Over the years I have seen my share of debates on the resurrection of Jesus. As I have watched the debates, I found myself asking whether the resurrection is worth debating apart from the discussion of philosophy of history and how we arrive at a rigorous historical method. It always seems that each debate boils down to an individual’s worldview. Since every historian interprets the past in direct relationship to his own Weltanschauung (the German word for worldview), this will always impact their historical method/philosophy of history. It is during the resurrection debates that both theists and non-theists walk away thinking about whether the debaters either confirmed or disconfirmed their worldview.
This is why I am so pleased to see that Mike Licona’s new book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is getting the attention it deserves. Mike has done all of us a great service in providing a resource that is by no means another apologetics book. While this book can no doubt be utilized in historical apologetics, Mike’s book can be utilized for biblical scholars, theologians, historians, and philosophers as well. What makes the book so refreshing is that it takes a multi-disciplinary approach. Mike has provided a large chapter on what he calls “horizons.” Horizons are the presuppositions that impact all biblical scholars and historians.
Mike also covers the work of several scholars on their work on the resurrection such as J.D. Crossan, Geza Vermes, Michael Goulder and others. He also provides several responses to the arguments of Bart Ehrman (whom he has debated). He covers the historical sources for the resurrection and confirms that the “historical bedrock” for the historical Jesus is the following:
1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion
2. Very shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them
3. Within a few years after Jesus’ death, Paul converted after experiencing what he interpreted as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.
Licona provides a response to the naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection and shows how they don’t meet what he calls the requirements of:
1. Plausibility
2. Explanatory scope and explanatory power
3. They are less ad hoc
4. Illumination
It is only about 718 pages. So for those of us that read The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T.Wright, a 718 page book is no biggie. Right? I promise you won’t be disappointed.
Filed under: Uncategorized
