Episode 69: When The Saints Go Marching In
December 7th, 2011 at 1:46 pm (Bibliology, Christology, Mike Licona)
Dr. Mike Licona from Risen Jesus Ministries joins me to discuss the resurrection of Jesus and the recent controversy over his interpretation of Matthew 27:51-53.
Music
- Jerry Lee Lewis, When The Saints Go Marching In, from the album, Great Balls of Fire & Other Favorites, 2009
Promoted Resources
- Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
- The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
- Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.
- Risen Jesus, the ministry of Dr. Mike Licona
- Endorsements Video containing endorsements by Frank Turek, William Dembski, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell and William Lane Craig
- The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, by Dr. Mike Licona
- Deeper Waters, the blog of Michael Licona's son-in-law, Nick Peters
- "Literal Is Best," the post Michael Licona mentioned in the interview
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [00:59:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (788)
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Absolute Rubbish! It isn’t just Geisler’s view because he has consistently quoted from the official commentaries. Second, Geisler verbally confirmed with JI Packer that his interpretations of teh ICBI are correct. Third, JI Packer verbally confirmed that Licona’s understanding is outside of the ICBI statement and the official commentaries. Fourth, Packer also thinks that Licona’s view of symbol is incorrect. Licona, quit trying to dismiss the issue and just admit it–you are not a Chicago Inerrantist!
theopologetics said,
December 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I disagree, Bryan.
“that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared”
Apocalyptic imagery–a la Revelation–even sandwiched between historical facts–a la the Olivet Discourse–is a “literary style” which Chicago explicitly says is accepted in inerrancy.
“that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture”
Recognizing apocalyptic imagery a la Revelation and the Olivet Discourse does “[take] account of its literary forms and devices.”
“So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor”
Exactly.
Jesse Toler said,
December 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm
I haven’t heard the interview yet, but I will this evening. Mike Licona has been a great voice for the historical Jesus; and, a splinter under the fingernail of Muslims and atheists alike. I’ll try to be open minded, but I’ll more than likely end up taking Mike’s side in principal and in detail. Sorry ahead of time.
Jesse Toler said,
December 7, 2011 at 4:49 pm
A whole week at Disneyland in Valencia will become a little boring. Two or maybe three days would be more than enough. If you get a chance, drive down to San Diego to a place very near to the 5 freeway called Mission Beach/La Jolla Shores. If you like long drives but don’t want to deal with the traffic on the 5 freeway, head out on the 15 and explore the Anza Borega desert for a few hours. Very safe and very relaxing. I lived there for 38 years and enjoyed all my “joy rides” into the unknown.
Theopologetics said,
December 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Yeah, and it’s important to recognize that one can disagree with Mike’s suggested interpretation (I, for example, am presently inclined to interpret the passage historically) while nevertheless recognizing that it does not violate Chicago inerrancy (given my quotes from it above).
We go to Disneyland for several days once or twice a year, so I’m not worried about getting bored
Carrie Hunter said,
December 7, 2011 at 7:18 pm
It would seem the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is now being understood as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.
theopologetics said,
December 7, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Indeed!
Daniel Eaton said,
December 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Last I checked, God didn’t die and leave the signers of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy as the official magisterial authority of the Protestant Church. Even if Mike’s statement that this passage was open to interpretation violated their statement, doesn’t make Mike wrong. He is just stating a fact. There ARE different interpretations of the passage. And the target audience on a scholarly work of this type is expected to know the difference between interpretation, inerrancy, and the infallibility of seminary presidents.
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Well, your response would be appropriate if the Chicago Statement did not already address these very issues in what was known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. And yes, the inerrancy issue should be understood with the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics. Of which, Geisler and Radmacher were the main chairs. And many others were contributors, etc…. frankly, a little study of the history of biblical hermenutics and church history answer many of your basic issues.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Article XIII
WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.
WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.
The awareness of what kind of literature one is interpreting is essential to a correct understanding of the text. A correct genre judgment should be made to ensure correct understanding. A parable, for example, should not be treated like a chronicle, nor should poetry be interpreted as though it were a straightforward narrative. Each passage has its own genre, and the interpreter should be cognizant of the specific kind of literature it is as he attempts to interpret it. Without genre recognition an interpreter can be misled in his understanding of the passage. For example, when the prophet speaks of “trees clapping their hands” (Isa. 55:12) one could assume a kind of animism unless he recognized that this is poetry and not prose.
The Denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and so referred to by Christ (Mat. 12:40-42). This Denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture.
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Article XIV
WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
This article combines the emphases of Articles VI and XIII. While acknowledging the legitimacy of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.
The Denial is even more clear than the Affirmation. It stresses that any discourse, saying, or event reported in Scripture must actually have occurred. This means that any hermeneutic or form of biblical criticism which claims that something was invented by the author must be rejected. This does not mean that a parable must be understood to represent historical facts, since a parable does not (by its very genre) purport to report an event or saying but simply to illustrate a point.
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Article XV
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.
The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV).
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Article XX
WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extra-biblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
What is in view here is not so much the nature of truth (which is treated in Article VI), but the consistency and coherence of truth.
This is directed at those views which consider truth paradoxical or contradictory. This article declares that a proper hermeneutics avoids contradictions, since God never affirms as true two propositions, one of which is logically the opposite of the other.
Further, this Affirmation recognizes that not all truth is in the Bible (though all that is affirmed in the Bible is true). God has revealed Himself in nature and history as well as in Scripture. However, since God is the ultimate Author of all truth, there can be no contradiction between truths of Scripture and the true teachings of science and history.
Although only the Bible is the normative and infallible rule for doctrine and practice, nevertheless what one learns from sources outside Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation of Scripture. For example, some have taught the world to be square because the Bible refers to “the four corners of the earth” (Isa. 11:12). But scientific knowledge of the spherical nature of the globe leads to a correction of this faulty interpretation. Other clarifications of our understanding of the biblical text are possible through the study of the social sciences.
However, whatever prompting and clarifying of Scripture that extrabiblical studies may provide, the final authority for what the Bible teaches rests in the text of Scripture itself and not in anything outside it (except in God Himself). The Denial makes clear this priority of the teaching of God’s scriptural revelation over anything outside it.
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Article XXIV
WE AFFIRM that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars.
WE DENY that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.
This article attempts to avoid two extremes. First, it affirms that one is not dependent on biblical “experts” for his understanding of the basic truths of Scripture. Were this not true, then a significant aspect of the priesthood of all believers would be destroyed. For if the understanding of the laity is contingent on the teaching of experts, then Protestant interpretive experts will have replaced the teaching magisterium of Catholic priests with a kind of teaching magisterium of Protestant scholars.
On the other hand, biblical scholars do play a significant role in the lay understanding of Scripture. Even the very tools (Bible dictionaries, concordances, etc.) used by laypersons to interpret Scripture were produced by scholars. And when it comes to more technical and precise understanding of specific Scripture the work of experts is more than helpful. Hence the implied exhortation in the denial to avail oneself of the fruit of scholarship is well taken.
theopologetics said,
December 7, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Even if Dr. Licona’s interpretation violated those, they are not part of Chicago on Innerancy. Case closed.
theopologetics said,
December 7, 2011 at 9:28 pm
(And it doesn’t violate them, anyway. Only if one presumes the text in question presented itself as historical narrative might one be able to charge Licona with violating Chicago/Hermeneutics, and even then he wouldn’t be violating Chicago/Inerrancy.)
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 10:29 pm
The case is closed, just not in your favor. What the ICBI summit meetings did was create a complete and consistent expression and method pertaining to the doctrine of inerrancy. Namely, it recognizes that inerrancy needed to be affirmed both in principle and practice. Principally one has to affirm the full inspiration, infallability, and inerrancy of Scripture. Practically, one has to affirm a method that does not deny the principle, either explicitely or implicitely. Hence, the Hermeneutics statement and commentaries were developed. Furthermore, to deny the practical or methodological approach is to deny the ICBI definition of inerrancy.Methodologically Licona has denied implicitely both, and should just bite the bullet and deny them explictely.
What you are demonstrating is a very pedantic understanding of historical theology and church history.
You might want to read this blog because it explains more of those details. Make sure to read the comments too.
http://quodlibetalblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/breaking-my-internet-silence-on-mike-licona-and-inerrancy/
Bryan said,
December 7, 2011 at 10:43 pm
The affirmation of biblical inerrancy is nothing more, and nothing less, than the affirmation of the Bible’s total truthfulness and trustworthiness. The assertion of the Bible’s inerrancy — that the Bible is “free from all falsehood or mistake” — is an essential safeguard for the Bible’s authority as the very Word of God in written form. The reason for this should be clear: to affirm anything short of inerrancy is to allow that the Bible does contain falsehoods or mistakes.–Al Mohler
theopologetics said,
December 8, 2011 at 12:49 am
And nothing in Licona’s practice or proposed interpretation calls into question the full inspiration, infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture. And nothing in it calls into question the Bible’s total truthfulness or trustworthiness.
I’m saddened that as brothers we’re led to call one another pedantic, and I can see that a discussion isn’t going to be fruitful, but I do sincerely appreciate your desire to uphold the inerrancy of Scripture, and I thank you for listening.
John said,
December 8, 2011 at 1:25 am
I do not see anyplace within the Chicago Statement which suggests that you are to wage war on a brother’s career/livelihood, especially after that brother has proven to be a champion for the Kingdom in both words and deeds.
Bryan said,
December 8, 2011 at 2:07 am
Well, the simple use of pedantic is not a non-Christian thing. For the sake of it, I just want to say, you merely do not undersand the actual issues. I would encourage you to go and read the original works. In fact, I would encourage Licona to do the same. For, prior to this whole issue, it is clear that he really had no clue (and maybe still doesn’t) how the ICBI defined an error.
I will leave you with a series of quotes from the earlier blog. This is sufficient to answer your question. Whether you accept it or not is another quesiton. It is not because of mere logic, but for emotional pleas.
It is clear to that if it is possible that the New Testament has legends or embellishments or that a New Testament writer has changed the facts of a story for a theological agenda (all of which Mike says are possible), then necessarily inerrancy is not true. The mere possibility of the former precludes the latter.
I am directing this criticism to those who sound the refrain “Why should ICBI be the standard of orthodoxy?” The argument is not whether ICBI is the standard of orthodoxy but whether ICBI is the standard for the doctrine of inerrancy. Anyone who thinks he can do a better job than ICBI is welcome to try. I am not suggesting that nothing in the work of ICBI needs correcting. I am suggesting that such matters require (and deserve) a very careful, thoughtful, and thorough treatment. A one-liner that emotionally appeals to the theological individualism characteristic of many (Protestant) Evangelicals is not enough.ecludes the possibility of the latter.
Here’s a couple of quotes from Mike’s book.
“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes. We may also be reading poetic language of legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angels at the tomb (Mk 16:5-7; Mt. 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-14) [pp. 185-186]
“A possible candidate for embellishment is Jn 18:4-6″ [p. 306, note 114)
In his debate with Bart Erhman at SES, Mike said (regarding the day of the week that Jesus was crucified): “I think that John probably altered the day in order for a theological – to make a theological point there. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified.”
As for the latter, granted John changing the day doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified, but it does mean that the text is not inerrant.
The question is: if there is conflicting NT eyewitness testimony, can the Bible still be inerrant?
Clearly not. If the testimonies conflict, one is in untrue. Further, if the Bible is not inerrant, then is it not inspired. Now, granted, some Christians deny inerrancy altogether, or deny inerrancy as defined by ICBI, or have a view of inspiration that allows for errors in the text. But our debate is a much more narrow one raging among evangelicals. Is legend and embellishment and changing the facts compatible with ICBI’s definition of inerrancy? Frankly it is breathtaking to me that some would argue that it is.
As for embellishment, all I can say is that if you can’t see that embellishment is mutually exclusive with an inerrant text, then either I am missing something with the term (e.g., it is being used in an eccentric way) or you are. I take it (again, considering the context within which Mike says what he does in his book) that an embellishment of a story means that the teller of the story has taken liberties with the story itself and has added things that are not historically factual. Indeed, this is exactly what Mike says characterizes the type of literary genre of which he says the Gospels are a sub-set. He says” “There is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography … [which] offered the ancient biographer great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches … and they often included legend. Because [it] was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins.” (p. 34)
Dan said,
December 11, 2011 at 7:33 pm
I bought Licona’s book on Kindle and I strongly endorse it as the most thorough defense of the resurrection’s historicity I have ever read. I am puzzled that this is not the reason the book is getting the attention it’s getting, and I say this as somebody who disagrees with Licona’s interpretation of that one passage.
John said,
December 24, 2011 at 1:01 pm
This may be a little off topic but it is something that I’m curious about and touches on this inerrancy issue. My question is regarding 1 Corinthians 1:14-15:
“I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.”
Was Paul under the influence of the Holy Spirit, or was God supernaturally directing Paul when he wrote these specific lines? Is what Paul writes here the truth? If you answer “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that Paul immediately corrected himself in the following verse?
“Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.”
I’m not that familier with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, but this portion of Scripture seems, to me, to violate the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture doctrine (as I understand it). I believe in the inspiration of Scripture as far as what Scripture says about itself, but I don’t know if we have all the information we need to “nail it down”, as it were, in the way that ICBI wants to do.
John said,
December 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Ater having read the Chicago Statement through, it seems to me that the above referenced text (1 Cor. 1:14-15) does not fit within the parameters set forth in Articles VI (WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, ***down to the very words of the original***, were given by divine inspiration.), VIII (WE DENY that God, ***in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose***, overrode their personalities.), IX (WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, ***guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write***.), AND XII (WE AFFIRM that Scripture ***in its entirety is inerrant***, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.).
All I’m trying to point out here is that Paul, in the course of writing to the Corinthians, had a mental lapse in his recollection of events (which any man might do) and upon recognizing this, corrected himself. I don’t have a problem with Paul doing this and it has no bearing, as far as I’m concerned, on the truthfulness of Scripture or the authority of the apostolic authors. But I can’t agree that God, or the Holy Spirit, would have superintended those words through Paul in the way that the signers of the Chicago Statement are suggesting. I think the language in the Chicago Statement is too strict, and doesn’t account for an anomaly such as is here described.