Talk:Michael R. Licona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Many Prominent Historians and Scholars[edit]

The Resurrection of Jesus was praised by not just a few, not some, but many scholars. An example is C. Behan McCullagh, who is perhaps the leading philosopher of history today. Others include James Charlesworth, who is no theological conservative, but is an expert on New Testament history and languages. Gerd Theissen endorsed it, and he wrote his masterpiece on methodology on the Historical Jesus. Craig A. Evans is one of the leading figures in historical Jesus research. Daniel Wallace is one of the leading figures in ancient manuscripts, and also one who endorsed it. These are very prominent scholars at the top of their fields who endorsed this book. --TMD (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC):

It shouldn't say evangelical because there are many non-evangelicals like Charlesworth who endorse the book. It was also praised at the SBL which is not an evangelical group. --ApologiaNick (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lincona is a historian? Then how can he be an inerrantist?[edit]

What is it that makes Lincona a historian? Does he have a degree in history? Does he have any publications in historical journals?

The reason I ask is that I can only see degrees in Theology and articles in theological journals on his CV (http://www.risenjesus.com/mike-licona/curriculum-vitae), incl. his Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (see. http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=2755&subid=2755&ipklookid=12 and http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=24803&sub=1&parentid=193&subid=2755&ipklookid=12). Furthermore, being an inerrantist simply goes against the core of what a historical analysis is all about: The recognition that sources always contain bias and that this needs to be included when judging whether or to which extent their depiction of events can be trusted. Another issue, which may simply be due to the current wording is the apparent contradiction between the title of Licona's book (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach) and Licona's claim that "almost all scholars writing on the subject of Jesus’s resurrection are biblical scholars and philosophers. And virtually none of them have any training in matters pertaining to the philosophy of history and the historical method of comparing hypotheses." If little historical research has been done on the resurrection of Jesus, how can Licona conduct a historiographical study? Mojowiha (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

One can be an inerrantist and a historian. There is no Wikipedia policy against this.--TMD Talk Page. 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You've still not presented any definition of what makes him a historian. Is it simply because he has worked on "stuff in the past", or does it take an actual education and publications (academic or otherwise) to be labelled a historian? If the former, then it would at least be helpful to textually distinguish between his education and academic publication (in theology) and "stuff he has done" (which may include writing on historical topics). Mojowiha (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Debate with Bart Ehrman, plus Feburary 2016 Licona Intervew[edit]

Licona and Bart Ehrman are debating "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament" at TheBestSchools.org. That page also lists a link to a February 2016 interview with Licona, which I believe would benefit the Wikipedia entry. As I have a connection to The Best Schools, I wanted to share it off the main page. If an editor would like to note it, I think it would benefit the Licona entry and the Wikipedia community.

Dedelen (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Dan Edelen

Bart Ehrman[edit]

The article currently reads: "In the course of the controversy over the raised saints in the Gospel of Matthew, Evangelicals such as Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler and F. David Farnell have questioned whether Licona is moving away from his evangelical views and is headed in a similar path traveled by the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman ." Is it just me or is the mention of Ehrman in this context prejudicial? (I don't have a problem with the other mention of Ehrman later in that same paragraph as the context is justifiable.) Henry Hedgehog (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Views - Page length and footnote count[edit]

Are the length of a book and the number of footnotes relevant in any way? Is it some measure of scholarly worth? Joe Fogey (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)