Pay in installments of $250.00 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 16 - Jul 21
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
Namiki Yukari Maki-e Fountain Pen - Flower FenceThe Namiki Yukari Maki e Fountain Pen Flower Fence unites refined writing performance with the quiet poetry of Japanese lacquer art. A floral tableau arranged along a garden fence unfolds across the barrel and cap, its delicate forms rendered in hand applied urushi and shimmering metallic powders. The balanced Yukari size makes this a pen to reach for often, while the artwork rewards unhurried contemplation under changing light. Craftsmanship & Design
The Namiki Yukari Maki-e Fountain Pen - Flower Fence unites refined writing performance with the quiet poetry of Japanese lacquer art. A floral tableau arranged along a garden fence unfolds across the barrel and cap, its delicate forms rendered in hand-applied urushi and shimmering metallic powders. The balanced Yukari size makes this a pen to reach for often, while the artwork rewards unhurried contemplation under changing light.
Craftsmanship & Design
Built on an ebonite foundation and finished with multiple layers of urushi lacquer, the Flower Fence design is executed by Namiki artisans using traditional maki-e techniques. Each layer is applied, cured, and polished to develop depth and a soft luster, with fine particles of gold and colored pigments creating nuanced highlights around petals, leaves, and the linear fence motif. The composition blends organic movement with architectural order, a classic dialogue in Japanese aesthetics that gives the pen a graceful, timeless presence.
Subtle variations are inherent to hand-lacquered maki-e, ensuring that each example carries its own character. The Yukari format offers elegant proportions, a gently domed cap and barrel, and a tasteful clip that complements the visual rhythm of the artwork without distraction.
Writing Experience
At the heart of the Namiki Yukari is an 18k gold nib produced by Pilot, renowned for consistent quality and refined feel on the page. Available in Fine, Medium, and Broad, the nib delivers smooth, reliable flow with the controlled feedback that many writers favor for everyday notes and long-form journaling. The cartridge/converter filling system provides convenience and flexibility, accepting Pilot proprietary cartridges as well as the high-capacity Con-70 converter for bottled inks.
The Yukari size strikes a natural balance in hand, with comfortable proportions unposted and a reassuringly secure feel when posted. The urushi-finished ebonite contributes a gentle warmth and tactile confidence that encourages lingering on the line.
Heritage & Provenance
Namiki represents Pilot's highest expression of Japanese lacquer artistry, a legacy that reaches back to the company’s early decades in the 20th century. Today, Namiki's maki-e studio continues to uphold time-honored techniques, integrating them with Pilot's precision nib making. The result is a writing instrument that pairs cultural craft with daily utility in a way few pens can match.
Collector Perspective
The Yukari series provides an ideal canvas for narrative designs, and the Flower Fence motif resonates with classical garden iconography often found in Japanese art. Because the maki-e is executed by hand, subtle differences in grain, sheen, and detail make each pen singular. Over time, urushi develops a richer glow, allowing the artwork to deepen in character with regular, thoughtful use.
Technical Specifications
- Model: Namiki Yukari Maki-e Fountain Pen - Flower Fence
- Body material: Ebonite with hand-applied urushi lacquer and maki-e decoration
- Nib: 18k gold (Fine, Medium, Broad)
- Filling system: Cartridge/converter (Pilot proprietary; compatible with Con-70 converter)
- Trim: Metal clip and appointments
- Origin: Made in Japan
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- 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
4.1 ★★★★★
Based on 6 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Challenge Accepted
Format: Kindle
I liked the book. It challenged my position of focusing on the light and ignoring the darkness.
It challenges me to desire the whole experience of spiritual awareness and sight and to become adept in living as a watchman.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 11, 2025
★★★★★ 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
★★★★★ 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
★★★★★ 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
★★★★★ 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