Home » +Apostles' Teaching » Bible » I’m Suddenly Interested in What Mike Licona May Have to Say

I’m Suddenly Interested in What Mike Licona May Have to Say

He is a Christian apologist who has incurred the wrath of Al Mohler by suggesting that we actually read the Bible as it is and not try to shoehorn it into a modernistic philosophical straitjacket.

Interviewed by Baptist Press, Licona expressed what every New Testament scholar in the world knows: that the Gospels sometimes take the same sorts of liberties in telling the story of Jesus that other ancient Greek biographies take in telling the stories of their subjects. In other words, these differences of presentation—some may rise to the level of “contradiction”—are within the expected tolerances for the sort of literature they are.

Of course, saying out loud what reputable experts know is a serious no-no in some provinces of Baptistland. Chaplain Mike of Internet Monk hits the nail on the head:

Ironically, in the interview Licona was actually trying to increase Christians’ trust in the reliability of the New Testament by pointing out that what we might consider “contradictions” according to our post-Enlightenment standards of historical veracity were simply characteristic of the way historians wrote then. He also affirmed that these “contradictions” were all written with regard to peripheral details in the accounts and not major points. In addition, he suggested that what we are really talking about here in the vast majority of cases are “differences” and that there is only a handful of stubborn differences that might rise to the level of actual contradictions — and again, even if they did, these relate only to peripheral details.

This, however, was not good enough for Al Mohler, who was involved in another dispute involving Licona’s understanding of Scripture in 2011. In that case, even though Licona wrote a book which strongly defended the literal resurrection, his handling of one pericope (Matthew 27:51-53) as a “poetic device” fell short in Mohler’s eyes and “ “handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon.”

With regard to the dispute we are considering today, Dr. Mohler  has commented, “It would be nonsense to affirm real contradictions in the Bible and then to affirm inerrancy.” He was not satisfied with Licona’s suggestion that certain forms of inerrancy might be ruled out by his approach. “What you lose is inerrancy itself,” Mohler asserted.

Whatever. Personally, I much prefer to deal with the Bible as it truly is rather than what I might wish it to be.


3 Comments

  1. Nick Peters says:

    Hi Darrell. Thanks for writing this. I agree with position. I’ll also point out that I have been watching this for awhile. I happen to be Mike’s son-in-law and an apologist in my own right. You can find my own entry on this here:

    http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/the-future-of-biblical-scholarship/

    Like

  2. [...] but part of a normal, healthy response to the Bible that takes its contents seriously (i.e. in a way that Al Mohler doesn’t). On the other hand, keeping the Bible as a conversation-partner (in [...]

    Like

  3. Andii says:

    I’d agree: we have to tailor doctrines about scripture to the kind of writing we find in scripture. We probably also have to be prepared to acknowledge that both writers and canon-compilers were not stupid and knew their texts, so our thinking about the texts and canon have to be able to take into account how they might have viewed the strangenesses and ‘contradictions’.

    Like

Comments are closed.

PentecostIcon

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 357 other followers

%d bloggers like this: