On Roach’s Presuppositional Response to Licona’s New Historiographical Approach

Perichoresis 19 (4):21-33 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In a recent article, William C. Roach offers a presuppositional critique, which is inspired by Carl F. H. Henry, of Michael R. Licona’s so-called New Historiographical Approach to defending the resurrection. More precisely, Roach attempts to defend six key theses, namely, that the NHA is an evidentialist approach, the NHA is a deductive argument, the NHA is an insufficient approach, believers and unbelievers share no common ground, the NHA does not embrace a correspondence theory of truth, and the presupposition of divine revelation is necessary for apologetics. We respond to each of Roach’s arguments, respectively.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,127

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

24 (#679,414)

6 months
10 (#308,815)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge.
Précis of Inference to the Best Explanation, 2 nd Edition.Peter Lipton - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):421-423.
Inference to the Best explanation.Peter Lipton - 2004 - In Martin Curd & Stathis Psillos (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Routledge. pp. 193.

View all 9 references / Add more references