On Roach’s Presuppositional Response to Licona’s "New Historiographical Approach"
In a recent article, William C. Roach (2019) offers a presuppositional critique, which is inspired by Carl F. H. Henry, of Michael R. Licona’s (2010) so-called New Historiographical Approach (NHA) to defending the resurrection. More precisely, Roach attempts to defend six key theses, namely, that (1...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
2021
|
| In: |
Perichoresis
Year: 2021, Volume: 19, Issue: 4, Pages: 21-33 |
| IxTheo Classification: | KAA Church history NAB Fundamental theology NBF Christology |
| Further subjects: | B
William C. Roach
B Presuppositionalism B Michael R. Licona B EVIDENTIALISM B New Historiographical Approach |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | In a recent article, William C. Roach (2019) offers a presuppositional critique, which is inspired by Carl F. H. Henry, of Michael R. Licona’s (2010) so-called New Historiographical Approach (NHA) to defending the resurrection. More precisely, Roach attempts to defend six key theses, namely, that (1) the NHA is an evidentialist approach, (2) the NHA is a deductive argument, (3) the NHA is an insufficient approach, (4) believers and unbelievers share no common ground, (5) the NHA does not embrace a correspondence theory of truth, and (6) the presupposition of divine revelation is necessary for apologetics. We respond to each of Roach’s arguments, respectively. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2284-7308 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Historical or Presuppositional Apologetics (2019)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2021-0022 |