Guest Post: Dr. Marc Cortez
In the beginning there was discussion. Then we fell. Now, as far as the ear can hear, there is only debate.
Okay, maybe that was a little hyperbolic, possibly even a tad melodromatic. But it sounded good when I wrote it. And, it does reflect a bit of the frustration I feel as I follow many “discussions” today. Words flow across my screen in never-ending sequence, but try as I might, I can’t seem to find the conversation. In my most jaded hours, I wonder if anyone is really listening. Or, are we all just trying to “win” one more argument so we can go to bed at night satisfied that we have vanquished another dragon, unmindful of the dragon’s anguish.
Most recently, I’ve been trying to follow Norm Geisler’s critique of Michael Licona. Geisler has argued in two, separate “open letters” (see Brian’s summary) that Licona’s understanding of Matthew 27:50-53 is wrong, unbiblical, and pagan, ultimately undermining our confidence in the resurrection, the authority of the Bible, the veracity of God, and, quite possibly, the very integrity of the space-time continuum itself. (Okay, I may have added that last one myself.)
Now, I don’t want to go into the specifics of Licona’s position. Indeed, I can’t, since I haven’t read the book. As I understand it, Licona’s basic argument is that Matthew used a variety of apocalyptic devices at the end of his Gospel to emphasize the cosmic significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. And, he sees the resurrection of the righteous dead in 27:50-53 as a “poetic” (i.e. apocalyptic) image that serves that purpose. In other words, Matthew isn’t trying to say that the tombs actually opened and that dead people actually came out. Instead, he’s using a poetic image that people in his day would have understood as indicating an event of great significance.
So, that’s Licona’s position. But, it’s really Geisler’s critique that I’d like to comment on. Because in many ways, it’s a great example of what happens when debate triumphs over discussion.
This was a perfect opportunity for discussion. Geisler clearly thinks that Licona has erred in seeing this is an example of a poetic genre used inside of a largely historical narrative (which, by the way, people do all the time). And, he obviously thinks that Licona made a mistake by looking to the surrounding cultural context for explanations of how a genre-device like this would have been understood (which, by the way, is something good exegetes do all the time). These are two important points worth discussing further. I can picture a situation where two scholars could sit down and have a very lively conversation about these issues and how they impact our understanding of Matthew 27.
And, Geisler rightly raises the question of inerrancy here. I say “rightly” for two reasons. First, Geisler is committed to inerrancy, so it makes sense for him to wonder how this might impact that doctrine. And, more importantly, Licona himself holds to inerrancy. So, once again I can imagine these two having a meaningful conversation on how matters of genre, hermeneutics, culture, text, and history all come together in the context of a theological reflection on the nature of Scripture as the Word of God. (I have a very good imagination.)
Sadly, none of this happened.
Here’s what we got instead:
- The Logical Extension Argument: I put this one first, even though it’s not the first one Geisler uses, because it bugs me the most. I run into this one all the time. It goes something like this: (a) you claim to believe X; (b) you also believe Y; (c) I think X and Y are incompatible; therefore (d) you don’t really believe X (even though you continue to insist quite firmly that you do). In this case, it goes: (a) Licona claims to believe in inerrancy; (b) he has a “poetic” view of Mt. 27; (c) I think these two are incompatible; therefore (d) Licona doesn’t really believe in inerrancy. Can we please stop using this argument? It’s really annoying. At the very least, it suggests one of two things: (1) you’re an idiot and can’t tell that these two are contradictory, or (2) you’re dishonest since you know full well that you don’t really believe both of these. Implying that someone is either an idiot or dishonest is not conducive to good conversation. So, we really need to stop doing that.
- The Guilt by Association Argument #1: Geisler leads out by connecting Licona’s argument with those who would deny the historicity of the resurrection of Christ or the Virgin Birth because of their parallels with other Greco-Roman stories. And, that’s a fair question. But, unfortunately, Geislerpresents it more as a way of associating Licona with these dehistoricizers. In other words, (a) they’re bad, (b) you look a lot like them, therefore (c) you must be bad too. (It’s the same logic that makes people cross the street at night to avoid people who dress a certain way.)
- The Guilt by Association Argument #2: Not satisfied with that, Geisler quickly moves to connect Licona to Robert Gundry and his resignation from ETS over similar issues. Having connected the two, Geisler seems to think that his work is basically done: (a) Gundry was guilty; (b) Licona is Gundry-resurrected; therefore, (c) Licona is guilty. It’s fascinating to me that he never considers the possibility that (a) the situations are actually different, or (b) the earlier decision was wrong. I’m not saying either of those is correct. But, they’re both worth exploring before throwing somebody under the bus. Aren’t they?
- The Implied Threat: Though Geisler doesn’t say so in the first letter, he clearly means to imply that Licona’s status in ETS is in jeopardy if he doesn’t change. After all, that’s what happened to Gundry. And, by the second letter, the implied threat has become much clearer. But, what’s interesting here is that Geisler is not a member of ETS. He resigned several years ago because the rest of ETS does not agree with him. Oddly, he doesn’t bring that up in either letter.
- The Guilt by Association Argument #3 (he really likes this kind of argument): Geisler paints Licona with the “pagan” brush. Apparently he thinks that if he can associate a position with the pagans, it must be wrong. (By the way, am I the only one who thinks of the movie Dragnet when people start talking about pagans?) Unfortunately, he never gets around to dealing with the reality that the biblical authors lived in Greco-Roman (i.e. “pagan”) context. One would think that this might have some significance for interpreting what they wrote. Just a thought.
- The Personal Affront: Geisler opens his second letter by making it sound like Licona has been dodging him. But, the simple fact is that Licona doesn’t owe Geisler any kind of response. To the extent that Licona chooses to engage, great. But, that’s his choice. And, I have to admit that if someone sent me letters like this, I wouldn’t be inclined to respond either. (By the way, have you ever met someone at a party who insisted on carrying on a discussion/argument with you even though you clearly weren’t interested in talking? They bugged you, didn’t they?)
I may have missed a few, but those are the ones that stood out.
This isn’t discussion; it isn’t conversation; it isn’t helpful. This is debate. Pure and simple. It’s about winning and losing.
I should say, before concluding, that Geisler does ask some good questions. He wants to know whether we can really call these resurrections a poetic device without having to say the same about the resurrection of Jesus. And, he wants to know what methodology we’ll use to differentiate a “poetic device” from historic events, and what keeps us from using this technique to dismiss some problem text that we just don’t happen to like. And, finally, he wants to know what all of this entails for how we understand the nature of Scripture. If we hold to Licona’s interpretation, and those like his, can we still meaningfully say that the Bible is inerrant? And, if so, what does that even mean?
These are good questions. And, they called for a good discussion. They deserved a good discussion. They didn’t get one.
They got a debate.
That’s sad.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you can effectively silence one another with your superior debating skills.
I bet they could make a song out of that.
the archives near Emmaus 
@Marc: I think you are 100% correct that the problem was not Geisler second guessing Licona’s interpretation, nor was it that he felt that it doesn’t fit within the word “inerrancy”, but that he made a heresy hunt out of it. Likewise, it is interesting to note that he is no longer part of ETS. That being said, I hope more ETS members will speak in support of Licona because many of us onlookers are wondering where the ETS culture stands on this matter and Licona’s interpretation provides a valuable test case.
Excellent post (and a nice ending on a chuckle). You also raise some very good thoughts and questions.
You might want to take a look at the second word after “The Implied Threat.” I think you meant Geisler, rather than Gundry there.
Thanks Brian. And, I should be clear that I’m basing Geisler’s ETS status on his 2003 blog post stating his reasons for leaving. If he has since reinstated his membership, I’m sure someone will correct me. Unfortunately, though I’m normally an ETS member, I’m pretty bad at remembering to submit my renewals. So, at the moment, I can’t check the online membership directory.
@Paul – Good catch. Brian, can you change that for me?
@Marc and @Paul: I changed it to say “Geisler”.
It is shamefully unfortunate, but this is actually the type of argumentation I have come to expect from Mr. Geisler. I remember trying to read his “critique” of Open theism and finding little more than a string of Straw Men and some Guilt-by-Associations. That said, an open letter fully of terrible arguments is still slightly better than a dismissive tweet saying “Farewell Licona”.
@T.C. : True, I guess it may be a sign of respect to receive an open letter rather than a dismissive Tweet in our day and age!
Well said Marc. I almost stood up from my desk and clapped.
If Dr. Cortez (or anyone else) wants to see the pages from Licona’s book that concern this issue please drop me a line (jphoild@att.net). The whole section is only 6 pages, and Geisler’s concern was with one sentence of that, in essence.
Sorry, make that jphold, not jphoild. Groan…
Marc. I posted earlier in the original post so I won’t restate who I am, but I do appreciate it. Had Geisler come out with just wanting a discussion instead of implying my father-in-law is unorthodox, we would have been fine. In fact, he has been uninvited to speak at at least one conference and I’m hoping it won’t be two because of Geisler’s actions. This was not handled in a Christian manner at all.
I’m also concerned about the future of the church with this. This kind of talk drives away young scholars who think that one cannot interpret based on the evidence but one must interpret within a certain boundary to be accepted. That closes off honest investigation. I’ve been doing apologetics for a decade now, but if I was just starting out, I might think twice about the field based on how Geisler is handling it. He’s only hurting not just himself but the church.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it Marc. I agree too it could have been handled better and made be a useful congenial conversation. But then that wouldn’t be about biblical studies would it? 😉
Marc, noooo waay. I too think about the movie Dragnet whenever I hear the word PAGAN (People Against Goodness and Niceness). Good movie with Dan Akroyd!!
@apologianick – I’m glad you appreciated the post, though I’m sorry to hear that this has all been so difficult for your family.
@Mike – That’s great! At least now I know I’m not alone the world.
Geisler is correct on this one…. Licona’s denial of the resurrection in Matthew 27 would ultimately be a logical denial of the resurrection of Jesus. There is no debate on this. Geisler was correct in stating that scholars have to place Lordship over scholarship. Geisler properly understands the role of scholarship that serves as a foundation for the evangelical church.
I hate to see Dr. Licona get caught up in an interpretation that doesn’t serve the church or promote the cause of Christ. Geisler is really an evangelist who believes scholarship should seek to provide a foundation for the church. Dr. Licona’s position actually serves to undermine the resurrection which is why is it has properly been labeled as an attack on inerrancy. Geisler has literally spent his whole life defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus because this is the core truth of the gospel.
A evangelical scholar who supports Dr. Licona is really demonstrating that they don’t understand inerrancy and their credentials as an evangelical scholar should really be examined.
@Denny: It is people like you that reminder me why it was the right decision personally to flush the word “inerrancy” down the toilet. By the way, let’s say someone denied the zombie apocalypse, how is that the “logical denial” of Jesus’ resurrection? What logic? Where is the cause-and-effect there?
Inerrancy is a very simple logical proof:
1. The Bible is the Word of God
2. The Word of God cannot error
3. The Bible cannot error
Do you wish to deny the first premise or the second premises? You have to deny one of them in order to avoid inerrancy. The denial of either premise demonstrates that you are not an evangelical.
@Denny : If you don’t think that I am an “evangelical” that is fine. First, I don’t care what label people use. Second, I don’t care what you think of me. That being said, I think we can speak of Scripture as the “word of God” while noting Jesus is the “Word of God”. God can speak through a fallible book. This makes point #2 a false premise and thereby falsifies your third point.
I would encourage you to spend more time in Evangelism. I have had the opportunity to lead many hundreds to Christ. I know from experience that telling people that the Bible is full of errors is not a winning message.
Denny: You’ve made another error here. I am not saying that the Bible is “full of errors”, but rather than I don’t think it is inerrant (i.e. that there are absolutely no errors). On another note, Licona doesn’t think there are any errors in Scripture so he affirms inerrancy. Whether you like his interpretation of Matthew 27 or not, he hasn’t violated the CSBI. You’d have to prove that his apocalyptic interpretation is impossible and that he is using it to cover for a real belief that the author was intending history and he was wrong. I am open to this and Licona is not.
Based on your previous statement, you affirmed that the Bible was not the Word of God and that it contains errors. As a result, I am well-aware that you are not an evangelical. The text would have to be “full of errors” because there is no way to determine when the author has made an error so logically the whole thing could be in error. As a result, to state that the text is “full of errors” is done for emphasis because it is logically consistent with your view.
Licona on the other hand cannot affirm inerrancy and then deny the historical record found in Matthew. Geisler has properly noted the internal contradiction. Geisler does not have to prove an “apocalyptic Interpretation” as Matthew does not note one. Since you are not an evangelical, I can see why you would be confused by Geisler’s response; however, please understand that Geisler could never accept your very low view of Scripture nor could he accept your belief that the Bible is not the Word of God.
If the Bible is not the Word of God and if it contains errors, then it is just a book. You believe that God can speak through a book. As a result, it is possible that He can also speak through the Koran. The Koran is just a book that is not the Word of God and it also contains errors. In fact all books are not the Word of God and they all may contain errors since they were all written by humans who may error in your view.
At some point you have to logically conclude that perhaps your understanding of Jesus being the Word of God is also in error since this teaching comes from a book that contains errors.
On the other hand, Geisler as well as myself are evangelicals who believe in the Great Commission. The gospel is the good news that is contained in His Word and meant for all mankind. Our mission is to defend the gospel and preach the gospel since it is the hope of all mankind. Licona is either intentionally or unintentionally attempting to undermine the gospel which has brought such a strong response.
Denny :
Again, you argue in a circle. You presume that (A) If the Bible is the Word of God it can have no errors, at all, anywhere. (B) Therefore, if someone allows for error of any kind, the Bible is not the Word of God. (C) Therefore, the person who thinks there are errors doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God. I won’t argue this point further with you, because you are obviously hard bent on maintaining it, but you are affirming a disjunct. Your argument follows:
(A) The Bible is the Word of God is without error or the Bible is not the Word of God if there is any errors.
(B) The Word of God has errors.
(C) Therefore, the Bible is not the Word of God.
Your error is that you assume one must be false if the other is true, and you have the right to maintain that argument for yourself, but you can’t prove its legitimacy. It is just as sensible to suggest.
(A) The Bible is the Word of God, but language and human communication is fallible.
(B) Therefore, God has given us Scripture through a fallible vehicle.
(C) Yet God can still speak through a fallible vehicle (as even humans do), and we can locate one of his primary speech-acts as being through the human words in Scripture.
I won’t waste any time with you definition of evangelicals. Again, you make false assumptions, namely that you and Geisler have any right to define “evangelical”, but if it makes you feel good about yourself to think you are the guardian of that word then go with it. I am glad you found a purpose in life!
Denny is a perfect example of why evangelicalism is falling in America and why so many are deconverting at the likes of a Bart Ehrman.
No. A denial of the resurrection in Matthew 27 does not entail a denial of Jesus’s resurrection. For one thing, we have much much more evidence for the event of Jesus’s resurrection. We don’t have as much for Matthew 27. Next, Licona has written a whole book demonstrating that Jesus rose from the dead. One would have to deal with all of his arguments in there.
Denny’s problem is he thinks Inerrancy as understood by a 21st century American is what it would mean to a 1st century Jew. I’d consider what we have today a sort of Inerrancy Lite. It works fine for a lot of problems, but terribly for others.
For instance, I’d like to see Denny explain these.
In Matthew and Luke, the order of the temptations of Jesus is different. How do you reconcile these differences?
In the genealogies in Matthew, Matthew says he uses all the generations, but when we read Chronicles, we see that Matthew omitted some names. How can he use all when he has omissions?
We also read that Jesus was to be in the tomb three days and three nights, but Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. How can that be three days and three nights?
Moving on past those, we also see Denny talk about how he’d has the opportunity to lead hundreds of souls to Christ. Oh please. Did anyone else want to gag on this line? Why? Because we oppose souls coming to Christ? No. Because it reeked of arrogance. It gives the image of Denny saying to Brian. “Shut up you little upstart. I’ve led hundreds to Christ! How dare you question my spirituality then! Because of my high spiritual position, I am right in all that I say!”
Denny. You want to review what the Word of God has to say about boasting?
Denny also says unless the Bible is Inerrant, we can’t know what is and isn’t true. Ironically, he compares the Bible to other books saying they could have errors just as much and still be the Word of God. The irony is that how does Denny recognize errors in other books? Why he studies them. How does he find out what is true? He studies them. That’s exactly what would be done with Scripture. Here’s how you can demonstrate to a skeptic truth claims in it. You study it.
And of course, Denny accuses Licona of wanting to undermine the gospel. If you’ve read my work here, I know Licona very very well, quite likely better than anyone else in this thread and I can assure you Brian, as much as I respect and like him, would also say I know him better. He has a great zeal and a great love of the gospel and you have some gall to make that claim about someone you don’t know, and whose book you probably haven’t read and you’re probably just accepting in on Geisler’s word.
Well I am an evangelical and I do affirm Inerrancy. I also affirm the fallibility of interpreters, especially those who think their interpretation = Inerrancy. These are the same ones who push panic buttons like yours. (If the Bible contains errors, we can’t know what’s true and it might as well be full of errors and then the gospel is sunk!) Keep it up but don’t be surprised when the Ehrmans of the world destroy those hundreds that you have reached.