SKU: 13888977816
are spider lilies poisonous

are spider lilies poisonous Red Spider Lily, Lycoris radiata, heirloom bulbs – The Southern Bulb Co

Sale price$19.81 Regular price$22.01
Save 10%

Pay in installments of $5.50 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 31 - Sep 5

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

are spider lilies poisonous Red Spider Lily, Lycoris radiata, heirloom bulbs – The Southern Bulb CoRed Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata): A Gardener's Guide to the Enchanting Resurrection Flower Red spider lilies are beloved perennials that thrive in zones 7 10, bringing a burst of vibrant beauty to gardens when fall rains arrive. A Lily of Many Names: The Red Spider Lily's Regional Nickname: One of our favorite things about the red spider is its many names as you travel across the country. This also makes for interesting conversations with our

Red Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata): A Gardener's Guide to the Enchanting Resurrection Flower

Red spider lilies are beloved perennials that thrive in zones 7-10, bringing a burst of vibrant beauty to gardens when fall rains arrive.

A Lily of Many Names: The Red Spider Lily's Regional Nickname:

One of our favorite things about the red spider is its many names as you travel across the country. This also makes for interesting conversations with our customers to make sure that we are talking about the same flowering bulb. The names don't change the striking beauty of this fall-blooming flower. Here in East Texas, we call it the "red spider lily". It is red, and the stamens look like spider legs. Along the coast, it is often referred to as a "hurricane lily" because it often blooms after the first fall hurricane. Many people call this a "naked lady" because it blooms on a naked stalk. Others simply call it a "surprise" lily because it shows up out of nowhere and surprises you one day with a flower. No matter what it is called, its beauty will make you glad that you have it in your garden.

The Red Spider Lily's Unique Bloom Cycle: A Timeline

Understanding the Red Spider Lily's bloom cycle is key to successful cultivation. Most people still expect to see something growing during the summer months. You won't see anything. These lilies are dormant in the summer. The flowers suddenly appear with the first later summer or early fall rains. One day there is nothing growing and then suddenly you have a surprise, a fully blooming flower! That is why they are called "Surprise lilies". Yellow spider lilies act very similarly to yellow spider lilies, schoolhouse lilies, and naked ladies. Simply put, they bloom in the fall and then have foliage for the winter. I have spider lilies planted almost 2 years ago that have not yet produced blooms but have produced increasing foliage each year.

1. Planting (Anytime): Avoid hard freezes, but otherwise you can plant the bulbs anytime that you are thinking about them.
2. Dormancy (Summer): Bulbs rest underground, conserving energy.
3. Surprise Blooms (Late Summer/Early Fall): Flowers emerge seemingly overnight.
4. Foliage Growth (Fall/Winter): Leaves appear, gathering nutrients for the following year.

Nurturing the Foliage: The Key to Red Spider Lily Success

The foliage is vital for the bulb's health and reproduction. Don't be discouraged if you don't see blooms the first year – healthy foliage is a positive sign of bulb establishment. The foliage tells you the bulb is growing and multiplying. We know that we all want to see the beautiful unusual blooms in the fall, but the foliage is very important. The foliage is what allows the bulb to grow and multiply. Many people get very concerned if they don't see the spider lily bloom the first year that they plant it and believe that maybe the bulb isn't any good. The foliage is what you watch for if you don't see your spider lily bloom, or even if you do.

Below you will see a picture of the foliage of the red spider lily - it looks like grass. We took the picture on November 1st. The foliage has been popping out of the ground a little over the previous couple of weeks, but now you can really see the stand. All of those different tufts of foliage are bulbs, and someday you will see a beautiful stand of red spider lilies here. In this area because of the super dry summer, not one red spider lily bloomed. However, you can see that the bulbs are growing. The foliage is up and ready to take in nutrients over the next several months while helping the bulbs grow, mature, and multiply. I know you will have to take our word for it, but there wasn't even 1/2 that much foliage there last year which shows you how quickly the bulbs multiply. The foliage will continue to grow. Even if it gets hit by a winter cold snap, it will have taken in nutrients for months! Always allow the foliage to die down naturally and don't cut it off. If you cut it, you are killing the bulb. Once the foliage is completely dead which is usually around the beginning of May, this area can be mowed. Remember, it takes a lot of energy for the bulb to push that bloom up out of the ground and open wide. The more time the bulbs can take in nutrients, the more energy they will have for that fall bloom.

Sunlight Requirements: Ensuring a Spectacular Bloom

The single most important thing about landscaping with spider lilies is the sun. They need at least 6+ hours a day of WINTER sun. That means about 6-8 hours of sunlight during the winter months. If you look at the photo above, you will see that they are in the shade of the trees. You can be sure that most, if not all, of those trees, will lose their leaves in the winter when the greenery needs sunlight. The spider lily puts on its foliage during the winter (November - May) and that is when it takes in the nutrients it needs to produce those golden flowers the following September. The winter foliage soaks up sun energy during winter as it prepares for summer dormancy. The foliage normally completely dies down by around May.

Planting and Care Tips for Red Spider Lilies

Don't plant the bulb too deep. You will plant the bulbs 2-3 times deep the height of the bulb (so if your bulb is 2" tall, then you will plant it 4-5 inches deep). You can plant 2-3 per hole to make the blooms look more natural. Spider lilies really do well in any type of soil. They thrive in soil that has plenty of organic material mixed in, but they do not require fertilizer. Newly planted bulbs would actually be harmed by exposure to fertilizer, so if you are going to apply nutrients, limit the application to established plants when the plants are producing their green leafy foliage during the winter. After planting the bulbs, water the soil thoroughly. Damp soil is ok, as long as the bulbs are in a spot where they will receive plenty of winter sun and the foliage is allowed to die down naturally in the spring. Standing water is not good. Once the summer season starts the spider lily will do best in soil that dries out a bit, as this facilitates its entry into the dormant stage when its leaves die back. This period is followed by its blooming season when it will reward daily watering with long-lasting blooms. Too much moisture in the soil will lead to the bulbs rotting.

Planting Depth: Plant bulbs 2-3 times their height deep.

Soil Type: While adaptable, they thrive in soil rich in organic matter.

Watering: Water thoroughly after planting and during dry periods. The bulbs are dormant during the summer so you don't need to water them.

Fertilizer: Avoid fertilizing newly planted bulbs; established plants benefit from fertilizer during active foliage growth.

The performance of red spider lilies primarily hinges on two factors:

1. Winter Sunlight: To produce lush blooms, the bulbs need to absorb sufficient nutrients from the winter sun. Energy stored over months is used to create these breathtaking blossoms. For this, they require at least six hours of winter sun for several months to ensure they have the energy needed.

2. Fall Rains: The magic trigger for these blooms is the arrival of fall rains. Without adequate rainfall in September, the bulbs won't bloom, as the rains are the signal they've been waiting for.

Dividing and Multiplying Your Red Spider Lily Garden

Early spring is ideal for dividing, but it can be done whenever convenient. Remember, transplanting might cause the lilies to skip a blooming cycle.

Companion Plants for Red Spider Lilies: A Symphony of Color

Enhance your garden's beauty by pairing Red Spider Lilies with other perennials, annuals, or bulbs for continuous blooms:

Perennials: Salvias, Lantanas, Plumbago, Phlox
Annuals: Alyssum, Snapdragons, Pansies, Cyclamen
Bulbs: Narcissus, Iris, Snowflakes, Rain Lilies, Crinums, Hymenocallis

FAQ's

Do animals bother the red spider lilies?

Pollinators adore yellow spider lilies...hummingbirds, bees, and butterfilies.

While deer will eat anything (including plastic flowers if hungry enough), spider lilies are more resistant to their urges than many other ornamental garden products. They definitely leave the foliage alone during the winter, but can be attracted to the bright flowers. So the answer to this question, is that they are mostly resistant, depending on how hungry the deer are. Remember, humans ate tulips during times of hunger/famine, yet tulips definitely aren’t on our menu either.

We understand that online sources sometimes raise concerns about toxicity, so we want to offer some clarification. Much of the alarm you may see online stems from generalized or exaggerated toxicity listings. In reality, cases of actual poisoning are extremely rare, and the plants are not considered a serious risk. While red spider lily bulbs, like many ornamental bulbs, do contain alkaloids that could cause mild irritation if ingested in large quantities, they are not considered dangerous to humans or animals under normal garden conditions. The key is that even for mild irritation they would need to be fully consumed in large quantities. Even if animals chew on the bulbs a little bit, they aren't interested in them (even deer who have been known to eat plastic flowers leave them alone). In fact, they’ve been grown safely in Southern gardens for generations—including in areas with pets and children. You can feel confident they won’t pose a hazard just by being in your garden.

When should I plant red spider lilies? How far in advance should lily bulbs be planted before the first frost in the fall?

For fall planting, aim to have fall lily bulbs in the ground at least four weeks before the first frost. This gives them time to get settled and adjusted before the freeze. You can plant red spider lilies anytime, but avoid a hard freeze.

How do you ship red spider lilies?


During the spring, we ship these vibrant bulbs "in the green," which means they are plump, healthy, and eager to be planted. Expect the foliage to yellow and die back naturally—this is a normal process where the leaves nourish the bulbs for future blooms. Once the foliage is dead, you can cut it off. The rest of the year we ship dormant bulbs. Plant them, water them, and then just wait. Remember - you won't see anything during the summer as the bulbs are dormant. You may not see blooms the first fall depending on when you planted the bulbs. Many perennial bulbs need 6-12 months in the ground before they bloom.

Your Red Spider Lily Journey Starts Today!

Order your Red Spider Lily bulbs now and witness the magic of these captivating flowers in your own garden. With their unique charm and resilience, they are guaranteed to become a treasured part of your landscape.

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 13888977816

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell are spider lilies poisonous

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.7 ★★★★★
Based on 8 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
T
Verified Purchase
Tim Chaffey
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 5
Outstanding, compelling, and thorough work on the historicity or non-historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
Format: Paperback
I had been looking forward to reading this book since the first time I heard about it. I was sitting in Dr. Gary Habermas' class on miracles and he told us about Mike Licona, who was currently working on his dissertation on the Resurrection. Although it was published in 2010, I finally had the opportunity to read it over the past few months. At over 700 pages, including an extensive bibliography and over 2,000 footnotes, this book is not a light read by any stretch of the imagination. As the subtitle states, this is a book dealing with historiography. Readers looking for a deep theological treatment on the Resurrection of Christ may want to look elsewhere since Licona's focus here is not theology, but history (although there is still a good deal of theology). Using methodological principles agreed upon by a vast number of historians from a variety of religious and philosophical backgrounds, he sets out to determine whether or not the historian "is warranted in regarding Jesus' resurrection as an event that occurred in the past" (p. 610). Surprisingly, the book consists of only five chapters and one appendix, so each chapter averages more than 100 pages in length. Also, the second half of the book contains a significant amount of Greek, giving me a good opportunity to brush up on that. If you can't read Greek, don't worry, Dr. Licona provides an English translation throughout. The first section deals with a significant number of preliminary considerations. There is an excellent critique of the skeptical postmodern view of history and a complete dismantling of the beliefs of Jesus "mythers" (those who claim Jesus never existed). There's also a good discussion on horizons (the presuppositions and biases we all have). While total neutrality may not be possible, Licona gives several principles historians should implement to help them transcend their horizon. Finally, he provides an honest discussion of his own biases so that readers are well aware of where he is coming from. The second chapter focuses on whether or not miracles fall within the purview of the historian. Licona addresses the popular objections of David Hume and Bart Ehrman, as well as McCullagh, Meier, Wedderburn, and Dunn. Many skeptics simply have an a priori objection to miracles, so they aren't willing to even consider the possibility that historical evidence for a miracle may exist. There's an interesting discussion on the burden of proof as it relates to the historicity of miracle claims. I thought the following quote summarized the nature of evidence when it comes to miracle claims: "It is the responsibility of the historian to consider what the evidence would look like if she were not wearing her metaphysical bias like a pair of sunglasses that shade the world. It is not the responsibility of the evidence to shine so brightly that they render such glasses ineffectual." (p. 196) With all the preliminary matters out of the way, Dr. Licona gets down to the business of doing history. Chapter three examines the historical sources pertaining to Christ's Resurrection. Many Christians may object to the methodology employed in this chapter since he does not automatically accept every biblical passage on the subject as evidence, but bear in mind that Licona is doing his best to transcend his own Christian horizon to be as neutral as possible. He discusses over two dozen early sources and rates them as "unlikely, possible-minus, possible, possible-plus, highly probable, indeterminate [or] not useful" (p. 201). The fourth chapter uncovers the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus. This approach follows on the heels of the exhaustive work of Dr. Habermas who, since 1975, has kept track of over 3,400 academic works from scholars of various stripes on the Resurrection in English, German, and French. From this research, Dr. Habermas has shown that there are 12 facts accepted by the vast majority of scholars. He has reduced this to six best attested details in what he calls the "minimal facts" approach. Each of these facts are discussed, but Dr. Licona narrows this down to three facts that nearly all scholars agree upon: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead, and 3) Paul converted to Christianity after experiencing what he believed to be a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus. There's also a lengthy discussion on what "resurrection" meant to Jewish and Christian audiences in the first century. The information contained in this chapter is often completely ignored by agnostics, atheists, Muslims, and others who do not want to even consider the Resurrection as a possibility. I have had many discussions with skeptics who display naivete when they claim that there is no evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. It's one thing to disbelieve in the event, but it's an entirely different thing to completely ignore or to willingly remain ignorant of the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus. The fifth and final chapter of the book examines six different hypotheses that attempt to explain what happened to Jesus after being crucified. Along with the traditional Christian understanding of the Resurrection, the views promoted by Vermes, Goulder, Ludemann, Crossen, and Craffert are weighed in terms of their explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, the amount of ad hoc elements, and illumination for solving problems associated with the subject. An appendix also examines Dale Allison's work on the Resurrection according to the same criteria. The traditional Resurrection hypothesis is the only view that fulfills all five criteria, and it outdistances the other views by a wide margin. Critics can claim that Licona merely concluded what he hoped to prove, but they must be able to point out flaws in his methodology, since his conclusion most certainly follows from the data when historiographical principles are applied. My biggest concern with the book is found in the fifth chapter. While discussing the strange events described in Matthew 27:51-53, Licona suggested that the passage was not describing historical events but employing apocalyptic language to show that a significant person had died. Such descriptions were not uncommon in the ancient world when describing the death of important people. This comment has set off a wave of criticism from conservative Christian scholars like Norman Geisler and Al Mohler. I disagree with Licona's statement and share some of the same concerns as Geisler and Mohler. But when I consider the context and methodology being used in the book, I don't find it to be quite as grievous an error as some have claimed. Skeptics will undoubtedly continue to dismiss the Resurrection of Christ, but they must deal with the research in this book or they simply are not interacting with the latest scholarship. Dr. Licona's work raises the bar when it comes to the most important subject we could ever study: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this subject who is up to the task of reading an academic work. I have studied the subject for years, but I still learned a lot and will treasure this book as an extremely valuable resource. Even though I disagree with his take on Matt. 27:51-53, I still need to give the book five stars since I don't need to agree with the author on every point for me to give a positive review and recognize the book's worth.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2012
B
Verified Purchase
Brant Jones
Bozeman, US
★★★★★ 5
Brilliant, rigorous, balanced, and approachable
Format: Paperback
"The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach," by Michael R. Licona is an outstanding, thorough yet highly approachable assessment of the evidence, sources, and explanatory hypotheses for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As the subtitle suggests, it borrows significant methodological rigor and best practices from the field of historical analysis and applies them to biblical scholarship. Licona begins his assessment with a meticulous discussion of his historical analysis methodology. Included in this section is his definition of five criteria he uses to assess a set of explanatory hypotheses. He then uses those assessments to weigh the hypotheses based on nine levels of certainty ranging from “certainly not historical” to “certainly historical.” The hypothesis representing the best explanation for the resurrection of Christ is the one rated highest in historical certainty based on the five criteria. At the outset of the book, Licona also includes a robust discussion of historical analysis influences and issues because evaluating them openly is essential to his methodical approach and because they aren’t often discussed in biblical studies. It is in this section that he does something quite unique and insightful; Licona includes a full discussion of knowledge, experiences, worldviews, preferences and other influences, which he calls “horizons,” that tend to bias the assessment of history. Furthermore, he defines a set of six methods that he uses throughout the book to avoid his own biases as he strives to present outcomes based on methodical neutrality. It’s quite brilliant. Licona even includes a confession of his own “horizons” - his potential influences. With all this foundation in place, Licona proceeds to identify all sources of evidence for the resurrection of Christ and rates each according to its likelihood of providing reliable independent testimony. Included in this assessment are sources from the Bible, early Christian writers, non-biblical Christian literature and early non-Christian writers. He then uses the most reliable sources as the basis for attesting to the reliability for all the available evidence for the resurrection. This produces three pieces of evidence that he calls “historical bedrock” because they are well attested within multiple reliable sources and are validated by a broad range of scholars. In the final section of the book, Licona evaluates major assertions against the resurrection from skeptics and compares the results against a parallel evaluation of the resurrection hypothesis. Specifically, he uses his criteria and rating system to assess how well hypotheses from a range of skeptical scholars, like Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan, are able to explain the historical bedrock evidence. At the end of this extensive analysis, the biblical resurrection hypothesis is by far the most credible explanation for historical bedrock evidence associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As noted above, Michael Licona’s book is an excellent assessment of the evidence, sources and competing hypotheses associated with the resurrection of Christ. The author uniquely applies the meticulousness of best practice historical analysis methodology to arguably the most important of all biblical questions. Using rigorous criteria and rating scales, Licona delivers a fair and balanced evaluation that achieves the methodical neutrality he was striving for while minimizing, as best as possible, influences from his “horizons.” It’s also worth noting that Licona assesses a broad range of possible sources, including those classified as gnostic and pseudepigraphal, and includes viewpoints from a broad range of scholars, supportive and skeptical alike. Furthermore, the author includes a very robust set of footnotes on the various topics discussed within the book. These footnotes are helpful for both scholars and non-scholars looking for a deeper understanding or pointers for additional exploration plus they include additional explanatory comments that complement Licona’s focus on delivering a fair and balanced assessment. The one issue I found while reading the book was its treatment of the empty tomb evidence. I was disappointed the author’s discussion was brief since I was looking forward to a robust evaluation. However, in his defense, Licona was looking for historical bedrock evidence that could be used to assess the various resurrection hypotheses. A large number of scholars are skeptical of the empty tomb so it doesn’t belong in his historical bedrock category. Beside this one brief moment of disappointment, I was greatly pleased with the totality of Licona’s analysis and outcomes.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 25, 2021
A
Verified Purchase
Amazon Customer
Alexandria, US
★★★★★ 5
Detailed examination
Format: Paperback
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is thus far my favorite textbook to refer to when exploring the Jesus’ resurrection. If you are looking for a timeless, structured, methodical, and systematic approach to the resurrection of Jesus, then this is the book for you. Although the massiveness of the volume can be intimidating, Licona’s scholarly work is well-written and easily followed, making it suitable for both scholars and layman. Rather than jump straight into the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, as others do, Licona begins by discussing the nature of history, truth, bias, burden of proof, and method. In so doing Licona makes clear what his methodology is, and that is, to carefully establish a core of facts (called the historical bedrock) and evaluate which hypothesis best meets those facts according to the standard historical criteria (e.g., explanatory scope and power), which can also be referred to as a minimal facts approach. After these more metaphysical topics, Licona provides details all (or nearly all) relevant ancient texts surrounding the resurrection. And after a lengthy discussion on the historical bedrock, Licona weighs six hypotheses (five of which being naturalistic hypotheses), concluding that the resurrection hypothesis is the only one that meets all of the historical criteria. One of the many strengths of his book is that it attempts to look at the historical research for the resurrection of Jesus from an unbiased perspective. His attempt is to limit what he refers to as his “horizon”—his lens of prior beliefs and experiences that make him biased to the evidence. Licona cites and deals with a vast number of nonbiblical sources and skeptical scholars. I would gladly say that Licona does so with modesty and integrity. For skeptics, they should be easily able to interact with this text with gratitude and enthusiasm. For some Christians, though, Licona can seem a bit too unbiased. If you are looking for an examination of the resurrection of Jesus that does not address challenges and tough questions honestly, then this probably isn’t the book for you. There are occasional instances where some may find Licona’s conclusions to seem too critical. For instance in his assigned historical value to the canonical Gospels and in his historical bedrock. (Spoiler) Licona only includes three facts in his historical bedrock, omitting the historical fact of the empty tomb (although he does consider it a second-order fact). The reason for both are based on the historical method and standard criteria. While some may disagree with his conclusions, there is no doubt in Licona’s consistency. The only other downside to the textbook is that it does not have the wherewithal to go into deep discussion on certain topics, like the historical reliability for the empty tomb. Doing a deep dive into individual topics like such would result in a much larger volume. So, if you are looking for an exhaustive exploration into a specific topic, this may not be the right text for you. That is not to discredit the comprehensiveness that Licona does provide! Despite its inexhaustiveness, Licona does give a number of sources one could use for a deeper search into a specific topic. Overall, if you are a Christian who wants to research the skeptical challenges facing the resurrection and you want to know how to construct a minimal facts approach to the resurrection of Jesus, or if you are a skeptic who desires to know more about the subject and interact with the top Christian historians, then this is the book for you.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 29, 2023
S
Verified Purchase
Sidney
Omaha, US
★★★★★ 5
Worth reading. Worth keeping. Conservative and narrow choice of 3 irrefutable facts of resurrection
Format: Paperback
Michael Licona was motivated to write this exhaustive book on the resurrection to fill a gap he perceived in Biblical scholarship—that Biblical scholars typically come from a theological background not a historical one, and historians often aren’t interested in religious topics but rather the history of an era. He wondered what would happen if someone studied the resurrection of Jesus using the same approach historical scholars do to discern the plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the falsifiable core of Christianity. The book contains only five chapters but they are exhaustive in their coverage of each topic. His first chapter deals with the burden of proof laid on historians and the sleuthing they do to determine accuracy. A bedrock of historical research is that all researchers are tainted by their horizons, ie, presuppositions and/or biases. No one is devoid of them, maybe especially in the arena of studying the likelihood of the resurrection of Jesus. Licona is sensitively aware of his own bias—that of a Christian whose faith hangs on the resurrection—and so he took a very conservative, narrow approach to his study in order to minimize his own bias. Chapter 2 is titled “The Historian and Miracles.” It puts his discussion of horizon to the test with a topic most secular historians don’t believe—that miracles can and do exist. The rubber meets the road in Chapter 3 where he examines every first- and second-century document as to its content and believability regarding evidence and eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Chapter 4 is also exhaustive in using all these strong sources to put together a bedrock of historical facts. What can no one deny about the resurrection of Jesus? With his extremely conservative focus, he only has three foundational bedrock facts that virtually all Biblical scholars—even the skeptical ones—attest to. These are: 1. That Jesus died by crucifixion, 2. That the disciples believed they had experiences with the resurrected Jesus after his death, proclaimed it, and many were martyred for it, 3. That the apostle Paul converted from persecutor to proclaimer after Jesus appeared to him. Licona does not include other commonly used evidences like the conversion of Jesus’s brother James or the empty tomb because these are not attested to by >90% of Biblical scholars. In chapter 5 he puts his accumulative scholarship to the test by comparing the likelihood that the resurrection actually happened versus theories disputing it. He gives the best arguments for each in turn and then summarizes the strength of each theory in a table. The book is worth owning since it is exhaustively researched and for each assertion Licona makes, he provides copious evidences for and against his hypotheses—historiography, miracles the resurrection, the 3 bedrock facts, and his conclusions. I’ve read every word of this book for a Master-level class on the resurrection and it can get tedious because of the detail, however, at the end of every reading session I was invariably glad I’d read it. I always learned something new and was impressed with Licona’s scholarship and attempt to be as unbiased as he could. I think he was too sensitive toward his own horizons in some cases. Anyone who wants to decide for her- or himself whether the resurrection really happened, or anyone who wants to make a strong case for the resurrection with a skeptic, I would highly recommend getting this book and keeping it to refer to over and over again. The first chapter on horizon is applicable to many other areas of life; it alone is worth the price of the book (but definitely don’t ignore the rest!) For a companion tome to flesh out evidences for the resurrection being real, an equally scholarly but different thrust, check out N. T. Wright’s equally exhaustive book but viewed from a different angle: "The Resurrection of the Son of God".
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 19, 2019
S
Verified Purchase
Steve Winters
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 4
A Rational Approach To Examine Competing Explanations
Format: Paperback
This is the first book I have read on an investigation into the resurrection event of Jesus. I found Licona’s approach clear and easy to follow. His writing style is very structured which I found to be valuable since he this book is thorough and covers a lot of material. Each chapter Licona begins with a brief outline of what he will cover and then he summarizes his main points at the end as well. Structuring the book this way was very helpful in following Licona’s reasoning and method from beginning to end. Licona begins by laying out his approach to historical inquiry. As someone who is not a historian and unfamiliar with the specifics of how historians approach their work, I found this section very useful in setting the stage for Licona’s investigation. For example, Licona has a section on “horizons,” which he defines as our “preunderstanding.” Essentially, horizons are our own perspectives based on our personal experiences and various influences such as culture, race, political, and religious experiences, that shape how we form our judgments and what we might choose to be an acceptable claim about reality. For example, whether miracles are possible. The goal is to mitigate horizons as much as possible and look at what the evidence has to say on its own. Since the goal of the book is to arrive at a conclusion pertaining to whether Jesus rose from the dead it is important to define what is meant by “best explanation” when we weigh competing hypotheses. Licona devotes a section to set criteria for a best explanation candidate. He establishes five criteria; explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, and illumination. Licona utilizes this criterion in the final chapter to weigh competing hypotheses. Furthermore, the critical insight that Licona focuses on is what he refers to as the “historical bedrock.” According to Licona, the historical bedrock includes three facts that are virtually undisputed by historians. Licona states his two criteria for the facts as strongly evidenced and those which contemporary scholars unanimously regard as historical facts. He navigates through various historical details surrounding the resurrection of Jesus and narrows down to three bedrock facts; Jesus died by crucifixion, shortly after Jesus’ death his disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim Jesus was resurrected and appeared to them, and Paul’s conversion after experiencing a postresurrection appearance of Jesus within a few years after the crucifixion. Licona claims that the vast majority of scholars grant these facts as historical. With the bedrock laid, now one can weigh competing hypotheses against the bedrock itself to determine which explanation the best accounts for all three facts. As one weighs any available hypotheses against the bedrock facts, the idea is that one can minimize biases and infer the best explanation as to what happened to Jesus in the first century. Ultimately, Licona concludes that the best explanation is the resurrection of Jesus as claimed by Christianity. His conclusion comes after a thorough examination of six common explanations (including the resurrection hypothesis) and showing how each fails to explain at least one of the three facts except for the resurrection hypothesis. He spends a good deal of time interacting with scholarly work on different explanations. Licona concludes that the resurrection hypothesis best accounts for the three bedrock facts as well as fulfills all five criteria for a best explanation. Overall, I thought Licona’s method is thorough and rigorous, ultimately showing that the resurrection hypothesis cannot simply be dismissed. I also found Licona to be very candid. At the end of the book he admits that he was surprised at the “very certain” level which he awards the resurrection hypothesis after applying his method. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning what can be determined about the fate of Jesus from a historical approach.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 17, 2019

recommand products