Michael R.

Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historigraphical Approach (IVP

Academic, 2010). Reviewed by Jim West.

In part two Licona attempts to persuade readers that historians may indeed, without fear,
assert the occurrence of the miraculous.

‘By miracle, I am referring to an event in history for which natural explanations are
inadequate’ (p. 134), says L. Fair enough, of course. With that in hand L. discusses and
then attempts to answer the criticisms of Hume and McCullagh. His presentation is
pretty good and though he writes persuasively, he doesn’t quite manage to persuade.
This, I think, because he is operating with an understanding of ‘historical’ proof which
confuses theological and historical claims.

Indeed, that is the problem with both conservatives and agnostics/atheists. They,
curiously, share the same inadequate understanding of the difference between theological
claims (which are super-historical) and historical claims (which are investigatable by
means of human reasoning). Because they mix the apple of theology with the orange of
historicity, they fail to see the reality of both within their own specific arenas.

Fortunately, though, John Meier understands the difference between theology and history
and though Licona weighs his arguments and finds them wanting, I find them most
persuasive. Meier is quite right to assert that ‘professional historians cannot assign a
judgment of “historical” to a miracle-claim’ (p. 160-161). And they can’t. They just don’t
have the equipment for it. Hence, Licona is wrong to say that ‘Meier underestimates the
weight of a context charged with religious significance’ (p. 162). He does nothing of the
kind.

And when Licona cites (and he does quite frequently) William Lane Craig, his argument
is not strengthened but merely confused and muddled. For instance, Licona writes

‘William Lane Craig asserts that “if a purported miracle occurs in a

significant religio-historical context, then the chances of its being a
genuine miracle are increased’ (p. 162)

he makes no sense at all. What exactly is a ‘significant religio-historical context’? Joseph

Smith had a vision in a ‘significant religio-historical context’ – a miraculous appearance
from an angel. Would Craig, or Licona for that matter, grant the authenticity of such an
appearance? I certainly don’t, because miraculous events are not confined to ‘religio-
historical contexts’ – they occur precisely outside such contexts and are even more
stunning therefore.

Still, Licona doesn’t find Meier’s work convincing. Nor does he find Bart Ehrman’s
(though to be fair who does besides the angry atheists and Jesus mythers who delight in
such skewed and unbalanced reasoning). However, he does seem to appreciate the work
of Wedderburn and Dunn, though, again, he finds their ability to remove the miraculous
from the arena of historical studies unsettling.

So Licona observes laconically – ‘… there are no sound reasons, a priori or a posteriori, for
prohibiting historians from investigating a miracle-claim’ (p. 189).

He concludes the chapter with an investigation of the supposed ‘greater burden of proof’
which miraculous events require and dismisses such as unreasonable. Such extra proof is
only required by ‘… certain historians for whom the conclusion challenges their horizon’
(p. 197).

Overall Licona’s presentation is well enough done but it is astonishing to me that he

ignores the cornerstone of modern historical research on the miraculous, Rudolf
Bultmann. His presentation could have been much enriched by a consideration of
Bultmann’s viewpoint. But of course that’s true for everyone researching the historical
Jesus.

In the next section, Licona examines the historical sources for Jesus’ resurrection.
Houston, we may have a problem- as the primary sources are not historical but
theological. More, of course, next time.