Licona (2010): The Resurrection of Jesus#

Full citation

Licona, M. R. (2010). The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic / Nottingham, England: Apollos. 718 pages. ISBN 978-0-8308-2719-0.

Why this book matters#

Most discussions of the resurrection of Jesus fall into one of two camps: believers who treat it as obvious and skeptics who treat it as absurd. Licona does neither. He treats it as a historical hypothesis — one that can be investigated using the same methods professional historians use for any other claim about the past.

The result is arguably the most rigorous modern case for the historicity of the resurrection. At 718 pages, it is not light reading. But its thoroughness is precisely the point.

What the book does#

Part 1: Historiography (chapters 1–3, ~200 pages)

Before examining the resurrection itself, Licona spends a third of the book on method. What does it mean to investigate a historical claim? How do professional historians weigh evidence? And what happens when the claim involves something — like a miracle — that falls outside the normal framework of historical explanation?

Licona surveys the major schools of historical philosophy — from positivism to postmodernism — and develops a method he calls “inference to the best explanation.” The historian’s job is not to declare what must have happened, but to determine which hypothesis best accounts for the evidence that survives. This methodological groundwork is valuable independently of the resurrection question: it is a clear introduction to how professional historians actually think.

Part 2: The evidence (chapters 4–5)

Licona identifies what he calls “bedrock facts” — historical data points accepted by the vast majority of scholars across the theological spectrum, including skeptics. These include:

The death of Jesus by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate
Very shortly after, his followers had experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus
The conversion of Paul, a former persecutor, based on what he reported as an encounter with the risen Jesus
The conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, who was not a follower during Jesus’ lifetime

These facts are “bedrock” because they are granted by virtually all scholars who have studied the question — believers, skeptics, and agnostics alike. The debate is not over whether these things occurred, but over what explains them.

Part 3: Competing hypotheses (chapter 6)

This is the core of the book. Licona systematically evaluates the major alternative explanations:

Hallucination hypothesis — the disciples experienced psychological hallucinations
Legend hypothesis — the resurrection stories developed gradually over time
Apparent death hypothesis — Jesus survived the crucifixion
Conspiracy hypothesis — the disciples fabricated the story
Subjective vision hypothesis — the experiences were real but internal, not external events

Each hypothesis is assessed against the bedrock facts using the criteria historians use: explanatory scope (does it account for all the evidence?), explanatory power (how well?), plausibility, ad hoc avoidance (does it require special pleading?), and illumination (does it shed light on other evidence?).

Licona’s conclusion: the resurrection hypothesis provides the best explanation of the bedrock facts when evaluated by standard historiographical criteria. This does not constitute proof in the mathematical sense — history does not work that way. It constitutes a case that the resurrection is the most historically responsible explanation of the evidence that survives.

Why this reference is cited on this site#

The matheology framework developed on this site takes seriously the possibility that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical event, not merely a theological symbol. Several of the formal models — particularly those involving the Resurrection and the self-assessment bifurcation — depend on whether the person described in Revelation as having fully achieved life as a Balance-o-stat Species actually returned from death.

LLoL is not a theologian. He is a scientist who was not present at the events in question and cannot verify them personally. What he can do is evaluate the quality of the historical case — and Licona’s book represents the most thorough evaluation currently available.

Anyone who wishes to challenge LLoL’s trust in the historicity of the resurrection will need to engage with Licona’s arguments. The bar is not faith. It is evidence, professionally weighed.