Talk:Michael R. Licona

Many Prominent Historians and Scholars

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?

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

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

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

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)

would say not. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite

This rewrite of the page updates all publications and cleans up a lot of the material on the academic content to make it clearer and less cluttered. Licona is a New Testament researcher, so the article focuses on his research into the literary genre of the New Testament Gospels. Controversial issues surrounding Licona have been moved to their own section and properly categorized. --TMD Talk Page. 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

TMDrew Care to explain why you've restored material which was contested, several times, originally created by socks and requested for discussion here all the while demanding other editors discuss it while you've unilaterally made the changes? Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What specific material are you talking about? This is why I wanted to talk on the talk page so we can discuss edits. The version I updated is different than previous versions. If you have issues with it, let's restore the page I worked so hard to build, and then if you don't like something, we can alter it. TMD Talk Page. 18:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How did you work so hard to build it when the content was just copied from the previous two accounts edits? Please explain, TMDrew. It's also been requested multiple times in the history of this article, which you've clearly read, that any restoration of content be discussed and consensus reached here first and yet again, you've made a unilateral decision to restore material that violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If you won't explain where you researched all that material from, maybe you will explain to us how you got here, all of a sudden, at the same time that some other strangely dormant accounts all of a sudden show up to start fluffing up this resume in the exact same way. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The content was not simply copied from previous edits, which you should notice if you have read the article. I used a longer version of the article as a template to rebuild and rewrite the article. If there is something wrong with that specific material, then we can remove it, but I wanted to use the talk page first, before we delete it. I see no discussions on this Talk page that either cover the reason for these edits, or are remotely recent. There is no established consensus if there is no record on the Talk page. You tell me what specific material violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Certainly not the whole article. TMD Talk Page. 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

TMDrew You were asked no less than three times by two people to discuss it here and instead you chose to make the changes without so much as a courtesy notification or request to discuss it. As far as the violating material, well for starters, who has determined he's a historian? What independent reliable sources regard him as an authority? How do you know who his wife is and how many children he has since it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article? Also "discuss then remove it" is not how BLP's work. It's discuss then restore upon consensus when it's contested material. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion per WP:BLP Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also what does this mean exactly? Licona’s doctoral research concerned investigating Jesus’s resurrection using the methodology of a historian Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Historian?

This is by no means my area of expertise and all the above puffery aside, can anyone please provide an independent reliable source (preferably several) which identify him as a historian? Where is he regarded as an authority on this outside of only Evangelical sources? Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A historian is someone who studies history. His dissertation is about the historicity of certain events, and the PhD is from Pretoria, which is a state run university. C. Behan McCullagh considers Licona an important enough figure to engage in the peer-reviewed literature and also panel discussions. There is also James Charlesworth and Gerd Theissen who endorsed his work. TMD Talk Page. 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No a historian is someone who is regarded as an authority on the matter. You can write 30 papers on history, it doesn't mean anyone of note regards it as any more than dead trees with writing on them. Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Seminary

Hi, Anachronist, I'm wondering what it is in the sentence It also led to Licona's departure from Southern Evangelical Seminary. that the subject or his associate finds false and potentially libelous? The following subsection includes the line In the course of events, Licona resigned in 2011 from his position as research professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary and as apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board (NAMB).—does he object to that one as well? I know that there is some debate over whether he left voluntarily as a result of the controversy, or was forced out; but I thought that my changing "dismissal" to "departure" avoided taking a side. Cheers, gnu57 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, just saw you'd re-reverted. Cheers, gnu57 05:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for that. I hadn't noticed that one-word change in your initial revert. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)