RT Article
T1 On Roach’s Presuppositional Response to Licona’s "New Historiographical Approach"
JF Perichoresis
VO 19
IS 4
SP 21
OP 33
A1 Erasmus, Jacob ca. 20./21. Jh.
A2 Licona, Michael R. 1961-
A2 Roach, William C.
LA English
YR 2021
UL https://ixtheo.de/Record/1801375712
AB 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.
K1 Michael R. Licona
K1 New Historiographical Approach
K1 William C. Roach
K1 EVIDENTIALISM
K1 Presuppositionalism
DO 10.2478/perc-2021-0022