Mike Licona is not backing down. While he softened his wording found in his published book in the open letter to Norm Geisler, it seems he's once again taking a polarizing position on the Matthew 27:52-53 text. Indeed after going back and fairly well arguing strongly for his original position in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Licona boldly asserts >>>
The calls of Drs. Geisler and Mohler for me to retract my opinion that it is possible Matthew intended for his readers to understand the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53 as apocalyptic symbols is not helpful. Instead, such premature calls stifle scholarship and authentic quests for truth. I will be happy to retract my opinion once I am convinced that Matthew’s authorial intent was to communicate that the raised saints are to be understood as an event that occurred in space-time. So far, I have found the arguments offered by Drs. Geisler and Mohler to be unpersuasive and misguided (source below)
My initial response is, Licona apparently wants to have it both ways. That is, he wants to say on the one hand, his studied suggestion that Matthew's assertion concerning the resurrection saints being an apocalyptic literary device is a possible interpretation which cannot be a priori ruled out by bare literalists like Mohler and Geisler. On the other hand, Licona does not seem to argue that Matthew's assertion concerning the resurrected saints is merely a possible interpretation. Instead, he argues (especially in his book) not only for the possibility that Matthew employed apocalyptic language in Matthew 27:52-53, but even more, that the most plausible interpretation of Matthew's words rests on the apocalyptic interpretation with Matthew "adding" the imagery of resurrected saints appearing to townspeople for "special effects" (pp.552-553).
That's why, of course, Licona could dub both Mohler and Geisler's argument as "unpersuasive and misguided" rather than even a possible interpretation much less a probable one--or, in Licona's own words concerning his position, a "most plausible" interpretation. After all, how can an unpersuasive, misguided argument be a viable argument at all?
Finally, it's interesting how Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary got pulled into this fiasco, and it bears worth watching how Danny Akin is going to handle an issue which could split the Southern Baptist Convention. One wonders as well if Akin's professors will judge President Mohler, along with Norm Geisler, to be both "unpersuasive and misguided."
The truth is, for an entire generation, most Conservative Southern Baptists fairly well imagined they were all on the same page when it came to precisely what they all meant by inerrancy. Mike Licona has opened pandora's hermeneutical box, however, by boldly claiming one may hold inerrancy while denying a biblical text's prima facie historicity, a denial apparently based solely upon extra-biblical literary argumentation.
With that, I am...
Peter
For the full text of Mike Licona's response to Al Mohler, check out J.P. Holding
To be helpful, Licona thinks the entire argument made by Geisler and Mohler is unhelpful and unpersuasive, at least that's how most readers of his FB page/note took it to mean, based on the overall context.
Further, it is indisputable that Licona has, since his book, moved to a closer-to-agnostic view of the two possible options, as he has said. So to suggest that Licona doesn't think Geisler's position on the interpretation of the particular text alone is viable seems a bit out of place. The bottom line is, no one has offered a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging account of a denial of inerrancy that doesn't result in us all calling each other inerrancy deniers against Licona specifically.
Why don't we demand Kostenberger retract his view that the rich man and Lazarus is a parable (or, if one believes it is a parable, demand that one who believes it is literal retract such a view, as it is a style foreign to authorial intent of the text in such a case)? Why doesn't Geisler acknowledge at least some genre-types to be a ruling out of "events that correspond to reality" (like parabolic events)? Assuming he does, why then is Licona's view tantamount to denying inerrancy while one who believes parables do not contain events that happened in space time do not deny inerrancy?
We're in need of some clear thinking on the matter, and it doesn't seem to be coming from Geisler in this case.
Posted by: Randy Everist | 2011.09.16 at 11:26 PM
Thanks Randy.
I understand your position. Allow me. First, I employed Licona's own words to state his conclusion, words which were, "unpersuasive and misguided." Now how much of a difference there is between Licona's own term "misguided" and your summation "unhelpful" I allow others to address. Suffice it to say, "misguided" is, at best, "mistaken" and at worst "foolish" if we're to believe standard usages. With that said, Licona does not appear to be as "open" ended on his understanding of Matt 27 as his defenders make out. In other words, there's at least one understanding that Licona appears to reject flat out--Geisler and Mohler's understanding.
Second, I do not see Licona staying in the more neutral stance about Matt 27 as he did in his first public statement about Geisler's criticism, when he, in effect, conceded he'd studied more from Greco-Roman lit. and now believed just as strongly that Matt 27 could be taken literally as he could be taken apocalyptically--a toss-up if you will. Hence, he even said he'd be willing to change the language to accommodate such a neutrality. However, in his response to Mohler, he moved away from the more neutral, compromised concession back to a more decidedly apocalyptic position, dubbing Geisler & Mohler's "case" for literalness both "unpersuasive and misguided."
In short, I don't think you're discerning adequately Licona's ambiguous posturing going on. One is now wondering exactly what Licona believes.
One thing is for sure: Licona is through in the SBC. And that's a shame. We all lose. But it is reality.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.09.17 at 07:51 AM
All,
Check out Norm Geisler’s response to Mike Licona’s criticism of Al Mohler
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.09.17 at 07:57 AM