelling case with which all biblical scholars, as well as any who are concerned with whether Jesus was raised from the dead, must wrestle. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, the metanarrative of our lives hangs in the balance. But that metanarrative goes beyond what Licona has presented. An unbiased reader (if there were such a thing!) will have to work out the implications for him- or herself." (Daniel B. Wallace, executive director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, and professor of New Testament studies, Dallas Theological Seminary)
"This rich volume is not only a storehouse of valuable information pertinent to the historical credibility of the resurrection of Jesus, but also an important contribution to the discussion of the historiographical problems raised by the investigation of so singular an event. Licona rejects the pessimism that characterizes many historical Jesus scholars with respect to a resolution of these problems. He explodes the myth of a postmodern historiography while recognizing the ineluctability of personal horizons. As a friend of Mike Licona, I know how mightily and honestly he wrestled with the issue of his own horizons in tackling the question of Jesus' resurrection. The result is as objective an assessment of the evidence as one might reasonably demand." (William Lane Craig, author of Is God Real? and contributing editor, God Is Great, God Is Good)
"This book is the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date, useful also to those studying the intersections of philosophy of science, history and theology. Drawing masterfully from a wide range of disciplines, Licona builds a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus' historical resurrection. Licona's research also makes clear that the frequent skepticism about this claim in much of the academy reflects not serious historiographic consideration but the mere inheritance of outdated philosophic assumptions." (Craig S. Keener, professor of New Testament, Palmer Theological Seminary)
"The resurrection of Jesus is--in many ways--too important a topic to be left to theologians! In this thoroughly researched and well-argued volume, Mike Licona brings the latest in discussion of historiography to bear on the question of Jesus' resurrection. In a discipline that is often overwhelmed by theological special-pleading, it is refreshing to have this sober and sensible approach to the resurrection that evaluates the historical data and the arguments of many of the scholars writing on the subject. There are few biblical scholars who will not learn something from this important book." (Stanley E. Porter, president, dean and professor of New Testament, McMaster Divinity College)
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Mike Licona has a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies from the University of Pretoria which he completed with distinction. He serves as Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University and is president of Risen Jesus, Inc. (www.risenjesus.com). From January 2005 through December 2011, Mike served as the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was interviewed by Lee Strobel in his book "The Case for the Real Jesus" and appeared in Strobel's video "The Case for Christ." He is the author of numerous books including The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2011), Paul Meets Muhammad (Baker, 2006), co-author with Gary Habermas of the award-winning book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel, 2004) and co-editor with William Dembski of Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science (Baker, 2010). Mike is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. He is a frequent speaker on university campuses, churches, and has appeared on dozens of radio and television programs.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
95 of 111 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Today, Mike Licona released his long-awaited historiographical treatment on the historicity of the resurrection. While great apologists have undertaken countless shots at defending the resurrection, few have done so guided by formal training in the field of history. This is something I found myself when researching historians specializing in the resurrection. There aren't any! While Licona's doctorate is technically under the banner of New Testament studies, his dissertation - the genesis behind the present work - was approved under watchful eyes of critical scholars at a secular institution (Univ. of Pretoria). Moreover, his concentration was specifically in first century historiography, so his study hits at the heart of the historical Jesus question.
Because of this widespread lack of methodological expertise on the issue, Licona asks a simple question which the rest of the book sets out to answer: "If professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, what would such an investigation look like?" (p19). In case you think he leaves it there, he launches a well-reasoned and heavily footnoted attack in the following 699 pages.
For anyone familiar with resurrection debates, it's a fun topic. Of course, for Christians, it's much more than that. In sharing the gospel with unbelievers, objections to the resurrection pose a stumbling block to the core of our message. When we hear the common criticism "there's not enough evidence," Licona's readers can now reply that modern rules of evidence are not how scholars justify events of ancient history. Otherwise, such skepticism would force us to dismiss much of Western Civilization, and even our present knowledge built upon historical experiences in the fields of science, politics, and technology. History must be studied in its context.
This book is a refreshing read. It is comprehensive yet accessible to anyone who takes the resurrection seriously. But reader beware that this book may humble believer and skeptic alike. The believer will learn how difficult absolute certainty of historical events can be and skeptics may be surprised how the evidence for the resurrection compares to unquestioned historical events. I truly hope this is the beginning of a new angle on the resurrection through the glasses of a historical scholar, at least as much as it has traditionally been done by biblical and theological ones.
Because of this widespread lack of methodological expertise on the issue, Licona asks a simple question which the rest of the book sets out to answer: "If professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, what would such an investigation look like?" (p19). In case you think he leaves it there, he launches a well-reasoned and heavily footnoted attack in the following 699 pages.
For anyone familiar with resurrection debates, it's a fun topic. Of course, for Christians, it's much more than that. In sharing the gospel with unbelievers, objections to the resurrection pose a stumbling block to the core of our message. When we hear the common criticism "there's not enough evidence," Licona's readers can now reply that modern rules of evidence are not how scholars justify events of ancient history. Otherwise, such skepticism would force us to dismiss much of Western Civilization, and even our present knowledge built upon historical experiences in the fields of science, politics, and technology. History must be studied in its context.
This book is a refreshing read. It is comprehensive yet accessible to anyone who takes the resurrection seriously. But reader beware that this book may humble believer and skeptic alike. The believer will learn how difficult absolute certainty of historical events can be and skeptics may be surprised how the evidence for the resurrection compares to unquestioned historical events. I truly hope this is the beginning of a new angle on the resurrection through the glasses of a historical scholar, at least as much as it has traditionally been done by biblical and theological ones.
26 of 31 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
To begin with, I will state my own bias. I am Mike's son-in-law (And I thank him for giving me his daughter in holy matrimony), but I do try to be as objective as possible. I hope I have done so here. Without further ado, my review:
Gary Habermas has for years been the name in evangelical Christianity on defending the Resurrection. His prize student in this field has been Mike Licona. Together, they wrote The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus. I happen to know Mike Licona very well and I know that whatever he does, he does seriously. I also know that he is one who has dealt with doubt on many topics so he wants to make sure he's right. What would it be like then if he alone wrote a book to demonstrate how he went about verifying the Resurrection of Jesus?
I no longer have to wonder that. He has released such a book and it is a gold mine of information. Licona has changed the face of studies in the Resurrection of Jesus with this book. From now on, any scholar who wishes to say that Jesus did not rise from the dead, will have to address the content and the methodology that is put forward in this book.
I say content and methodology because Licona deals with both of them. The first third of the book nearly is spend on methodology alone. What is history? What does it mean to do history? How does one do history? This is not just in fields of religious studies but information that could apply to any area of study.
I find this part incredibly important due to people not knowing how to do history. It's not just looking at the data and saying, "Well that sounds true." It involves looking at a list of criteria and knowing the best way to evaluate the content of your sources and knowing which sources are ones that are worth using. Do we want to use the testimony of Paul, or do we want to use Charles Wesley's "Christ the Lord is Risen Today!" Both of them testify of the Resurrection as a historical fact, but one is more relevant.
Can we even know history? Postmodernism raises up a challenge. Can it be dealt with? Yes, it can be. Licona deals with that position as well citing a number of postmodern historians. There can be little doubt that Licona has done his homework which should be no surprise since the book is based on his dissertation. (Naturally, there are some updates.)
Licona also addresses the question of miracles in the second chapter and whether history can answer the question of if a miracle can take place. Licona is right in saying that to draw inferences from the miracle is to do theology. We can demonstrate that Christ rose from the dead and likely it was a supernatural agent, but when it comes to the nature of that agent, then we are doing theology.
Do you want to answer Hume? Do you want to answer Ehrman? Licona deals with each of them. Licona warns us following what he said in the first chapter that we need to be aware of our horizons. What presuppositions are we bringing to the events that we are studying? Are Christians too often letting their theological bias color the way they interpret the evidence? Are atheists letting their atheistic ideology color the way they interpret the evidence?
Indeed, this is an important point and the objections are usually quite weak. For instance, what difference does science really make? Are we to say that we don't believe in resurrections because we live in an age of science? Could the one who says this please show me when it was that science discovered that dead men don't naturally come back to life? The reason people buried Jesus is because he was dead and they knew the dead don't naturally come back to life. (Of course, many believed God would raise the dead, but that's a far cry from saying they naturally came back to life. They knew it was a miracle because they at least had a rudimentary understanding of the universe.)
When it comes to content with Jesus starting at chapter three, Licona addresses the major controversies and sources. He looks over each and places them on a scale that he has earlier stated referring to how reliable the source is and the information that we can get from the source. Of course, atheists thinking scientifically need to realize that saying "probable" is not the same as it is in scientific circles. History cannot confirm its hypotheses the way science can. To say something is probable is to imply that there is really no evidence to the contrary and thus no reason to question it.
Licona documents all his claims and the footnotes will be especially helpful. There are even two pages where the footnotes are of immense value. In one, he has a list of statements by scholarship on the Christ-myth hypothesis. (One could argue that a footnote would be too much for that idea, but when one meets those regularly who espouse such an idea, it is helpful.) The other is a list of scholars stating the date they believe the creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 goes to.
Finally, when it comes to the Resurrection, Licona not only gives his hypothesis that Christ did indeed rise, but deals with others such as Vermes, Ludemann, Goulder, Crossan, and Craffert. Licona is quite generous with each one, wanting to represent them as best he can and ably deals with where they are deficient while granting the areas where they are sufficient.
When he deals with his own view, he presents it under the exact same categories that he has presented prior views under and works out how well the Resurrection hypothesis works. Of course, some readers could always claim bias on his part, but now the claim will not be enough. They will actually need to interact with the material. There can be no doubt that Licona knows it well.
As a bonus, the end of the book has a response to Dale Allison and his views on the Resurrection of Jesus. Readers familiar with Allison will appreciate this, though it will take awhile to get to as overall, when it comes to content, the book has 641 pages of information. As I carried this book with me, a number of people thought it was comparable to a dictionary.
A criticism of the work, however, is that Licona does not interact with the idea of honor and shame. Of course, many today aren't really looking at the social sciences, although in the look at Craffert's hypothesis, Craffert does refer to Malina and Pilch. Still, mentioning such aspects as the shame of crucifixion and how no one would preach a resurrected victim of crucifixion unless they really believed it was historical and could not be denied played an important factor.
Despite that, what Licona has is excellent and if someone wants to be a serious student of the doctrine of the Resurrection, they need to get and be familiar with this important volume. I do believe it has changed the face of Resurrection studies from here on out.
Gary Habermas has for years been the name in evangelical Christianity on defending the Resurrection. His prize student in this field has been Mike Licona. Together, they wrote The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus. I happen to know Mike Licona very well and I know that whatever he does, he does seriously. I also know that he is one who has dealt with doubt on many topics so he wants to make sure he's right. What would it be like then if he alone wrote a book to demonstrate how he went about verifying the Resurrection of Jesus?
I no longer have to wonder that. He has released such a book and it is a gold mine of information. Licona has changed the face of studies in the Resurrection of Jesus with this book. From now on, any scholar who wishes to say that Jesus did not rise from the dead, will have to address the content and the methodology that is put forward in this book.
I say content and methodology because Licona deals with both of them. The first third of the book nearly is spend on methodology alone. What is history? What does it mean to do history? How does one do history? This is not just in fields of religious studies but information that could apply to any area of study.
I find this part incredibly important due to people not knowing how to do history. It's not just looking at the data and saying, "Well that sounds true." It involves looking at a list of criteria and knowing the best way to evaluate the content of your sources and knowing which sources are ones that are worth using. Do we want to use the testimony of Paul, or do we want to use Charles Wesley's "Christ the Lord is Risen Today!" Both of them testify of the Resurrection as a historical fact, but one is more relevant.
Can we even know history? Postmodernism raises up a challenge. Can it be dealt with? Yes, it can be. Licona deals with that position as well citing a number of postmodern historians. There can be little doubt that Licona has done his homework which should be no surprise since the book is based on his dissertation. (Naturally, there are some updates.)
Licona also addresses the question of miracles in the second chapter and whether history can answer the question of if a miracle can take place. Licona is right in saying that to draw inferences from the miracle is to do theology. We can demonstrate that Christ rose from the dead and likely it was a supernatural agent, but when it comes to the nature of that agent, then we are doing theology.
Do you want to answer Hume? Do you want to answer Ehrman? Licona deals with each of them. Licona warns us following what he said in the first chapter that we need to be aware of our horizons. What presuppositions are we bringing to the events that we are studying? Are Christians too often letting their theological bias color the way they interpret the evidence? Are atheists letting their atheistic ideology color the way they interpret the evidence?
Indeed, this is an important point and the objections are usually quite weak. For instance, what difference does science really make? Are we to say that we don't believe in resurrections because we live in an age of science? Could the one who says this please show me when it was that science discovered that dead men don't naturally come back to life? The reason people buried Jesus is because he was dead and they knew the dead don't naturally come back to life. (Of course, many believed God would raise the dead, but that's a far cry from saying they naturally came back to life. They knew it was a miracle because they at least had a rudimentary understanding of the universe.)
When it comes to content with Jesus starting at chapter three, Licona addresses the major controversies and sources. He looks over each and places them on a scale that he has earlier stated referring to how reliable the source is and the information that we can get from the source. Of course, atheists thinking scientifically need to realize that saying "probable" is not the same as it is in scientific circles. History cannot confirm its hypotheses the way science can. To say something is probable is to imply that there is really no evidence to the contrary and thus no reason to question it.
Licona documents all his claims and the footnotes will be especially helpful. There are even two pages where the footnotes are of immense value. In one, he has a list of statements by scholarship on the Christ-myth hypothesis. (One could argue that a footnote would be too much for that idea, but when one meets those regularly who espouse such an idea, it is helpful.) The other is a list of scholars stating the date they believe the creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 goes to.
Finally, when it comes to the Resurrection, Licona not only gives his hypothesis that Christ did indeed rise, but deals with others such as Vermes, Ludemann, Goulder, Crossan, and Craffert. Licona is quite generous with each one, wanting to represent them as best he can and ably deals with where they are deficient while granting the areas where they are sufficient.
When he deals with his own view, he presents it under the exact same categories that he has presented prior views under and works out how well the Resurrection hypothesis works. Of course, some readers could always claim bias on his part, but now the claim will not be enough. They will actually need to interact with the material. There can be no doubt that Licona knows it well.
As a bonus, the end of the book has a response to Dale Allison and his views on the Resurrection of Jesus. Readers familiar with Allison will appreciate this, though it will take awhile to get to as overall, when it comes to content, the book has 641 pages of information. As I carried this book with me, a number of people thought it was comparable to a dictionary.
A criticism of the work, however, is that Licona does not interact with the idea of honor and shame. Of course, many today aren't really looking at the social sciences, although in the look at Craffert's hypothesis, Craffert does refer to Malina and Pilch. Still, mentioning such aspects as the shame of crucifixion and how no one would preach a resurrected victim of crucifixion unless they really believed it was historical and could not be denied played an important factor.
Despite that, what Licona has is excellent and if someone wants to be a serious student of the doctrine of the Resurrection, they need to get and be familiar with this important volume. I do believe it has changed the face of Resurrection studies from here on out.
19 of 22 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Anyone who has claimed to have read the book and proceeds to summarize that it presents a case that lacks evidence will have to get rid of the rest of human history. It is so thorough that most wont last past the first 50 pages out of shear boredom. If you love history, as I do, you will love this book!
Bottom line is that the critics always have motives, ironically something Licona addresses quite thoroughly, just ignore them their comments are useless in your decision of whether or not you want to read this book.
If you love history (I mean really love history), you'll find this book indispensable and will be a part of your permanent library. If you're looking for a book that just praises the Bible and spares you the technical details of how historians determine whether or not things actually happened in history, you wont last 50 pages. For the right person this book is the best I've read so based upon this I give it 5 stars.
As you can I am verified by Amazon as a person who purchased this book. Check that with the naysayers, it should help you dismiss the trash and make a good decision to purchase it or not.
Bottom line is that the critics always have motives, ironically something Licona addresses quite thoroughly, just ignore them their comments are useless in your decision of whether or not you want to read this book.
If you love history (I mean really love history), you'll find this book indispensable and will be a part of your permanent library. If you're looking for a book that just praises the Bible and spares you the technical details of how historians determine whether or not things actually happened in history, you wont last 50 pages. For the right person this book is the best I've read so based upon this I give it 5 stars.
As you can I am verified by Amazon as a person who purchased this book. Check that with the naysayers, it should help you dismiss the trash and make a good decision to purchase it or not.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
worthwhile fundamentalist apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus of...
Though this book is clearly a fundamentalist apology for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth I actually think that the book is pretty good. Read more
Published 2 months ago by D. Peter Humphrys
5.0 out of 5 stars
Would reccommend
Would reccommend this to anyone who is seriously interested in Historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Requires much thought to comprehend all aspects.
Published 3 months ago by Elroy Johnson
5.0 out of 5 stars
Outstanding, compelling, and thorough work on the historicity or...
I had been looking forward to reading this book since the first time I heard about it. I was sitting in Dr. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Tim Chaffey
5.0 out of 5 stars
Incredibly Comprehensive
This book (more of a dissertation) goes remarkably in depth into the study of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Alan Filer
5.0 out of 5 stars
The definitive study of the resurrection of Christ
Much has been written on the resurrection of Christ, both from an apologetical position as well as a critical perspective. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Jefrey D. Breshears
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Best on the Resurrection of Jesus
This book covers a wide scope on the historiocity of the resurrection of Jesus. The thing I love about this book is that it is very indepth and it can make one intensely... Read more
Published 6 months ago by Daniel
3.0 out of 5 stars
Historical Approach
The historical approach wasn't as enjoyable as NT Wright's "The Resurrection of The Son of God" with me.It has it's place though and worthy of the serious student.
Published 8 months ago by Patrick
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thorough and Objective Treatment of Resurrection Theories
From my perspective, this book provided a fair, objective synopsis and analysis of the leading theories of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Read more
Published 8 months ago by M. Fant
4.0 out of 5 stars
Weighing alternative "explanations"
The plan is masterful: (1) establish what "historial facts" in reality mean (the courtroom analogy is illuminating); (2) establish certain biblical facts surrounding the Easter... Read more
Published 12 months ago by W. Cheung
4.0 out of 5 stars
Informative and honest Scholarship on the Resurrection.
This is an excellent resource on The Historicity of the Resurrection. It is recent and up to date with current research. Read more
Published 13 months ago by Grant Marshall
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
So You'd Like to...
|
|
