Review of “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Habermas and Licona, Chapter 2: Historical Principles Historians Should Employ to Assess the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

“Before we approach the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, let’s become familiar with some of the principles historians employ to determine whether a particular account in history is credible.”  Habermas and Licona, p. 36

  1. Multiple, independent sources support historical claims.
  2. Attestation by an enemy supports historical claims.
  3. Embarrassing admissions support historical claims.
  4. Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims.
  5. Early testimony supports historical claims.

Gary:  Habermas and Licona use the “traffic accident” analogy to give examples for each of these principles.  Conservative Christians love the traffic accident analogy when discussing the Resurrection.  Conservative Christians imagine that the disciples witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus in the same manner that eyewitnesses witness a traffic accident.  For instance, the minor discrepancies in the four Gospel resurrection accounts are typical of what one would find in four statements by four different eyewitnesses to the same traffic accident.

But I see a couple of BIG problems with this analogy:

  1. No one in the four Gospels claims to have seen the actual “accident”(the moment of the Resurrection)!
  2. The four persons who have submitted “statements” (the Gospels) regarding the “accident” in question never claim to be eyewitnesses to the accident or to any other event detailed in their statements!*  Most eyewitnesses state for the record that they are eyewitnesses.

Let’s see how Habermas and Licona address these issues (or fail to do so) in the subsequent chapters.

 

*I realize that some conservative Christians believe that the author of the Gospel of John claims that he was an eyewitness but most scholars do not believe that the author was making an eyewitness claim.

Advertisements

One thought on “Review of “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Habermas and Licona, Chapter 2: Historical Principles Historians Should Employ to Assess the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

  1. Their arguments are more worn-out than Lance Armstrong’s knees, and no matter how they recycle them they still cannot take them beyond the covers of the bible. And like Armstrong they know they are simply lying. There is no contemporary evidence for any of it.
    And as mentioned before, raised from the dead or resurrection, Lazarus was so much better documented and not a peep.

    Smoke and mirrors.

    As Licona was stripped of his academic position … twice …. after he refused to recant the ‘Not to be taken literally’ account of the Raising of the Dead Saints passage in his 2010 book I’m surprised he has the gall to actually punt this garbage.
    But, then again, he is a Christian and if the evidence won’t stand for itself then someone has to lie for Jesus, right?
    After all, they all do it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s