ARTICLE GUIDE
At a Glance
Historical inquiry into the fate of Jesus of Nazareth stands at the intersection of historiography, biblical exegesis, and philosophical theology. Against the twin reductionisms of post-Enlightenment positivism and radical postmodern skepticism, Michael R. Licona’s critical-realist framework in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (2010) offers a methodologically rigorous path forward.
Read moreShow less
What This Study Explores
Promise-Plan Theology • Resurrection • Historical Method
Which Historical Hypothesis Best Explains the Resurrection Evidence?
Licona’s critical-realist method compares explanations using a restricted bedrock: Jesus died by crucifixion, disciples had experiences they interpreted as appearances of the risen Jesus, and persecutor Paul underwent a radical conversion grounded in what he understood as an appearance. These data enjoy wide scholarly support and can be evaluated without first settling every question about Gospel reliability.
Competing hypotheses must be judged by explanatory scope, power, plausibility, lack of ad hoc assumptions, and illumination. Hallucination, fraud, apparent death, and legend explain portions of the evidence but struggle with the combined data. The resurrection hypothesis provides a unified explanation, though historians must state background assumptions openly and distinguish historical inference from the event’s full theological meaning.
Key Claims
- Methodical neutrality distributes burdens fairly. Natural and supernatural claims alike require argument rather than privileged dismissal or acceptance.
- Historical bedrock limits unnecessary disputes. The case does not depend on proving every narrative detail.
- Hypotheses must explain the combined evidence. Partial explanations are inadequate when they leave major facts untouched.
- Worldview horizons affect plausibility judgments. Critical realism identifies and tests these influences rather than pretending historians have none.
- Canonical theology interprets the event. Resurrection vindicates Messiah, inaugurates new creation, and confirms covenant fidelity.
Interpretive Context
Licona’s restricted bedrock triad is a strategic minimum rather than the whole evidential case. Empty-tomb traditions, women as first witnesses, group appearances, the early creed, and the transformations of James and Paul receive differing levels of scholarly agreement and should be weighted rather than treated identically. Historical reasoning can compare explanatory scope and plausibility; identifying the event as God’s promised act also requires the Jewish resurrection horizon and the canonical narrative.
The guide follows Michael Licona’s use of C. Behan McCullagh’s inference-to-the-best-explanation criteria. Critics dispute whether historians may infer miracles and whether the bedrock descriptions already contain interpretation; those objections should be engaged rather than bypassed. Within Second Temple Jewish expectation, an individual resurrection ahead of the general resurrection was surprising, sharpening the need to explain the disciples’ specific claim.
Selected Scholarship
- Licona, M. R. (2010). The Resurrection of Jesus.
- McCullagh, C. B. (1984). Justifying Historical Descriptions.
- Habermas, G. R. (2024). On the Resurrection, Volume 1.
- Allison, D. C., Jr. (2021). The Resurrection of Jesus.
- Wright, N. T. (2003). The Resurrection of the Son of God.
Scripture Connections
1 Corinthians 15:3–8; Romans 7; Galatians 1:13–14; Philippians 3:4–6; Daniel 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15; Luke 24:41–43; John 20:27
Continue on Substack
The complete article remains on Rabbit Room Apologetics at Substack.
Originally published August 6, 2026. This WordPress page is a discovery guide; the complete article is hosted on Substack.