I realize that Licona's text wasn't quite the paradigm shift that, say, Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" was, but I found it interesting because it at least purported to address the entire body of evidence concerning the "resurrection hypothesis," and it was very recent when I first started being curious about evidence for Christianity. Here's the thing, though -- being religious, I'm super biased in favor of Licona. So I don't really trust myself to go through and say "yes, he treated the Pauline letters fairly." I also just don't have the grounding in the field that I'd like.

My question here isn't about the conclusions themselves, his acceptance of the possibility of miracles, or his treatment of the alternate hypotheses advanced. Instead I'm just really curious about whether Licona did a hack job on the historical sources he used, and whether he misrepresented the "historical bedrock." I looked for scholarly reviews of it, and could only find a few, and those reviewers were generally theologians rather than historians. Can anyone help me?