:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/VWH-GettyImages-2158519129-372ed708fbbb4c6e9f472a8218cd52ee.jpg)
★★★★★ 5
Don’t be intimidated...it's detailed, but systematic and rational
Format: Paperback
Don’t be intimidated by this 700-page tome. Once you factor in the bibliography, index and footnotes, the body of the work is only about 400 pages. Licona includes an all-important, detailed outline for quick reference back to key topics, and it’s valuable because of the variety of issues he tackles. I’d say, he does a wonderful job of giving us an objective, systematic approach to addressing the historicity of the events following Jesus’ crucifixion.
Licona lays the groundwork for his examination of the issue by considering the philosophy of history and tackling things like what is truth, what makes something a historical fact, who has the burden of proof, and is history a science? As a needed addition to this philosophical introduction, he spends time outlining the methods he will use to approaching relevant texts, claims of miracles, and consensus facts. Most important, I think, to his methods was his self-examination of potential bias due to personal belief and worldview. He addresses what he calls a personal “horizon” that historians must be set aside in order to be objective and get at the truth. He certainly points it out in others along the way and makes it clear throughout the book that he is trying to identify and eliminate any potential bias he may bring to the process.
In his investigation, he addresses the most important sources related to Jesus’ life, crucifixion and claims of the resurrection. He deals with both Christian and non-Christian sources that were written immediately following the events as well as within the following 200 years. Licona makes the case for authenticity and credibility of the most important sources, and where there have been challenges to these sources over the centuries, he addresses those challenges head on. Ultimately, he boils the events, claims, facts and sources down to what he calls the “bedrock” pertaining to the fate of Jesus. This bedrock consists of three facts that are well supported by authentic, textual evidence which enjoy nearly consensus support by all historians (both Christian and non-Christian). For Licona, the bedrock which need be answered are (1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, (2) the claims Jesus appeared to individuals and groups following his burial, and (3) the conversion of the Church persecutor, Paul.
Ultimately, Licona breaks down six different hypotheses which claim to explain the bedrock and he uses systematic criteria for weighing those hypotheses. He concludes that a resurrection is the best explanation but admits that it’s only by setting aside a naturalistic worldview that one can embrace the conclusion.
I like Licona’s methodical approach but would offer two critiques. Do we really need all the Greek citations written out? I understand that there is nuance and variations in meaning for words that are used in the original sources, but to give us all the text and the translation seemed superfluous. Second, I think it was a cop-out to skim the importance of the empty tomb. Other historians put the fact of the empty tomb as one of their top facts to be explained, but Licona punted on it because he didn’t feel it received universal consensus. Consensus aside, the fact of the empty tomb does receive support by a strong majority of scholars, even ones that do not support the resurrection. This cross-section of scholarly support, along with the volume and type of textural evidence, namely the confirmation by Christian enemies, should have elevated the fact of the empty tomb to the “bedrock” which require explanation.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 12, 2021
