Southern Baptist Theology in the Late Twentieth Century
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 2 – Spring 2012
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Michael R. Licona. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. 718 pages. Paperback, $40.00.
Michael Licona, External Research Collaborator at North-West University in South Africa, has caused quite a controversy with this mammoth monograph on Jesus’ resurrection. Interestingly, the area of contention is a somewhat minor point of the book, and the people upset are some fellow theological conservatives rather than the nonbelievers Licona intends to impact with the book.1
Much to Commend
Much of this book is excellent, so this review will begin by looking at the best parts. Although Jesus’ resurrection continues to be the topic of numerous books today, Licona’s book is unique in its historiographical approach—employing much interaction with secular historians as well as critics of Christianity. He wrote this book from the perspective of a philosopher of history (167), and it is an updated version of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Pretoria (22). Licona is correct that most biblical scholars are not trained historians. He carefully and effectively explains what a proper philosophy of history and historical method entail (29–70), and he ably demonstrates the weaknesses of postmodernist history (79–89).
There is much to commend in this book. First, and most important, Licona posits solid arguments for believing in the biblical account of Jesus’ passion and resurrection predictions (300), his crucifixion (302–12), and his bodily resurrection— which is the apex of the book’s presentation (582–610). Licona uses five clearlydelineated criteria (explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, and illumination, 600–01, see 606) to skillfully demonstrate how Jesus’ physical, bodily resurrection is superior to five naturalistic hypotheses (championed by Vermes, Goulder, Lüdemann, Crossan, and Craffert), such as Michael Goulder’s erroneous view that Jesus’ followers experienced hallucinations and communal delusions (479–95).
Second, Licona has extensively researched his topic, and the book has copi-ous footnotes as a result. Third, after explaining how one’s horizons (core beliefs) can possibly influence one’s research and conclusions (38–40, 127), Licona gives a refreshingly honest testimony and self disclosure about his conservative evangelical beliefs (130–32). Fourth, since he wrote from the perspective of a philosopher of history (167, 612) and employed a purposeful personal detachment from the subject (467) as well as a methodological neutrality in his investigation (99, 207), his research can have more impact on a nonbeliever than a typically-biased apologetic writing. However, one might find this unbiased evaluation of historical sources, including New Testament accounts, somewhat disconcerting (199–276)! For instance, he assigns the following rankings for biblical sources as to the “likelihood they provide independent testimony to apostolic teaching” (201): ‘possible-plus’ for Romans 1:3b–4a, ‘possible’ for Luke 24:34, and ‘highly probable’ for 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 (235). Fifth, the book is well written, and Licona uses excellent illustrations to aid one’s understanding (e.g., 41, 72–73, 83, 97–98, 411). Thus, he rightly claims that some exegetes stretch biblical words in a ‘torture chamber’ in order to reach their mangled conclusions (109).
The Problematic Parts
It is disappointing when a conservative evangelical theologian posits arguments that undermine his or her position, and here lies the weaknesses of this book. The flash point is Licona’s belief that the account of the saints who arose from the dead and went to Jerusalem to proclaim Jesus’ resurrection was just an apocalyptic embellishment by Matthew rather than historical fact (Matt 27:52–53). The problem with such a belief is that if one interprets any such historical details in Scripture as embellishments, then drawing the line between historical fact and literary embellishment becomes subjective and arbitrary, thus playing into the very arguments of the most liberal Bible critics.
Licona has recently somewhat softened his view about the resurrected saints in Matthew. He now says he is just as inclined to believe this event is historical as he is to believe it is “an apocalyptic symbol”.2 However, to return halfway between an error and truth is still to remain in error.
Yet, this claim of Matthean exaggeration is not the only example of Licona discounting the historicity of details in the New Testament. Here are some examples of similarly problematic claims: (1) Matthew’s cataclysmic events and two angels are legendary (185–86), (2) many details of the canonical Gospel crucifixion and resurrection accounts may be fiction (309), (3) “three days” means just “a short period of time” rather than at least a portion of “three days” (325–28), (4) Gospel narratives had other possible embellishments because the Gospel genre allowed such liberties (338, 593–97), (5) Luke may have invented narratives in Acts for details he found in Paul’s letters (387), and (6) Paul’s resurrection reports are the only verifiable written eyewitness reports in the New Testament (437)—but what about Matthew’s and John’s Gospels since their writers were apostles? In each of these examples, Licona falls into the same trap that naturalistic scholars find themselves—explaining away biblical details as myth or embellishment rather than historical realities. Although he explains why one should not make the mistake of claiming Jesus’ bodily resurrection is embellishment (553), his jettisoning of some attendant details of Jesus’ resurrection story is at odds with the very hypothesis he proves.
The Wider Issue of Inerrancy
One might rightly wonder why Licona’s book is so controversial when the majority of it is excellent. Why not focus criticism solely on the numerous books about Jesus’ resurrection that have extremely liberal views on the Gospels (as Licona does in chapter five)? The reason is that Licona’s book mostly fits so well within the confines of conservative evangelical beliefs, including biblical inerrancy, yet it has some parts that definitely do not. Thus, some scholars who hold these beliefs are rightly compelled to point out the differences. Although addressing a different subject, Craig Keener gives a pertinent explanation: social conflict theory demonstrates that often when two parties agree on most issues they generate much friction when discussing their differences.3
Licona is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), as is this reviewer. ETS members must annually affirm a belief statement that includes the inerrancy of the Bible in its autographs as defined by the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI);4 however, this reviewer does not believe Licona’s problematic beliefs mentioned above are compatible with the CSBI. In 1983 members of ETS voted to ask Robert Gundry to resign, but in 2003 the motions to ask John Sanders and Clark Pinnock to resign failed to garner the needed votes. These three votes were all about aberrant views on biblical inspiration. Although Licona’s views are nowhere near the erroneous nature or number of Gundry’s, Sanders’s, or Pinnock’s views, there is a connection. The failed votes about Sanders and Pinnock likely indicate there are some evangelical scholars in ETS with unorthodox views on biblical inerrancy, and Licona’s book is proof of that trend. There are some conservative evangelical scholars who claim to be of like mind but instead espouse some views about the Bible that do not fit within the confines of the CSBI. Geisler addresses this troubling erosion of the belief in biblical inerrancy and the need for vigilance against this erosion in his new book Defending Inerrancy.5
Some scholars respond that there is no problem with Licona’s book because these are nitpicking issues or that the CSBI needs further revision or nuancing.6 However, this reviewer believes the CSBI remains a sufficient explanation of biblical inerrancy, and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is important enough to continually defend and clearly define for each generation. Thus, Licona’s book presents a challenge and calls for a response.
Conclusion
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is comprehensive in scope and commendable in many respects. Conservative evangelical Christians will agree with the majority of it, and for the most part Licona effectively argues for the truthfulness of Jesus’ physical, bodily resurrection. Nonbelievers will find much well-reasoned food for thought in this book. Scholars, ministers, and students can all benefit from this well-researched book. However, it is unfortunate that some of Licona’s biblical interpretations run counter to his central claim.
- Writing this book led to Licona’s departure from being Research Professor at the North American Mission Board on 31 December 2011, according to Ross. Bobby Ross, Jr., “A Grave Debate: Apologist’s Interpretation of Matthew 27 Creates Theological War of Words,” Christianity Today (November, 2011): 14. See also, Erin Roach, “Apologist’s Views Brings Back Inerrancy Debate,” Baptist Press, 9 November 2011, http://www.bpnews.net/ bpnews.asp?id=36522 (Accessed 9 January 2012). Well-known apologist Norman Geisler has posted three open letters on the Internet criticizing Licona’s view as contrary to biblical inerrancy and calling for Licona to recant. The following citations give the letters and Licona’s response in chronological order. Norman Geisler, “An Open Letter to Mike Licona on his View of the Resurrected Saints in Matthew 27:52–53,” http://www.normangeisler.net/public_html/ openletterML.html (Accessed 9 January 2012); Norman Geisler, “A Second Open Letter to Mike Licona on the Resurrection of the Saints of Matthew 27,” August 21, 2011, http://www. normangeisler.net/public_html/openletterMLII.html (Accessed 9 January 2012). Licona’s response is posted on Facebook: Michael Licona, “An Open Response to Norman Geisler,” 31 August 2011, Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-licona/an-open-responseto-norman-geisler/157410607676207, (Accessed 9 January 2012). Geisler’s third open letter to Licona is a response to Licona’s August 31 open letter: Norman Geisler, “A Response to Mike Licona’s Open Letter,” Sept. 8, 2011, http://www.normangeisler.net/public_html/ responseMLIII.html (Accessed 9 January 2012). ↩︎
- Licona, “An Open Response.” ↩︎
- Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 230. ↩︎
- “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.,
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID750054_ CIID2094584,00.html (Accessed 9 January 2012); “ETS Constitution,” Evangelical Theological Society, http://www.etsjets.org/about/constitution (Aaccessed 17 January 2012). ↩︎ - Norman L. Geisler and William C. Roach, Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy
of Scripture for a New Generation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012). ↩︎ - Ross, “A Grave Debate,” 14. ↩︎
