A Critical Review of Michael R. Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New
Historiographical Approach"
Introduction
It is an utter privation that Michael R. Licona, who is now an esteemed post within the
New Testament scholarship, does not have any work translated into Indonesian. Licona has been
widely recognized as a prestigious historian and biblical scholar; moreover, his contribution has
not only contributed to the development of the process in current theology but also influenced
the present historical methodological approaches involved in the studies of Christians. Among
his notable publications, "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” is a
work that perhaps epitomizes Binz’s formal, meticulous approach toward research while offering
a novel perspective for analyzing one of the most significant occurrences in the history of
Christianity.
In his years of academic practice, Licona remained dedicated not only to scholarship but
also to elevating education to the level of intellectual discipline. From his early days, these things
intrigued him and he embarked on the world of biblical studies with a desire to understand the
historical backdrop of the figure of Jesus, and his resurrection. In his formative years, Licona
was mentored by world-class scholars and scholars in the making, who equipped him with the
core and methodological foundations for the historical and critical study of early Christianity.
"The Resurrection of Jesus: Licona has written “A New Historiographical Approach”
based on his decades of research and theological study. Justifying his work on the extensive use
of historical evidence such as ancient manuscripts, archaeological findings, and other extra-
biblical reports, Licona proceeds with the effort of researching the continental transformation of
mysteries of the resurrection of Jesus. Eight criteria of authenticity are distinguished in his
approach, which unites carefully chosen historical analysis and methodological concern, “raising
the bar” of historical Jesus research to a new level of methodological sophistication and
historiographic rigor.
Licona’s work goes beyond any scholarly debate and has tremendous implications in our
society today. On a deeper level, “The Resurrection of Jesus” addresses the most important
issues of history writing: the definition of history, the relationship between history and faith, and
the role of evidence in faith. Thus, not only does Licona contribute to the ongoing historical
study of an event that took place 2,000 years ago but also forces one to challenge one’s Western
way of thinking and our tendency to constantly draw a line between reality and the miraculous.
This paper endeavors to undertake a comprehensive examination of Licona's magnum
opus, "The Resurrection of Jesus: In this regard, it aims to identify the merits and demerits of
Licona’s line of reasoning, explore the details of his method, review the details of the evidence
presented, and examine the global impact of his conclusion. Therefore, this paper seeks to
explain the value of the work done by Licona in the area of historical Jesus research and how the
insights that have been given could be useful for scholars and lay readers.
The topic of this paper is vast: it involves a synopsis of Licona’s book, a criticism of the
book’s reasoning, a critique of the book’s themes, and a reflection on the significance of the
book in its entirety. In this respect, this paper aims to join the academic debates and offer the
readers some insights into the challenges involved in the analysis of early Christian literature,
thanks to the analysis of Licona’s work.
In the following sections, we will embark on a journey through the pages of "The
Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, believing that one may never get
enough of the wealth of data that Licona produced in his studies as well as identifying the
conclusions he came up with as a worthy answer for one of the biggest questions in history. With
careful examination and deep contemplation, this paper also seeks to have an understanding of
the trail that was tread by Licona to rightly some insight into the perspective of historical study
and the perpetual importance of the account of the resurrection from the perspective of Christian
theology.
Summary of the Book
In "The Resurrection of Jesus: In the book” The New Historiographical Approach,”
Michael R. Licona, gives aims to come up with a new method of analyzing the historical
evidence that seeks to support the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Licona maintains that by
using traditional historical historicist methods, where naturalistic approaches are championed
and supernatural claims are viewed with suspicion by believers, the resurrection cannot be
adequately evaluated. Thus, he comes to a conclusion of salient understanding of historical facts
known to Christians as well as non-Christians while suggesting to adhere to the «minimal facts»
approach.
Licona asserts that when one investigates the claims from a historiographical perspective,
the minimal facts like the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus support the claim
that the apostles believed in the resurrection. This site employs a scientific method that focuses
on the methods used by historians to study history. He uses both paper and electronic sources
that include; cultural and historical documents, historical sites and artifacts, and historical
narratives that are not necessarily from biblical sources. Moreover, the author does not refrain
from referencing modern works on the subject of the resurrection and attempts to take into
account all the viewpoints that could be useful for the conversation.
Core to his approach is the assessment of what he calls “minimal facts,” which are basic
evidence that forms the basis of his evidential framework and include features such as multiple
attestations, early date, and enemy attestation.
Identification of the main themes or chapters covered in the reading:
In "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” Michael R. Licona
chooses to take a more structured approach to systematically discuss the resurrection narrative
based on its prominent themes and chapters. The work begins with the historical investigation of
Jesus, and in the initial chapter, Licona prepares the audience for the historical investigation by
performing preliminary questions and methods concerning the historical Jesus study. Finally,
here, it could be seen that the author situates the discussion for the remaining analysis within the
presented scheme of scholarly research and historical methodology.
The ‘minimal facts approach’ is introduced at the very beginning of the work, and it
constitutes the mainstay of Licona’s methodology. This approach deviates from the historical
methods in studying the historical Jesus where the focus is placed more on the few
incontrovertible aspects often agreed upon by historians rather than a scrutiny ion all the aspects
of the resurrection narrative. In so doing Licona simplifies the evidence to these essential facts
and thus the overwhelming sea of evidence that surrounds the resurrection is unraveled with
clear and concise scrutiny that enriches the historical assessment.
In analyzing the resurrection narrative, Licona used a historical-critical approach to the
two most important elements: The Empty Tomb and the Post-Mortem Appearances of Jesus.
Regarding the Empty Tomb, he presents the historical evidence for this key event and practically
examines this aspect’s ramifications on the extended idea of the resurrection. In the same way,
Licona examines each of the apparitions or post-mortem appearances of Jesus by scrutinizing the
historical evidence and relevance of each account about the broader scheme.
It is astonishing to read about The Origin of the Disciples’ Belief presented in one of the
most intriguing chapters of the book. Thus, Licona provides the psychological and sociological
aspects in the context of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus by discussing the
alternatives and the consequences of the resurrection hypothesis. They might be extremely
beneficial in attempts to understand how different historical contexts and people’s perception of
them may affect religious thought processes, and in contributing to the understanding of the
background to one of Christianity’s essential principles.
Discussing Alternative Explanations of the resurrection, Licona turns to the scholarly
theories that can allegedly explain the events surrounding the death and the resurrection of Jesus.
In this regard, he assesses these conjectures about the factual data within the historical matrix by
applying the Minimal Facts Approach framework, defining the adequacy and structural
consistency of the proposed evaluations.
The Conclusion and Implication chapter of the book is devoted to outlining general
observations and implications of the findings made by Licona. Here, he concludes, repeating
major points and making a few final remarks that give a less technical significance to his
argument to the field of theology/Christianity and history. This final chapter is a fitting climax to
Licona’s aggressive and systematic study and presents the readers with the refined interpretation
of the Gospel narrative concerning the notoriously contentious topic of resurrection and its
continued importance in the fields of both academic and theological studies.
Evaluation of Argumentation
Licona's argument in "The Resurrection of Jesus: Skilled Evidence and Prosecution: A
New Historiographical Approach” is considered to be one of the major strengths of his work
which is preceded by the appropriate selection of convincing proofs and the logical analysis.
Licona provides an informed approach in the distribution of historical evidence such as
the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances through multiple attestations, thereby giving
strong support to his argument. These ‘methodical facts’, before being seen by all scholars
independent of their religious views, support the credibility of his arguments enabling his work
to be defined as historical research. Moreover, Licona’s idea of outstanding features can be best
summarized as promising, specifically those programmatic ones, of which it is possible to
identify a minimal facts strategy. Liberated from debate and controversy, Licona as good as lays
out the shortest path as admirably well as filters the historical evidence logically and concisely.
This not only helps make the argument linear but also allows dialogues with those who are in
doubt or just generally belong to a different group of scholars in this theology. Furthermore, his
interaction with contemporaries establishes that the author is open to new ideas and able to
incorporate them into his work, which adds to the number of discussions and analytically
deepens the work.
However, that notwithstanding, it is worthy to note that Licona’s argument has some
weaknesses that deserve consideration. Of all these, the first one is to assess the evidence or
reasoning given by one or both parties and look for missing links for the argument. Despite
Licona’s rich documentation of the tomb and the post-resurrection appearances, there may be a
tendency to read past easily available ‘naturalistic’ explanations of skeptics, or various plausible
theories advanced by critics toward the appearances. Furthermore, the use of specific theological
assumptions, for example, the concept of a spiritual body and the supernatural act of raising, may
bring certain biases into the process of analyzing texts and, as a result, the conclusions may be
useful only within the theological context. Moreover, there is a possibility that Licona’s
methodological approach might also have certain potential weaknesses and/or biases typical for
the historiographical method. For example, the focus on the discovery of the factual and causal
may inadvertently neglect the part played by religion and faith as frameworks in the construction
of histories.
Furthermore, Licona’s work as theologian again raises the possibility of the problem of
prejudice where one is predisposed to believe in the resurrection hypothesis thus an ability to
influence the criteria used when evaluating the evidence. These weaknesses speak to the need to
take time and scrutinize the finer details of Licona’s argument and also, bear in mind that there
are limitations to the kind of research that is being conducted.
Comparison with other scholarly works.
In evaluating Michael R. Licona's argument in "The Resurrection of Jesus: This can be
seen in the article titled “ A New Historiographical Approach ” and in this context, the two
submissions are notable for failing to address Petit’s work due to its methodological and
interdisciplinary orientation in contrast to many conventional approaches to the concept of the
resurrection.
Unlike other traditionalist fundamentalist-oriented scholars who may sometimes opine on
sacred scriptures without much regard for professional historiography, Licona principally
focused the scholarly works that yield empirical analysis thus making his works relevant for
various theological schools of thought.
Criticisms of Licona’s minimal facts approach are evident, with some reducing them to a
guilty-by-marvels type of historical narrative and less capable of paying attention to certain
particulars, however, others appreciate them for their simplicity and readability arguing that due
to the minimal facts approach could easily be understood by lay Christians and the followers of
other faiths as well as by academics who study history and other related disciplines. However,
this could be attributed to Licona’s willingness to consider the plethora of approaches to the
study of the Gospels that contradict his own and his integration of modern scholarship into his
argumentation methods, making it quite dissimilar to more rigid and narrow approaches to the
study of the New Testament in comparison to other bibles, to say the least, within the academic
circles.
Regardless of how detailed Licona’s case for the empty tomb and post-mortem
appearances of Jesus is, there is a strong demand, a very important need to submit this and the
other of his arguments to critical analysis in terms of possible weaknesses, and gaps in his
argumentation. However, there remains an inherent bias that one runs when positing historical
data from different sources including the New Testament accounts as well as other extra-biblical
writings; this turns a blind eye to other possible explanations or different explanations that could
be used to explain these critical events. For example, even though Licona comes up with
profound arguments for the historical credibility of the empty tomb using the multiple attestation
method and early testimonial, he might not sufficiently argue with the other possibilities such as
mistaken burial or the elaborate theft of Jesus’ body as critical skeptics and other scholars may
want to suggest. However, some of the peripheral details relating, for instance, to the burial and
the discovered empty tomb, the cremation/burial practices in first-century Palestine, or the socio-
political situation do not seem to have been exhausted as far as they could complement the
arguments offered by Licona is explaining how able he is to interpret these events and
circumstances.
Moreover, the presence of specific theological assumptions, like the assumption about the
literal interpretation of the supernatural resurrection, emerges as the major problematic factor for
the objectivity and generalizability of Licona’s method. However, despite Licona’s effort to be
as impartial as any scientist studying this phenomenon, one cannot help but note that a
theological outlook applied to the evidence offers, by definition, a perspective that may make it
difficult to pursue the investigation in an uncompromised manner and limits the conclusions that
may be drawn from the evidence to any investigation but the specific case of Jesus’s
resurrection. Licona may unconsciously render some evidence to fit with his preconceived
judgments of the truth of the resurrection as an extra-natural occurrence by excluding or
diminishing the usefulness of other evidence sources that conflict with this course of thinking.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this pointedly theological perspective is that it may impair
the objectivity of Licona’s practice, and therefore the trustworthiness of his findings among
scholars who may have no interest in accepting Licona’s soteriology. However, the sociological
assumptions that lie at the base of the argument made by Licona could limit the investigative
options and reduce the potential for generating a multifaceted view of the historical context
relating to the resurrection of Jesus.
Secondly, there is an important point that it is erroneous to say that only the
historiographical approach may contain specific tendencies that can be deemed problematic.
While practicality is necessary for historiography’s scholarly credibility, research grounded in
methodological naturalism can potentially result in the marginalization of spiritual experience or
belief from the historical process. For example, Licona might ignore such reason that the
religious experience or theological perspective of the disciples brought about Jesus’ resurrection
by focusing wholly on evidence found in historical organic texts and archeology. Such an
approach of reducing history as a social science to reconstructions based on archival
documentation tends to ignore important aspects of personal observations and experiences like
psychological and emotional factors of the subjects under study. However, Licone is a Christian
theologian, which makes him prone to confirmation bias where one’s perception of evidence is
influenced by a hypothesis that he or she makes by default with the belief that the evidence will
support it. Thus, while Licona might try to employ a rational and objective approach to textual
criticism, the problem of faith-based scholarship being threatened by bias is quite universal and
might influence the objectivity of Licona’s study.
To eliminate the possibility of not noticing the other explanations or different
interpretations of the evidence, scientific work requires scholars to review the gaps in a given
argumentation, in this case by Licona. This entails a critical analysis of the factors that surround
the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus, factors that include burial practices, the
socio-political settings of the first century, and the reliability of source material from that era. By
criticizing the potency of the arguments, analyzing finer details of the evidence, or considering
plausible alternatives, scholars can expand the scope and depth of the critique and provide a
more balanced view of the problematic aspects of Licona’s work.
However, scholars should not lose sight of their categorical bias or purely methodological
markers that may be lurking in Licona’s argumentations; firstly, concerning the theological
assumptions that underlie the interpretation of this evidence. Specifically, scholars need to
investigate the presuppositions comprising Licona’s assessment and thereby single out potential
prejudice, as well as judge their impact on the concept of historical analysis in general. Further,
scholars should critically examine the methodological heuristics and soundness of Licona’s work
and evaluate the extent to which his investigation might be affected by biases or limitations
inherent to the historiographical method.
Critical Analysis
In his work, "The Resurrection of Jesus: In ‘A New Historiographical Approach,” the
author, Michael R. Licona conceptualizes a defense that presupposes some historical records
being accurate and faithfully offers the defense of the minimal facts approach. Known to be part
of Licona’s arguments is his use of the New Testament as a historical document which takes for
granted the other gospels’ credibility. However, this assumption may be contentious among
scholars who fail to believe that these accounts are a true depiction of the occurrences as they
were influenced by theology. On the same note, Licona could have been proceeding from a
certain theological standpoint that could make him favor the resurrection hypothesis when
evaluating evidence.
An analysis of the foregoing arguments in light of the identified criteria shows that while
Licona has used useful sources and persuasive arguments, his work may not be free from some
problems. Close attention to methodology and sources there are many positive features discussed
in this section, here it is necessary to mention that Licona proves to have a vast and rather
impressive list of primary and secondary sources departing from the ancient texts, archaeological
evidence and data, and modern scholarly work. Thus, the fact that Vargas Llosa took into
account all of these aspects contributes to enhancing the depth of his analysis and the
persuasiveness of his argumentation. However, it can be also suggested that Licona may over-
emphasize those sources that support his theory while minimizing the evidence that can be
regarded as contradicting, which in turn refers to the issue of subjectivity of the analyzed
materials.
However, it is important to look at such an account with caution because additionally,
Licona provided an analysis of the Minimal Facts approach alongside the competing theories
about the case. Some critics may argue that naturalistic explanations are just as plausible in the
case of the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances by claiming that the disciples merely
hallucinated, or the body was transferred by somebody else. In the same manner, some critics
have proposed the legendary evolution of the account of the resurrection out of tradition, thus,
raising several issues on the historical authenticity of the gospel portrayal. Licona correctly
notices these competing scenarios, but he affirms that the mentioned minimal facts are left
unexplained by them sufficiently. However, critics may argue that Lundberg relies heavily on the
effectiveness of buses and discounts the merits of other options too quickly or does not address
the counterarguments properly. To some extent, getting engaged with possible counterarguments
might have contributed to the improvement of Licona’s arguments and overcoming some
potential deficiencies in his approach.
Thinking about the consequence of the argument Licona forwarded, one can conclude
that his findings bear some particularly important implications for contemporary Christianity and
the historical method in general. If any of the New Testament books can be proven historical,
though they are not considered history in the modern sense, it not only confirms the foundation
for the claims of the Christian faith but also supports the concept of Jesus as the Son of God.
Furthermore, it has been seen that the minimal facts approach demonstrated by Licona has
significant implications, which have to do with the historiographical process and methodology,
and raises questions regarding the rigorous use of evidence and interdisciplinary research. In
particular, even though Licona’s argumentation has several benefits, there are following issues,
questions, and opportunities for further investigation. Other studies should also look at the socio-
cultural background of first-century Palestine for an enhanced explanation of the source of
resurrection belief by the followers of Jesus. However, perspectives from psychology, sociology,
and, to some extent, anthropology might be useful to examine the psychological and social
determinants of the resurrection belief. This self-critical paper brings out the challenge that
Licona presents to construct his case and the implications for theology and historiography.
Conclusion
Michael R. Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus: Hearing J.T. Johnson’s ‘A New
Historiographical Approach’ contributes to the advancing debate toward understanding the role
of the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection in modernism and postmodernism of the Christian
theological study and history. Thus this critique tries to demonstrate that in scrutinizing Licona’s
work, the following broad areas of evaluation and analysis are significant, and can be concluded
that the work of Licona has its own merits and demerits as follows.
Values such as Licona’s methodological balance and interdisciplinary approach set his
argument aside from many traditional postures on the resurrection. Thus, by appealing to
historical data and analysis of data, to critical thinking, Licona manages to address a wider circle
of scholars, regardless of their theological affiliations, and to enhance scholarly and, therefore,
more intelligent debates within the scientific community. His minimal facts approach, while the
appeal to which is not beyond criticism regarding possible reductionism, can help comprehend
the basic storyline of the ‘resurrection story’ clearly and without unnecessary added levels of
confusion.
Further, the Tiutuniko plot and Licona’s interaction with alternate viewpoints and recent
scholarship add depth to the interpretation, providing readers with distinct views and inciting
scholars and researchers to think critically. This is a manifestation of a scholarly approach and
intellectual honesty to the biblical accounts and other possible interpretations and brings clarity
to the concept of the resurrection. Nonetheless, there are some concerns regarding the
consistency and modes of argumentation in Licona’s work despite its noteworthy features. Due
to such theological prior assumptions and given the fact that his historiography was as potentially
biased as any other method of history writing, Wills’s argument can be deemed misleading and
self-serving. Moreover, certain elements such as the identification of only relevant sources and
arguments may weaken the authority of his claims, which in turn, should be addressed through
improved sensitivity to and integration of oppositional points of view.
Continuing our analysis, it will be reasonable to raise certain concerns regarding the
specifics of Licona’s argumentation and admit the flaws of the approach chosen. In its awareness
of issues of evidence or logic, contradiction of theological presuppositions, and contemplation of
other possibilities, the critique can benefit from additional layers of analysis so that more
grounds can be covered to the credit or detriment of Licona’s work in historical Jesus research.
Considering the question of the wider implications of Licona’s argument both for
Christian theology and for ancient historical study, it is evident that his project has a global
perspective. In ‘The Resurrection of Jesus,’ Licona poses questions for the scholars and readers
—for the believers, as well as critics—along with providing insightful interpretations and
responses to the main Christian doctrine or the historical account of Jesus’ life. While continuing
to pose these and similar questions, Licona has given his study a truly innovative approach, thus
pointing the scholars on the way to the more profound and comprehensive investigation of one of
the greatest enigmas of Christianity.
