The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Dr. Michael Licona has produced an exhaustive analytical masterpiece. He concentrates on how historians study history, and he inquires, "Can historians study miracles?" He cordially presents, as well as critiques, the naturalistic hypotheses that prominent philosophers and New Testament scholars, including, but not limited to, David Hume, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, Geza Vermes, Michael Goulder, Pieter F. Craffert, and Gerd Ludemann, have offered against miracles. He then proceeds to focus on the historical evidence for and against Jesus's resurrection. The power of Dr. Licona's approach is also evident from its ability to withstand criticism from other reviewers on Amazon. For example, Licona addresses the vast majority of objections that John Loftus raises in his review titled "Delusional on a Grand Scale." I will cite examples of this throughout my review below.John Loftus contends that Christianity did not take root in the Jewish homeland, because the Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. On pages 107-158 of his monograph titled The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Eisenbrauns, 1990), historian Colin Hemer develops a multifaceted case for an early date for Luke's second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, and Hemer lists over 150 examples of historical details that Luke correctly catalogs in Acts. This is significant, because it lends credibility to the author's claim to have actively participated in some of Paul's missionary journeys (Acts 16:10-13; 20:5-8; 27:1-3).Luke paints a picture that suggests that many Jews embraced Jesus and believed Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. Peter addresses the "devout Jews" (Acts 2:5), men of Judea, and all who live in Jerusalem in Acts 2:14. Luke proceeds to report, "about three thousand persons were added" to the early Christian movement on that day (Acts 2:41). Licona advises readers to treat the speeches in Acts "with great caution and restraint," because "we just do not know enough about their origin" (pages 219-220), though. Luke additionally records an early dispute that emerged concerning whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised in Acts 15:5, which states, "But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, `It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.'" This verse explicitly identifies some Christian believers as belonging to the Pharisees sect. None of this information necessarily demonstrates that Acts conveys a 100 percent historically accurate picture. Yet, it functions as a first century source that suggests Christianity initially took root in Jewish circles.The Apostle Paul's epistles at least partially corroborate Luke's testimony in Acts. Paul was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5) prior to his conversion experience and he was the earliest New Testament author. Paul's conversion alone is sufficient to establish that a Pharisee was attracted to the early Christian movement. Also, one of the earliest controversies among Christians in the first century revolved around whether or not Jews should even associate themselves with Gentiles (Galatians 2:12). The earliest available source material, therefore, indicates that Christianity took root in the Jewish homeland.Licona specifies that historians who study ancient history have scanty evidence to work with in general, which is one of the challenges Licona identifies for historians, so this issue is not limited to the New Testament sources. He writes, "Ancient historians were selective in what they reported, and much of what was written has been lost. Approximately half of the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus have survived. All but a fragment of Thallus's Mediterranean history written in the first century has been lost" (page 36). The paucity of ancient sources also does not negate the evidence that Licona presents in the resurrection's favor.John Loftus writes, "What we do know is that the sectarian side that wins a debate writes the history of that debate and chooses which books to include in their sacred writings." Licona responds to this type of objection on pages 36-38. He explains that the books that were included among Christians' sacred writings that eventually became the New Testament writings were much earlier than the alternative books that Loftus alludes to. Anyone who asserts that these other books should be deemed as historically useful for studying first century Christianity must bear the burden of proof. Bart Ehrman notes, "Most of them were not produced during the earliest period of Christian history (roughly through the first half of the second century) but in the later second, third, and fourth centuries, and on into the Middle Ages" (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Fourth Edition [New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], 205.). These gospels' later dates are evident from their content. Bruce Metzger explains, "In general, these gospels show far less knowledge of Palestinian topography and customs than do the canonical Gospels--which is what one would expect from the circumstances and date of the composition of such books" (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, 1997], 167). In sum, one must explain why the alternative writings should have the same historical value as the gospels that entered the New Testament's canon.Loftus also asserts, "We don't even have one legitimate Old Testament prophecy that specifically refers to Jesus' resurrection. " I completely agree that no Old Testament prophecy specifically names Jesus or explicitly predicts a resurrection. One must be careful to avoid too hastily dismissing the possibility that there is at least one legitimate Old Testament prophecy that might refer to a Messiah's resurrection, however. Isaiah 53 speaks about a suffering servant who "was cut off from the land of the living" (53:8) and says that, "out of his anguish he shall see light" (53:11 in the Dead Sea Scroll material). It is true that the author identifies the nation of Israel as being God's servant in Isaiah 44:1-2, but this fact does not negate the possibility that this passage's author writes about an additional servant, one who suffers death for others' sins (Isaiah 53:12). God calls a servant "Israel" again in Isaiah 49:3. This does not preclude God from having an individual person in mind, however. After all, God named the man Jacob "Israel" originally back in Genesis 32:28. Why couldn't the author of Isaiah 49 call another individual "Israel" as well for prophetic purposes? The rest of the context in Isaiah 49 lends support for this interpretation.Isaiah 49:5-6 relays the servant's speech in the first person. Isaiah 49:5-6 declares: " And now the LORD says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God has become my strength--he says, `It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.'"The entire nation of Israel, therefore, simply could not be the servant that the author had in mind when he wrote this section of the text. Some commentators, consequently, argue that the servant featured in Isaiah 53 is Moses, but Moses does not quite fit the description that Isaiah 53 lays out. Lastly, Isaiah 54:17 indicates that Isaiah holds that Yahweh has multiple servants. In summary, the literary context (Isaiah 49-54) encompassing Isaiah 53 is consistent with the view that the suffering servant may be an individual who returns to life after dying for sinners' sakes (Isaiah 53:11-12). Very early Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as being a prediction of a coming Messiah.It was frequently necessary to translate passages in the Hebrew Bible from Hebrew to Aramaic in Palestinian Jewish synagogues, because Jews eventually began to speak Aramaic more commonly than they spoke Hebrew. Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew, was a language spoken in Palestine during the time of Jesus. Targums were the Aramaic translations and interpretations of certain Hebrew passages. The concept of a Jewish Messiah was present in these Targums. The Aramaic text titled Targum Jonathan is only one example (Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum [Cincinnati, New York, Los Angeles, Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974], 63-66). Targum Jonathan identifies the suffering servant as the Messiah. Later, Jewish commentators began to equate the suffering servant with the nation of Israel.As I mentioned above, Licona responds to David Hume's arguments. Loftus states, "Nor do we have any present day confirmations that God works miracles like virgin births or resurrections in today's world, something that would be of critical importance to historians when assessing these claims." This is essentially an adaptation of a portion of David Hume's argumentation against miracles that pertains to the principle of analogy.Licona responds to this objection on pages 140-141, noting, "Numerous established modern beliefs would fail according to the principle of analogy" (page 140). He lists the dinosaurs' existence as an example of one of these established modern beliefs, because present-day humans do not witness living dinosaurs today. We only have their fossilized remains. He draws an analogy between these fossils and the historical "fossils"--preserved testimony from witnesses or from those who knew the eyewitnesses. He also mentions that Hume's principle rules out known unique events' occurrences (page 141). For example, the origin of life happened sometime in the distant past, but humans do not observe life arising from non-living materials today. Surely no one disputes that life emerged, though. In short, even though one does not witness virgin births or resurrections today, it does not necessarily follow that one should doubt their occurrence in the past.In addition, on page 139 Licona cites some counterexamples that suggest miracles may, indeed, still occur today. He emphasizes that one must be cautious before accepting the miracle claims as being true and that one should evaluate each miracle claim individually. He provides a footnote on page 139 documenting some possible examples of miracles occurring today. In his book Resurrecting Jesus (T&T Clark International, 2005) Dale C. Allison likewise builds a fascinating case for some form of afterlife based on modern apparitions, some of which he personally witnessed. One ought not be so bold as to assert of all the billions of people on planet Earth today, not one of these people has experienced a confirmed miracle.Loftus progresses on to listing a number of events the gospel writers record for which he asserts that historians have no corroborative evidence (reports that the veil of the temple was torn in two at Jesus's death (Mark 15:38), that darkness came "over the whole land" from noon until three in the afternoon (Mark 15:33), that "the sun stopped shining" (Luke 23:45), that there was an earthquake at his death (Matthew 27:51, 54), with another "violent" one the day he arose from the grave (Matthew 28:2), that the saints were raised to life at his death, then waited until Jesus arose before walking out of their own opened tombs, who subsequently "went into the holy city and appeared to many people" and were never heard from again (Matthew 27:52-53)). Licona does not argue that any of these things occurred, though. In fact, Licona suggests that Matthew did not intend for his readers to consider any of the aforementioned details as being historical events. On pages 548-553 Licona offers evidence pro and con for these stories' literal historical realities. He then concludes that historians cannot deduce that Matthew intended for these elements to be taken literally. I am, consequently, uncertain why Loftus raised these concerns as objections to Licona's overarching case, because Licona does not predicate his argumentation on any of these narratives.Loftus posits that Paul's experience was "surely a visionary experience." Loftus then lists Acts 26:19, 2 Cor. 12:1-6, and Rev. 1:10-3:21 to substantiate his view. The question arises: "What does Paul mean by a `visionary experience'?" Licona addresses Acts 26:19 on page 332. He observes the Greek word Luke uses for "vision" here, optasia, only occurs five times within the entire New Testament (Lk 1:22; 24:23; Acts 1:3; 26:19; 2 Cor. 12:1). Licona concludes that Luke's usage of this Greek term is "inconclusive in reference to the resurrection appearances," because each one of these instances could have been cases in which the viewers perceived through the normal sense of sight.Not all scholars concur that Paul is referring to his conversion experience in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6, because the passage's historical context does not lend itself to this interpretation. Licona explains Paul "states this vision occurred fourteen years prior (2 Cor. 12:2). If 2 Corinthians was composed around A.D. 56, this places Paul's vision around A.D. 42, about a decade after his conversion. If we accept the later dating of Galatians at A.D. 55 and that Paul wrote it shortly after the Jerusalem Council to which he refers, this places Paul's conversion no later than seventeen years before, in A.D. 38, still too early to have been the experience that he describes in 2 Corinthians 12" (pages 381-382).It is quite curious that Loftus cites Revelation 1:10-3:21 as being relevant data to Paul's experience. Revelation 1:10-3:21 does not say anything about Paul's experience. Revelation, rather, purports to record Jesus's revelation to John--not to Paul. Loftus adds that Paul did not actually see Jesus, and Loftus directs readers to Acts 9:4-8; 22:7-11; 26:13-14, as support for this position. Loftus appears to be lending some historical credence to Acts here. If one concedes that Acts is a historically reliable source, then one can establish that Paul and the other apostles were teaching that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and appeared bodily to at least some of the disciples. More specifically, Luke declares the following concerning Jesus's fate:"They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead" (Acts 10:40-41). This is consistent with Luke 24:28-30, which relays:"As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, `Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.' So he went in to stay with them. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them."Earlier in Luke 24 (24:1-11) Luke records the empty tomb, too. Thus, the rest of Luke's account of the early Christian movement and Jesus testify to Jesus's bodily resurrection from the dead. One must be cautious to avoid merely picking and choosing which sections of the New Testament to believe without any justification for doing so. If one chooses to engage in this practice, one should explain what type of method one is utilizing to accept one portion as being historical and rejecting others as being unhistorical.Loftus says, "what we're told comes from someone who was not an eyewitness." Paul claims to have been an eyewitness to one of Jesus's resurrection appearances--the one to Paul. Paul's eyewitness testimony residing in 1 Corinthians 15:8 is not the only possible eyewitness data that Licona presents. Licona, along with the majority of critical New Testament scholars (page 318), holds that Paul is repeating an early oral creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, which Licona emphasizes could very well be rooted in eyewitness testimony (page 323).Loftus declares, "This is hearsay evidence, at best. Everything we read in the gospels depends entirely on authors who were not there and did not see any of it for themselves." Many details readers learn about in historical sources depend entirely on authors who were not present and did not see any of the details that they relay for themselves. On pages 588-589 Licona notes historical writings suffer from this same handicap. As Licona explains, however, not all scholars deny that the gospels are predicated upon eyewitness testimonies. He cites Richard Bauckham, author of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006) and Samuel Byrskog, author of Story as History (2000), as examples. Licona also points out that nothing one reads about Alexander the Great's actions is rooted in eyewitness testimony. Licona also notes that the ancient historians Tacitus and Suetonius reported on events that they did not personally witness either. Should one really dismiss all historical records that are not supported by eyewitness testimony? If one sets this up as the criteria for determining historicity to the gospels (assuming that none of the writers were eyewitnesses), then for consistency's sake, they should reject many details pertaining to ancient history, too.Loftus also insinuates that the earliest New Testament copies date back to the 4th century CE and that they stem "from a Church that had no problems in lying with forged texts." Some manuscripts dating earlier than the 4th century CE, indeed, contained all four canonical gospels. Some second century Greek papyri such as p4, p64, p67, however, used to be part of one complete manuscript, which contained all four gospels (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition [New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 53). The second century p52 fragment contained some verses from the Gospel of John. The second or third century p75 is "the earliest known copy of the Gospel according to Luke and one of the earliest of the Gospel according to John" (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 58). These manuscripts predate Constantine's time. It is, therefore, simply false to suggest that the earliest New Testament manuscripts date to the 4th century CE.Moreover, Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger add: "Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by the early Church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament" (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 126).Licona addresses the "theologian versus the historian" issue (on pages 162-171, 176-177) that Loftus raises. Loftus's comment, "If someone claimed he levitated we would need more than his word to believe him" is essentially a variation on Carl Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saying. Licona likewise deals with this challenge to his overall case as well on pages 194-196.In summary, Licona has produced a very thorough tome. Anyone, including John Loftus, is certainly free to disagree with Licona's conclusions. In fact, it is important to read every text making claims with an analytical eye. In intellectual honesty's interest, however, everyone needs to at least attempt to engage Licona's responses to objections, before raising those same objections as criticisms of Licona's monograph.

Licona begins his book with an overview of the philosophy and methodology historians, outside of biblical scholars, use to determine what is historical. He attempts to bring philosophy of history together with biblical scholarship. Licona examines strong and weak points of various methodologies while also critiquing his own view. He recognizes that each historian has a worldview, which he refers to as a horizon, and that one’s worldview greatly impacts his/her conclusions regarding any historical investigation. He provides several possible ways one can overcome or alleviate bias due to his/her horizon. Overall, Licona’s focus is for the historian to look at history as objectively as possible. He is very transparent about his horizon and makes it clear that he takes a view of methodological neutrality meaning that the one who makes a claim bears the burden of proof. In order to establish what most probably happened in history, Licona employs the method of inference to the best explanation. Later in the book, Licona addresses whether historians are able to confirm that a miracle happened in history, such as the resurrection. He deals with arguments from various scholars throughout the centuries, including Hume and Ehrman. Licona shows that a historian can conclude that an event happened without knowing the cause. Thus, if the resurrection of Jesus best explains the evidence, a historian can say that Jesus rose from the dead without making any claim as to the cause of the resurrection. Yet, Licona adds that the context can also aid the historian in discovering whether a miracle occurred. He then goes on to examine the historical quality of various sources including both Christian and non-Christian sources and gives them grades based on the historical usefulness it provides to investigating the question of Christ’s resurrection. Licona then provides evidence for why historians hold to 3 facts, which he calls historical bedrock, surrounding Christ’s resurrection. After providing a foundation for his methodology and the facts that scholars agree upon, he then examines 6 views regarding Christ’s resurrection and determines which ones best explain the evidence.Licona’s take is very refreshing. He acknowledges that everyone has a bias and a worldview. Yet, he does a good job of listing things that can help one overcome their bias. Licona comes off as genuine; he does his best to be as objective as possible. Additionally, Licona clearly defines his terms carefully and provides criteria for determining historical events. He provides criteria for miracles and criteria for which explanation best fits the data regarding the historical bedrock of the resurrection. Because Licona begins with explaining his methodology, one can see how he comes to his conclusions. If one disagrees with his conclusions, it is more than likely because he/she disagrees with his methodology that is leading him to his conclusions. Thus, Licona’s transparency is key in understanding why he thinks what he does.One critique would be that it would have been nice for Licona to go into more depth on the empty tomb. Perhaps, this would have been fitting as a second appendix. Although the empty tomb is not one of his historical bedrock facts, it is included as one of his secondary facts. These secondary facts can become important when one needs to determine between two strong hypotheses. Thus, making a strong case for the empty tomb would help further his argument, even though it would probably best fit as an appendix. Another critique would be that Licona attempts to address some of Dale Allison’s work on the resurrection of Jesus. Yet, one of Allison’s main arguments from his book is the idea of rainbow bodies; that is, bodies of Buddhist monks that disappear after their death. Allison believes that it could be that Jesus’ body disappeared like one of these rainbow bodies. Licona does not seem to directly confront this issue. It would have been nice to get his thoughts on Allison’s claims regarding rainbow bodies.

In this extensive historiographical exploration of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Michael Licona, thumbs through every potentially relevant historical document to exhaust all the available evidence for every step that he takes in leading you through the journey to establish the plausibility for Jesus’ resurrection as an event situated in time. He goes through painstaking details in narrowing down the twelve historical facts proposed by Gary Habermas down to three pieces of historical bedrock undisputed by scholars of all persuasions and then weighs in the most probable hypotheses proposed throughout history against these historical bedrock facts to come to his conclusion about whether the supernatural event in fact took place. Licona’s attention to detail is evident in the exhaustive footnotes he prepares both in reference to his sources as well as to provide further clarity to his points. He ventures into the original languages of the source materials and scours the available literature regarding every source that he visits.As a Christian scholar, Licona is careful to overtly address his potential evaluative bias through an introductory discussion on horizons. His goal of maintaining neutrality when examining each piece of evidence is a formidable effort, especially when determining the weight of source material found in the Bible. Understandably, it is often difficult to come to absolute neutrality which occasionally surfaces in his overcompensation for horizons as he sometimes minimizes the weight of evidence situated within Christian sources beyond what is necessary. However, this does not detract from his argument, rather, in doing so he relies more heavily on material that does not lean in particular favor toward the Christian perspective which provides a stronger case overall. This is not a casual read, but an in-depth look at the world of scholarship surrounding the historicity of an event that founded the Christian faith. It is a must-read for anyone determined to get to the bottom of Jesus’ grave to see the historical facts for themselves.

How does Licona’s research differ from previous treatments of the resurrection accounts? He investigates the question of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection in providing unprecedented interaction with the literature of professional historians outside of the community of biblical scholars on both hermeneutical and methodological grounds.Before establishing his approach for investigating the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, Licona engages in an epistemological discussion regarding the philosophy of history and the historical method, trying to understand in what way the past can be knowable, what impact biases have and how historians outside of the community of biblical scholars do proceed in their investigations. He then proceeds to address the objections of a number of prominent scholars and an investigation of “miracle-claims” by historians as well as surveying the primary literature relevant to the investigation as well as a rating of the sources according to their value. To establish what he calls the “historical bedrock on which all hypotheses pertaining to Jesus’ fate must be built,” he mines the most promising material identified and forms then a collection of facts that are strongly evidenced, enjoying heterogeneous, but almost universal consensus. Facts that do not qualify as historical bedrock he does not take into account in the subsequent weighing of the hypotheses, unless they are needed as “tiebreakers” by a particular hypothesis.In the final chapter, he applies his well described methodological considerations, weighing them according to the criteria (1) plausibility, (2-3) explanatory scope, explanatory power, (4) less ad hoc and (5) illumination, then onto the six hypotheses that are largely representative of those being offered in the beginning of the twenty first century, pertaining to the question of the resurrection of Jesus. Starting with the contention of Geza Vermes (‘we do not know whether Jesus rose from the dead’), followed by proposals of Michael Goulder and Gerd Lüdemann (drawing exclusively on psychohistory and providing naturalistic explanations the beliefs of the earliest Christians that Jesus had been raised), John Dominic Crossan’s contention (a combination of psychological conditions, unique exegetical interpretations, competing reports in often ignored sources that contain earlier Christian teachings, Paul’s mutation of the Jewish concept of the general resurrection and the use of resurrection as a metaphor), and Pieter Craffert’s hypothesis (which attempts to take the biblical reports seriously but explains them in natural terms by drawing on the social sciences) he assesses the resurrection hypothesis. Dale Allison’s hypothesis (holding the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, but offering a unique approach to the subject by employing apparitions of the dead as a heuristic for understanding post-resurrection appearances of Jesus) Licona treats in an appendix. He also assesses the resurrection hypothesis, with a minimal qualification of the term resurrection.Licona claims that his investigation is a means to apply the approach of historians outside the community of biblical scholars to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead. He concludes the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation, as it fulfills all five criteria and outdistances its competitors by a significant margin. This leads him to declare that Jesus’ resurrection is “very certain,” a rendering higher on the spectrum of historical certainty he originally expected. Since the resurrection hypothesis is based on the established historical bedrock, Licona engages in challenging those who disagree with his conclusion to actively criticize his method.Dr. Erastos Filos, Physicist, Brussels, Belgium

An objective, fact- based historical look at the best explanation for the accounts of the resurrection of Christ

Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus in my opinion is a must have for your bookshelf, if you are involved in academia or if you just enjoy a much deeper reading than your casual book. The Resurrection of Jesus is a well balanced approach to reasonable belief in the resurrection. Licon’s approach is fair and well balanced. He helps the reader question, think, and rethink how they come to their conclusions. Licona’s approach to seeking the truth of the resurrection begins by stripping back our natural intuitions, toward a blank canvas. He takes the reader on a reflective journey toward how one thinks, where we come from, our experiences of reality and how that ultimately shapes and influences our horizons, with the aim to fairly assess the evidence, claims, and our experiences for belief in the resurrection. The only real critic I have of Licona’s work is that I mentioned how his approach is fair; he is perhaps too fair. What I mean by that is Licona attempts to leave all our biases and influences at the door, however, this is a more difficult procedure to carry out than stated. Personally, I felt at times I was maybe actively going the other way, so instead of leaving personal bias I had sometimes found myself thinking the opposite direction too much. All in all, Licona’s work is an excellent example of honestly seeking the truth.

Sensational and in depth presentation on an issue that has massive ramifications on the truth of the Christian faith.Dr. Licona has penned a masterpiece.