The following is an archive of postings from my blogs, about the 2011 Licona-Geisler controversy. They are archived here for the record as Geisler's material is still posted.
8/22/2011
Recently Norman Geisler issued an "open letter" directed to Mike Licona concerning his arguments related to the raising of the saints in Matthew as a non-historical report. There's not a whole lot new for me to say about this in terms of the actual issue, for between my prior review of Licona's book (link below) and my series on Geisler and inerrancy (link also below), there's nothing else I need to say about the issue per se. What I do want to note is Geisler's designation of Licona's view as an "alarming deviation" from inerrancy.
Obviously, I don't think it is that at all, but what bothers me is Geisler's heavy-handed and alarmist response to what Licona is saying, and the implied threat his warning indicates. To illustrate the problem, let me draw an analogy to my own past employments.
After my work in the Department of Corrections, I spent one year in a public library before turning to full time ministry. This was a sea change in more ways than one. In the DC library, I had over a dozen inmates working directly for me, and hundreds more as "customers". And they had to do everything I told them to. I was also free to tell them when they were wrong -- quite firmly, and with language that brooked no compromise.
The public library was entirely the opposite, of course. There the customers were in charge, and no matter how absurd their demands were, I was expected to meet them; no matter how foolish a thing they said, I was expected to nod in agreement. If I didn’t – I risked complaints or even job loss.
In practice, though, I frequently didn't just nod in agreement because I couldn't stand not being able to tell the truth. And that gets to the heart of what I have to say today about Geisler's open letter, which is exemplary of a much larger problem we have today, concerning the freedom we need as teachers to tell the truth -- or at the very least (since I do ultimately disagree with why Licona thinks the story is not "straight" history) the freedom to explore options like these.
When someone like Geisler issues an "open letter" like this one, it is, in spite of the seemingly cordial language, too obviously an implied threat: Get with the program and reaffirm inerrancy as "we" understand it. Never mind that the very question that needs to be settled first is whether inerrancy as Geisler understands it is even the correct view in the first place; as far as he's concerned, that issue is not open to discussion. And worse, as Geisler puts it, Licona's approach could (gasp) "undermine orthodoxy".
Oh really? If it did indeed undermine orthodoxy, and it had been shown to after discussion or debate, yes, that would be a problem. But it does not undermine orthodoxy, and there are arguments to be had as to why it does not – arguments that had already been had when the issue came up with Gundry. Geisler produced thoroughly unsatisfactory responses to Gundry on these points, though of course, I am sure he does not think so. But he is wrong. Geisler emerged from that debate looking like someone quite far in over his head, unable to do more than press a panic button repeatedly. It amounts to a politician using scare tactics like, “This proposal will eliminate Medicaid and Medicare!” in order to frighten needy or elderly voters into turning against some proposed policy change, without thinking rationally about it.
The real issue remains the same: Whose views offer the most accurate representation of how to interpret Scripture? In that regard, Geisler cannot, and should not, take the day. We need, rather, to get away from the modernist and Western approach to Scripture he employs, to rescue the text from foreign decontextualizations, and provide a faith that, if not bulletproof, will at least require much more cognitive dissonance and irrationality to abandon than to keep.
The time for Geisler's method of treating Scripture has passed. Though in fact, it should never have come to pass in the first place.
8/24/2011
Just recently Norman Geisler issued a second “open letter” to Mike Licona concerning the issue of Matthew 27, and as before, my position is as one who thinks Licona’s final conclusion is incorrect even as I do not consider his methodology incorrect. In that light I will again have much less to say about Geisler’s second false alarm than Licona himself might say in his own defense. Particularly, where Geisler gives six reasons why the text is historical, I won’t be presenting the same answers Licona would. However, I will defend the methodology Licona uses in general principle.
Argument one: ...in this very text the resurrection of these saints occurs in direct connection with two other historical events—the death and resurrection of Jesus (vv. 50, 53).
Geisler unfortunately does not grasp the absurdity of this “argument by proximity.” It would be as though a politician were delivering a speech on some important local issue (say, clean water) and paused to illustrate with a joke, or some sort of story, and Geisler argued that because the joke or story is told in direct connection with “other real life events,” this means the joke or story was intended to be “real life” as well.
Unfortunately, such arguments by proximity are far from sound, especially in dealing with high-context literature. Geisler might object that the politician makes his joke or story obvious, either by noting that he is about to tell a joke, or by a change in tone, or some other means. That would fail him here not only because we are only dealing with a text (and therefore lack aural cues such as a change in tone), but also because as a high context text, Biblical readers (or actually, in most cases, hearers) would be expected to be clued in to what within the text designates it as something other than narrative history. Geisler’s argument is thoroughly graphocentric, and without recognition of the varied ways in which in ancient narrativist might insert non-historical material in a narrative. None of that proves that any particular text is not meant to be taken as narrative history; I am only saying that Geisler has far too simplified a view of the matter, and that his answer is not reflective of the realities of ancient composition techniques.
In the case of Matthew 27, I don’t find any clues of non-historicity; though I do find them in another place in Matthew in which Judas is said to have gone and hung himself. The clue there is the clear allusion to the traitor Ahitophel – plus the external clue that Luke reports the death differently. So while I do think Licona is wrong about Matthew 27, it is not because he failed to notice (as Geisler so insultingly implies) that the account of the saints was surrounded by accounts of other historical events. Geisler’s familiarity with ancient literary techniques, especially those of a high context society, simply isn’t broad enough.
Even more absurdly, Geisler thinks the use of words like “quake” and “rocks” and “bodies” indicate that the text is historical. This too is a useless criterion, since jokes, legends, and analogies are just as able to use the same words. Again, this does not mean I agree with Licona’s conclusion; it only means that Geisler’s counterargument is invalid.
Geisler’s second reason is little more than a variation upon the first and so warrants no more comment. His third reason also shows a remarkable lack of grasp of ancient literary practice:
Third, this text lists the same kind of evidence for the resurrection of these saints as is listed elsewhere for Jesus' resurrection: [1] the tombs were opened; [2] the tombs were empty; [3] the dead were raised; [4] there were physical appearances; [5] many people saw these resurrected saints (cf. Mt.27; 1 Cor. 15). In brief, if this is not a physical resurrection, then neither was Jesus' resurrection (that preceded and prompted it) a physical resurrection.
This fails not only on the same point above, but also fails to recognize that the parallelisms are the product of a text constructed for memory. This in turn means that they do not speak for or against historicity. Indeed, many of these same “evidences” would also be given for the return from the dead of figures like Romulus, Osiris, and other pagan figures. In his own way, Geisler has unwittingly granted credence to those who argue for “pagan copycat” dependencies for the story of Jesus on that of figures like Romulus and Osiris. It might occur to Geisler that these “evidences” are simply what would naturally be expected to be given in a case of a body risen from the dead – just as, in a murder case (whether real life or fictional), we would expect to have as evidence: [1] a body was found; [2] a murder weapon was discovered; [3] the suspect took flight; [4] there was blood evidence; [5] there were witnesses to one or more related events.
For his fourth point, Geisler quotes Ellicott's Commentary as saying that the brevity and simplicity of the statement in Matthew 27 distinguishes it from legend. I have two comments, one an answer, one an observation. The answer is that Ellicott is wrong: Brevity and simplicity are not suitable criteria for distinguishing legend from fact. The criteria have absolutely nothing to do with one another; it is as easy to sum up a legend in one sentence (“alligators live in that sewer”) as it is to tell it in an hour long story. There are no “typical characteristics” with respect to length when it comes to myths or legends.
My observation: Ellicott’s commentary was written in the 1800s. If this is what Geisler takes to be a suitable source for research, as though nothing has happened in the intervening 150 or so years to help us understand the Bible more and better, then we would be far better off if Geisler himself withdrew from making defenses of the Christian faith, for he is making apologists look insensate by using such badly dated (and, yes, wrong) material. The irony is that Geisler will later have some innately disparaging remarks about scholarship, which apparently do not apply as long as you were a scholar who wrote in the 1800s.
Geisler’s fifth point is that “some of the elements of this story are confirmed by two other Gospels.” Well, no – the very specific element Licona is discussing is not; in any event, this is yet again the same fallacious “argument by proximity” as in point one. His sixth point is also merely a reformulation of “argument by proximity.” So in the end, Geisler presents only three real arguments.
Once this is done, Geisler reiterates the implied threats of the original open letter and the alleged incompatibility of Licona’s argument with the stance of ETS on inerrancy. I will not repeat myself on this, save to point out that it was second-tier non-scholars like Geisler (his degrees are not in fields directly relevant to Biblical interpretation) and Lindsell who decided that views of scholars like Gundry and Licona were not in line with inerrancy. However, it is the latter, not the former, who are in a far, far better position to decide what first century authors would have regarded as “inerrant,” and as one who has also studied that point in depth, I will affirm that Geisler continues to be in the wrong, and if ETS holds to the same view, then it is frankly time to either clean that house, or start another house where minds are in operation rather than being placed in a sheep pen by alarm-pullers who read the Biblical text like it was written with Western moderns in mind. (For the record, I am not a member of ETS, though I was for a short time; I found it to be of no use to me.)
In the end, though, Geisler’s error remains the same: He wrongly assumes that arguing that the Bible reports, eg, something legendary AS LEGEND is the same as saying it is reporting falsehood. This simple point has apparently continued to elude Geisler ever since the time of the similar controversy surrounding Robert Gundry. His complaint of Licona “dehistoricizing” is thus akin to objecting that the same is done when someone argues that proverbs in Proverbs are not absolutes: Whether the text was meant to be taken as history in the first place is the very question that is under consideration.
After this, Geisler offers a brief defense of ICBI as the “standard” to follow. I have no horse in that debate, but I find it telling that much of Geisler’s argumentation in this area amounts to “it’s been this way for a long time” and “lots of people accept it,” which are quite obviously bad reasons to accept anything as a standard, regardless of the value of the ICBI as an instrument. If majority rather than sustained argument is to be the measure, then we are better off not being part of an organization like ETS, which ends up being no more than a “good old boy” organization where tyrants and bullies pretend to be deities who whip others into the party line not because of evidence or argument, but just because “that’s the way we do things here.” The very fact that half of Geisler’s “six” arguments are the same, and that all of them are fallacious, is as well reminiscent of how “good old boys” mount their token defenses, intended to do no more than imitate the semblance of a reasoned discourse.
The final section deals with particular objections why one might consider Matthew 27 non-historical, none of which have any bearing on any argument I would hold. So with that, we move only for some comments on Geisler’s conclusion:
In conclusion, Licona has not publically recanted his published view denial of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. Until he does so, his view on this matter should be considered unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism.
Really now? In reply, I would say: Geisler’s admonition to put “Lordship over scholarship” is fundamentally a case of ostrich action at its finest. Licona is not doing any such thing; rather, Geisler is putting “lordship” (lower case l) over scholarship – which is to say, he is using his bully pulpit to harass, hound, and denigrate Licona and his work, to “lord it over” others in a flagrant abuse of power and influence. For that, he should be ashamed of himself, and no amount of decorating the text with "we love you brother" commentary will change that. The "good old boys" do that too - right before they punch your career or your reputation in the nose.
This might all be of no matter if Geisler actually produced some sound arguments for his views, but as happened with Gundry, what was offered was unworthy of serious consideration, which is all the more amazing given that I do, in the end, disagree with Licona’s conclusion. One of our grave mistakes has been maintaining a divide between the academy and the church at large, such that it was apologists like Geisler and Lindsell who became the leaders rather than the apologist-scholars like Licona and Wallace. Of course, not all non-scholar apologists are of that order, but enough of them are – and enough of our leaders are – that this latest situation is an example of our failure coming home to roost.
9/12/2011
I'm keeping up with the continuing saga of Geisler vs Licona, which now includes a second "open letter" from Geisler. After Licona's last response, Geisler would have done well to drop the matter, but it seems he cannot. That being the case, I am now posting my own official entry, an open challenge to Geisler to take the matter to the floor with me. Readers are asked to reproduce the link to this challenge (or the text of it, as appropriate) in whatever venues they deem suitable. (Including Geisler's own Facebook page, which, since I am not a Facebooker myself, I can't post to.) First, though, a review of Geisler's second open letter.
Initially, he offers a recitation of the timeline of his inquiry, and some have noted that he seems to think Licona had nothing else to do but respond to him. Geisler's actual feelings on the matter are not discernible, but at the very least he seems unaware that he has the appearance of someone acting like a bully who thinks that responding to him should take precedence over anything else anyone has to do.
I obviously don’t have access to Licona’s schedule – I know that he was on the road a lot in late July, and that undoubtedly involved preparation earlier that month – but I'll note that since Geisler posted his first letter July 3, it should at least have occurred to him that Licona -- who still has a son residing at home -- might want to spend some quality time with his family over the summer school break. As it is, Geisler is doing very little to deflect criticism of acting impatient, self-important, and like a bully -- and in that regard, he is also reflecting the sort of "good old boy" authoritarian attitude that has done so much to stagnate American Christianity.
(In that regard I also have to chuckle at Geisler's remark that he "waited in vain a whole month for a response" from Licona, as if he were being unfairly delayed from more pressing matters because Licona didn't respond to him. I also have to chuckle at his further sentiment that Licona "owe[d] me a quicker response". Excuse me? Why does Licona "owe" Geisler anything? Has Geisler imagined himself to be our pope that any of us owe HIM an explanation on anything, and within the timeframe he decides we owe it to him?)
In terms of his response to Licona now, since, again, I did not think Licona's assessment of Matthew 27 was correct, I'll be dialing down only to 1) points that directly discuss the matter of my concern -- whether what Licona offered was or was not compatible with inerrancy; 2) places where Geisler is manifesting the attitude of a bully. That means we don't get to anything I want to touch on until the end of point 2:
In short, after two months, I still have a mere reply but not a real response to the issues I raised. And this reply is something that could easily have been written two months ago. Apparently, the pressure from Southern Baptist sources that preceded his resignation from his position at their North American Mission Board helped convinced him to resign and reconsider writing a reply.
Again, as noted, Geisler is insensate to Licona's duties as a public debater and speaker, a writer and researcher. As for the latter, I would only remark that this is again the sort of "good old boy" attitude that we need to erase from our churches and from SBC in particular. No one apart from Licona at SBC or NAMB, I'd think, was qualified to assess Licona's work in scholarly terms, so if there was any "pressure" it was from people who had no genuine authority to apply it (meaning, they had nothing more than assigned authority).
The third point touches on the inerrancy issue, only objecting that Licona did not explain why his view is in line with the "historic view on inerrancy." As it happens that is not a point I would make anyway; just because there is a "historic view" of any given doctrine does not grant it much authority, though it does place a burden on dissenters to explain why those prior were wrong. In this particular case, I might note that much of the modern perception of "inerrancy" is rooted in a literalist form of reading that was unknown in the ancient world. But barring specifics, I can't comment further.
In his fourth point Geisler reiterates that the framers of the ICBI (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) "clearly denied that views like Licona's are compatible with inerrancy." However, Licona got two signers-on to ICBI to append their affirmations to his own open letters. So Geisler will now have to try to throw out them as well, apparently. By the time he's done he'll be standing all by himself, and everyone but him will be a heretic.
The fifth point has to do with Matt. 27, so I'll skip to point 6:
Sixth, listing some scholars who agree with him misses the point. First, as he admits, most of them do not agree with his unrecanted in-print view. Further, the fact that they say they are "in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy" misses the point entirely.
Well, no, it doesn't, and that they do not agree with his view of Matt. 27 is not the point, since it was the basis of inerrancy that caused Geisler to comment from the start, not merely Licona's interpretation. In terms of compatibility, I would note again that these scholars are in a far better position to assess what "inerrancy" would mean in the context of the Biblical world. Geisler is a philosopher whose interest and specialty in issues of historic and social-contextual exegesis is marginal at best.
For it does not answer the question of with whose view of inerrancy it is in agreement? As we all know, the term "inerrancy" can be twisted to mean many things to many people.
I'm sure it can. But fear-mongering over the possibility of a slippery slope doesn't mean that Licona has found one. The answer here would be for Geisler to humbly buckle down and educate himself on the views of inerrancy held by these scholars, do the same study they have, and reach a fair decision -- either that, or refrain from commenting. As it is, he remains content to merely assume that his view is unchallengeable.
And again, wielding ICBI as a club does not aid him in any case. ICBI is fully compatible with Licona's views; but it seems to me that certain framers (like Geisler) who think it is not do not even understand what the implications are of what they wrote -- and I think that is because they continue to fail to grasp what the positions are, as noted here before:
Geisler's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting history as history.
Licona's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting a poetic device as a poetic device.
Geisler's view of Licona's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting a poetic device as history.
As we have noted, one cannot "dehistoricize" a text that was never intended to be taken as historical. Geisler continues to miss this point and thus continues to misapprehend Licona's views with respect to inerrancy. And if ICBI's framers also did this (when they may have misunderstood Gundry in the same way), then I can only suggest that that doesn't speak well for the perceptiveness of certain of ICBI’s framers (though it does speak much of their reactionary and even perhaps thoughtless framing of ICBI).
Point seven is yet another "slippery slope" threat. On this point I would merely note that despite Geisler's "the sky may fall on us" performance, there has yet to be discovered any historical, social, or literary context that would allow Mary Baker Eddy's readings of the Bible to be supported, in contrast to Licona's own argument, which at least does rely on some first century literary precedent. Eddy’s perceptions are nearly as foreign to the first century as Geisler’s.
I would also add that despite Geisler, the resurrection of the saints and that of Jesus are not "interwoven" in any literary or other sense. Indeed this reflects Geisler's lack of knowledge of the nature of Greco-Roman biography (as the Gospels are) as episodic in nature. Which leads in turn to point 8, which of all of these, is the most horrifying, and the basis for my challenge to Geisler:
Eighth, Licona reveals the basis of his own problem when he admits that his view on Matthew 27 "is based upon my [his] analysis of the genre of the text" and that this was based on a comparison with "similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general." But this is clearly not the way to interpret a biblical text which should be understood by the "historical-grammatical" method (as ICBI held) of (a) looking at a text in its context and (b) by comparing other biblical texts, affirming that "Scripture is to interpret Scripture" (as ICBI mandated). The proper meaning is certainly not found by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means.
Er...wow.
The Gospels are in the form of Greco-Roman biographies. Paul and other NT authors make frequent use of Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques. While some critics overstate the influence of Greco-Romanism on the NT, there is a certain clear amount of it, and Geisler's remark concerning "external pagan idea[s]" is simply so obscurantist as to be embarrassing -- only sadly, I have doubt that Geiser realizes how embarrassing this should be to him, or that he ever will.
I also doubt ICBI really forbids use of such external contexts; or if it does forbid them, it needs badly to be revised. Scripture doesn't teach us how to read Greek, or interpret rhetorical forms. Geisler's resistance here is of the sort that will only lead to even more cognitive dissonance, more marginalization of the church, and more apostasy (thanks as well to those like Bart Ehrman who, after the manner of hyenas, will gladly step in to lick the sores produced).
It gets worse than that though, for Geisler’s position. The NT world was a high-context society. The background would have been understood by all people as would have been any idioms. The NT does not have a lesson on understanding biblical Greek for the people of the time generally spoke Greek. There is no such thing as a glossary of biblical terms within the Bible that had to be used when writing Scripture. One wonders if Geisler would have had a problem with the council of Nicaea using non-biblical words to describe the Trinity. Would that have been super-imposing Greek philosophical ideas on Scripture?
When we read a text like 1 Corinthians 7, we read that concerning the present times, it is good not to marry. Geisler is married. I am married. Licona is married. Licona’s daughter is married to my ministry partner, Nick Peters. Are we raising an objection to Paul, or, are we simply aware that Paul was aware that certain circumstances dictated this teaching by Paul (e.g., as Bruce Winter observed, Corinth was undergoing a famine at the time and to have to support another in such a time was not the wisest of choices)?
One can get a good message out of the Prodigal Son parable, but one has a totally different view of it when they realize that when the younger son requested his portion he was really saying to his father “I wish you would drop dead!”
Geisler’s position will mean that such does not matter. Why should this be so? Licona sees his position reflected in the Greco-Roman biographies. When Geisler reads about such events happening at the death of a Caesar in such a biography, does he automatically state that the author wished to be taken literally and rule them out as a bad historian? If not, why? If he does see it as non-literal, why is it the biblical text is suddenly different? Note that the biblical text like the Greco-Roman biographies would indicate that this apocalyptic description is centered around a historical event. Despite what has been said, it is not an all-or-nothing game. It is remarkable that Geisler says that this can be used to deny anything when Licona has written a whole book explaining why that CANNOT be the case with the resurrection of Christ.
Furthermore, Geisler’s view cannot be said to be biblical for if one needs a biblical hermeneutic to understand the Bible, how does one understand the Bible in the first place if they need the hermeneutic that supposedly comes from the Bible? The Bible does not come with a hermeneutic. Nor should we expect it to.
He then says:
So, it matters not how many scholars one can line up in support of the consistency of their personal view on inerrancy (and many more than this can be lined up on the other side).
Oh really? Then let Geisler line them up. And then let them face off. Geisler's further "we've always done it this way" response isn't enough; it has too much the scent of someone who doesn't want his views scrutinized.
Sadly, many names on Licona's list of scholars are members of ETS (some of whom are on the faculties of evangelical seminaries that require their faculty to sign the ICBI view of inerrancy). What is more, their approval of Licona's view reveals they are not signing the doctrinal statement in good conscience according to intention expressed by the framers. The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it. Only a clear recantation will reverse the matter and, unfortunately, Licona has not done this. Let's pray that he does.
No...let's pray that he doesn't, at least not because of Geisler's bullying tactics. (Licona has said that he's reconsidering his view of Matt. 27 for other reasons...scholarly ones.) And let's also see if Geisler will now try to get the rest of those signers thrown out of ETS en masse. The wrestling-mat side of me wishes he'd try -- and also wishes he'd try some of that bullying in Tekton's direction as well, and that is why today I am issuing an open challenge to him on this last point, specifically in this way, and on the horns of a dilemma for him:
Challenge: Are the Gospels in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies (bioi)? If not, why not? If so, then why is this not a case of “by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means”?
Neither option bodes well for Geisler. Identifying the Gospels as bioi has been of some assistance in determining their nature, meaning, and purpose. It has not been particularly relevant to the exegesis of the Gospels, but it remains that identifying them as such was the same process of Licona used in trying to identify Matt. 27 as a poetic device – it was done by comparison to “some external pagan (!) idea” which was then (as Geisler puts it) “superimposed on the text.”
On the other hand, if he chooses to deny that the Gospels are bioi, he will be hard-pressed to explain why the credible scholarship of Burridge, Talbert, and others ought to be rejected.
Challenge: Do the epistles of Paul make use of the techniques of Greco-Roman rhetoric? If not, why not? If so, then why is this not a case of “by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means”?
This one will be even harder on him, because there are several instances in which the principles of rhetoric have helped us interpret Paul’s meaning. Geisler will be compelled to explain why so much of what is in Paul looks so much like Greco-Roman rhetoric, and also why scholars like Kennedy, Witherington, and Porter are wrong in their assessments.
Geisler is left with three options. One is to meet this challenge head on, and if he does try it, I can tell you outright...it will not go well for him. And I say that with some regrets that one of our current leading names in apologetics is so unwisely spending his legacy on such poorly thought out arguments.
His second option is to admit his error. I don’t think I need to comment on the likelihood of that happening.
His third option – the one I am fairly sure he will choose – is to ignore this challenge, as he has apparently done when challenged regarding Ergun Caner. And that will speak for itself.
Geisler prays for Licona to recant. I say, let’s pray rather that we work this out so that we can have a rational, supportable, and invincible faith that will keep hyenas like Bart Ehrman from handmaidening others into the same apostasy he went into. Geisler’s form of apologetics is doing nothing whatsoever to prevent such apostasies and the time for his anachronistic and authoritarian methodology has passed.
9/19/2011
Norman Geisler has continued to ignore my challenge, but he has taken the time to horn in on Licona's response to Mohler, and naturally we have a few things to say, once again mostly about inerrancy as opposed to Matthew 27.
The main issue to discuss is that Geisler insists that the intention of ICBI's framers was to exclude exactly the sort of process Licona used on Matthew 27. My response would be if that was the case, then they did an exceptionally poor job of expressing this via ICBI, since 1) the actual text of the Chicago Statement doesn't reflect that alleged intention, and indeed expresses in plain language an opposing intention; 2) so many credentialed scholars disagree that such intention is reflected in the Statement, including 3) Moreland and Yamauchi who were in on the process. If Geisler and certain of his associates were that poor at expressing their intentions, they should resign immediately as public communicators and allow more qualified writers to handle the job.
It boils down again to the failure of Geisler and others to understand a very simple point we have noted here repeatedly: You cannot "dehistoricize" a text that wasn't meant to be taken as history in the first place. You also cannot object that one is "dehistoricizing" a text that "presents itself" as factual when the point being made is that the evidence suggests that the text is actually presenting itself as non-factual (in a historical sense). Geisler clearly fails to understand this, and so continues to run in the same circle. (And by the way, Licona does not call the text a "legend" as Geisler says, but rather a "poetic device," understood in terms of apocalyptic imagery.)
A second issue is that Geisler continues to obfuscate when it comes to use of externals to help interpret the Biblical texts, and fails to see that "grammatico-historical exegesis" by nature is contrary to his profession that follows that:
"..Scripture is to interpret Scripture,” not extra-biblical texts used to determine the meaning of the biblical text.
The absurdity of that of course is that one must initially use the extra-Biblical facts about the Greek language to even begin to interpret Scripture. This is not an "either-or" proposition as Geisler makes it out to be, and Scripture is not a thoroughly closed, self-interpretable entity. The doctrine is sola, not solo, Scriptura. So again, it would also be understandable why Geisler would want to avoid my challenge concerning Greco-Roman biographies and rhetoric in the NT. Following his lead, we would be left with the outlandish proposition that God inspired texts that just happened to resemble first-century Greco-Roman artifacts, but really were not. (Alternatively, he may offer the inconsistent view that it would be OK to accept those "pagan" tools, since they do not disturb his view of Scripture.)
Third, Geisler again does not solve the historicity question of Matt. 27 by pointing out that Matthew and Luke elsewhere say they will present history in their texts and otherwise report historical data all around Matthew 27. This was his argument in Round 1, and as before, Geisler fails to grasp that methods of historical reportage were inclusive of forms of presentation that amounted to what we would call non-factual artifices, and this right smack dab in the middle of what was otherwise "straight history". This was a fairly isolated phenomenon, but it nevertheless did occur. Readers of Matthew and Luke would be aware of such artifices and interpret them accordingly. It is thus Geisler, not Licona, who begs the question by asking:
All the main events of Matthew are taken to be historical, even by Licona, including the birth, life, works, words, death and resurrection of Jesus. Why then should not the rest of the book be considered historical as well.
Why then? Because Geisler's "all or nothing" approach is fundamentally without recognizance of how ancient writers sometimes did their work.
The one part Geisler does get right is that yes, the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks some element is non-historical reportage. It was not such a commonplace phenomenon that it can be found just anywhere (which was MacDonald's error in his Homeric epics thesis). And of course, I did not think Licona had satisfied that burden re Matthew 27. That said, Geisler's claim that use of external sources to interpret Scripture is a completely misdirected way of interpreting Scripture" is, as noted, marginalizing nonsense that he refutes himself any time he picks up a lexicon. His qualification that Licona is misusing ICBI because it only allows exegetes to "clarify" meaning is merely an equivocation, and at worst, further indication that he and some of his ICBI cohorts did an exceptionally poor job of communication (or else understanding what others were saying). Licona's effort was indeed one done to attempt to "clarify" the text -- it was hardly done to muddy it. And again, when he says:
As Dr. Mohler correctly noted, they cannot be used to “invalidate” the teaching of a biblical text.
How many times must the lesson be repeated? The very question at issue is what in particular is being taught by the text. If Licona were right, then he is not invalidating the teaching of a text but clarifying it. This simple point eludes Geisler time and time again.
Further on, I find somewhat amusing Geisler's warning to not place much weight on the proposed round table discussion "because some of those involved have already placed approval on his view in a recent Open Letter released by Licona. So, it may be a case of the fox guarding the hen house." Aside from the rather tendentious nature of Geisler's warning as (dare I say) one of the "chickens" involved, this is yet again Geisler resorting to ad hominem in place of argument. We are also assured that "[t]here are far bigger and better scholarly circles than this, such as, the nearly 300 international scholars who formed the ICBI statement on inerrancy and its statements which declare that views like Licona’s were incompatible with the view of full inerrancy which declared that the Bible is wholly and completely without error and denied all dehistoricizing of the Gospel record." As noted, if some of these 300 people did such a poor job of communicating their wishes, then we hardly need them.
As it is, Geisler's list of 300 "scholars" manifestly includes many people who are not scholars (eg, pastors, such as W. A. Criswell and D. James Kennedy, and er...Hal Lindsey and Josh McDowell!!) or who are scholars in fields not relevant to Licona’s variety of NT study (such as Gleason Archer and Roger Nicole); it also includes at least two (Moreland and Yamauchi) who contradict Geisler, and others I believe would likewise contradict him based on the works of their I have read (Blocher, Carson). Many names I do not recognize, and some are certainly deceased (like Greg Bahnsen, and Archer). Perhaps a survey of these names is in order once we get done with the martyr series, in order to decide just how many did have the knowledge and authority to make pronouncements about what inerrancy would have meant to Biblical readers.
Nevertheless, with a few exceptions (people who Geisler knows well, like Nix), what license does Geisler have to speak for the them and why are they more scholarly in the literature? Why should this discussion be avoided just because the people there disagree with Geisler? Are we to say we only pay attention to people who agree with Geisler? He says he wishes to stop "bad scholarship" but that is very hard to accept as his intention when he won't answer a simple challenge like mine, and makes such obscurantist statements about use of externals to interpret Scripture. Geisler had best not cherish the numbers before he gets his arguments straight; and he's conspicuously gotten Licona's arguments wrong again and again.
Geisler denies that he is a "dectractor" of any sort; I don't prefer that term myself -- for Geisler right now, I prefer terms like obscurantist, bully, and perhaps even controlling dictator might fit as well. I might be persuaded to rethink application of those terms if he took the time to answer my challenge, but it becomes readily apparent that he does not wish to expose himself to this kind of scrutiny.
In close, a few miscellaneous notes.
First, I have been informed that the Liconas were on a European vacation during some portion of the time when Geisler presents himself as waiting for a response.
Second, Geisler's appeal to Gundry's case as an analogy is without merit. The cases are not identical. Douglas Moo, as we noted in a prior entry here, interacted with Gundry in the original discussion, has said that Licona is not in violation of inerrancy. What does Geisler know that Moo, a scholar, does not?
Third, it deserves reiteration that there are those who would regard Geisler's view of the days of Genesis as a compromise on the same order as his treatments of Licona and Gundry. I know of many creationists who would say that Geisler is compromising on the biblical evidence because of scientific evidence that wasn’t available to the people of the time. The point is not to vouch for either side of the debate, since that is not my topical expertise; the point is that Geisler can be regarded as a compromiser and non-inerrantist by the same reasoning he applies to Licona -- and would be replied to for his defense the same way he has replied to Licona, particularly with respect to his use of extra-Biblical information.
Fourth, Geisler’s appeal to the authority of ETS is puzzling since he resigned from ETS some time ago over their refusal to disavow Clark Pinnock over open theism. The language he used in resigning as quite strong: He wrote for example of ETS having lost its “doctrinal integrity.” So by what logic does he now suppose to subject Licona and others to the authority of ETS?
The challenge remains open, but I won't hold my breath.
11/2/2011
Norman Geisler has still not acknowledged our challenges -- directly -- but he has taken the time to scour Mike Licona's book on the Resurrection rooting around for manufactured problems, after the manner of a pig rooting around for truffles. No doubt stung by a highly positive review of Licona's book in the Christian Research Journal -- one that saw none of the problems Geisler imagined existed there -- Geisler now hits the panic button with a chorus of sledgehammers, proclaiming that Licona is "worse than we originally thought" on inerrancy.
Initially Geisler presents a personal story -- one I cannot confirm or deny myself, but which I am told by closer sources is heavy on spin -- in which Licona allegedly failed to convince a "key Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leader that his view was orthodox." I'll leave specific defense of that to those more personally involved, but even if Geisler's account happened to be true, we may color ourselves unimpressed without further information.
First of all, who was this "key leader"? Those that immediately come to mind as candidates in the SBC aren't exactly what I'd call scholarly powerhouses qualified to assess the matter. I'm thinking here leaders like Charles Stanley, or Al Mohler (whom Geisler refers to beyond this) who frankly wouldn't know a Greco-Roman biography from an antelope's rump, and would think that the Agricola of Tacitus was some kind of Roman-era soft drink. In that light I find neither the judgment of this unnamed "key leader," nor the words of Mohler from the prior entry (from which Geisler once again quotes extensively, and with emphasis on the panic button parts) of much relevance or strength. I also note that while Geisler is eager to quote Mohler, he is hesitant to note that credible and serious scholars like Dan Wallace, Edwin Yamuchi, and J. P. Moreland have stood behind Licona by specifically naming them (other than Gary Habermas).
Next, Geisler makes note of how Licona was dismissed from SES and ISCA after all of this was uncovered. I am also able to neither confirm nor deny specifics on this, but allow me to say again that authoritarian bullying does not constitute an argument. If this is the position ISCA has taken -- and it appears from their website that they have -- then I daresay I am well served to have not renewed my membership there. I will therefore not miss at all not having been able to attend the next conference on Kansas City; all I will have missed is a ceremonial passing out of wooden clubs and sabre-toothed tiger skins, and the ISCA deserves to be ignored by all credible apologists and utterly abandoned as a credible and useful organization.
After this, Geisler mourns the fact that the Evangelical Philosophical Society (and by extension, its parent organization, ETS) is giving Licona place to discuss his views. Given that EPS and ETS are havens for those who take scholarship seriously, I'll take Geisler's dyspepsia over the matter as a reason to celebrate their having moved on from his backwards views to something more contextually informed.
So what else has caused Geisler dyspepsia from the book which he missed before? He has now found suggestions from Licona -- not affirmations -- that the angels at the tomb could be legendary elements, as could be the incident in John's Gospel in which the soldiers fall to the ground. As before, while I don't think these suggestions are valid conclusions, I also do not see that they cause any problem for a serious and contextualized doctrine of inerrancy. Geisler still does not "get" the key point that you can't dehistorcize a text that wasn't meant to be taken as historical in the first place. It is doubtful that he ever will.
I said that Geisler has not acknowledged our challenges. Indeed he has not, but it is clear that he is aware of them and that they sting badly. One of our challenges was to explain, as noted:
Challenge: Are the Gospels in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies (bioi)? If not, why not? If so, then why is this not a case of “by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means”?
Neither option bodes well for Geisler. Identifying the Gospels as bioi has been of some assistance in determining their nature, meaning, and purpose. It has not been particularly relevant to the exegesis of the Gospels, but it remains that identifying them as such was the same process of Licona used in trying to identify Matt. 27 as a poetic device – it was done by comparison to “some external pagan (!) idea” which was then (as Geisler puts it) “superimposed on the text.”
On the other hand, if he chooses to deny that the Gospels are bioi, he will be hard-pressed to explain why the credible scholarship of Burridge, Talbert, and others ought to be rejected.
Geisler addresses this point, but does so by having dug out places where Licona affirms the nature of the Gospels as bioi. It takes Geisler a few lines of name-calling ("bad methodology") before he finally gets to an actual answer, which reaches stratospheric heights of obscurantism unimagined even by the most fundamental of Bob Jones disciples:
In brief, two main errors in Licona’s methodology stand out. First, his genre decisions are made “up-front” based on extra-biblical data. On the contrary, one should approach every text with the historical-grammatical method to determine within the text, its context, and by other Scriptures what it means. Then, and then alone, is he in a position to know its genre.
Say WHAT?
How can one know the "genre" of a text apart from multiple examples of that genre? Why does not the historical-grammatical method include defining extra-Biblical data? (It certainly does so when interpreting the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible!) What within the text itself tells us what genre the Gospels are? (The answer of course, is that nothing does.) And are we simply to ignore the vast parallels established by credible study and scholars (like Burridge and Talbert) to works like Tacitus' Agricola and say with Geisler, "yes, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it has feathers like a duck, but it's really a mongoose"? Geisler's answer is simply intellectual gibberish and the worst sort of obscurantism.
His second point is no better:
Second, even then, categories of genre made up from extra-biblical sources (like Greco-Roman history) are not the way to determine the genre of a unique piece of literature like the Gospels. For it may be—as indeed we believe it is—that the Gospels are a unique genre of their own, namely, Gospel genre where redemptive history is still real history.
This is nothing more than patent circular reasoning. The Gospels are simply assumed to be unique in their genre in order to argue that they are unique in their genre. Such an obscurantist, neanderthalish assertion will do nothing to erase, answer, or obscure the comprehensive and detailed parallels enumerated by scholars like Burridge, and Geisler's attempt to put the Gospels into "unique genre" is nothing more than ignorant special pleading of the sort that has enabled hyenas like Bart Ehrman to cull the ranks of the church for those who recognize this sort of contrived anti-intellectualism for what it really is.
Geisler goes on:
What is certain is that whatever aid extra-biblical material may have in our understanding of the text, no extra-biblical data is hermeneutically determinative in interpreting any text of Scripture. It may help in understanding the meaning of words and customs, but it cannot be used to determine whether a text is historical or not historical.
However, with that last statement, Geisler has offered his own self-refutation. Logically, he cannot draw a line around "words and customs" and say, "no, it stops here and we can't use such externals to determine historicity of a text." That is simply an arbitrariness and a convenience designed to suit his own predetermined purposes -- and it is again exactly that kind of dictatorial arbitrariness that enables Skeptics to thin Christian ranks.
Geisler thereafter once again appeals to ICBI, but as we have noted before, not even ICBI is saying that it is wrong to "dehistoricize" a text that wasn't meant to be taken as historical in the first place; Geisler's confusion on this matter continues unabated, and is not likely to be cured any time soon.
11/14/2011
In the last week or so, the Licona-Geisler controversy, which we've been on top of from nearly Day 1, has been hitting the fan in the wider world: Articles in the Baptist Press and Christianity Today; various blogosphere observations from non-Christians about Geisler's handling of the matter, and more piling in with support on each side. This may not end any time soon, but for today's entry, I'd like to bring to the fore two points.
The first has to do with Geisler's own inconsistency on this matter, which we have briefly pointed out earlier, with respect to his old-earth views on Genesis. Please note something that Geisler says on page 230 of When Skeptics Ask:
Of course, there are many Creationists who argue for an old earth. Biblically, this position that the word for day is used for more than twenty-four hours even in Genesis 2:4, the events of the sixth day surely took more than twenty-four hours, and Hebrews 4:4-5 implies that God is still in His seventh-day rest. If the seventh day can be long, then the others could too. Scientifically, this view does not require any novel theories to explain the evidence. One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible.
But yet, what does Article 12 of the inerrancy statement say?
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Here is could be easily said that Geisler is using science to overturn the teaching of Scripture that he implies would be the most consistent. I know my creationist friends would say as much. Thus Geisler is doing the very thing he condemns Licona for doing.
The second point for this entry has to do with why I plan to keep on top of this matter -- apart from my personal connections with Nick Peters (Mike Licona's son in law) and the fact that as an independent voice, I can speak out with more freedom and not be concerned about being bullied by Geisler or his adherents.
At the heart of this rhubarb lies a tension I have always seen in the performance of apologetics, as well as in the use of the Bible in modern Christianity and in preaching.
On the one hand, we have always had bullies like Geisler whose anachronistic views have done more harm than good; who, for whatever reason, refuse to let go of their childish notions of Scripture, and insist on reading into it an inappropriate level of transcendancy which strongly divides it from its defining contexts (while also, oddly, turning into a modern, Western product that would have left first century people with entirely the wrong impression about it).
On the other hand, we have had voices like mine, like Licona's, like that of many Biblical scholars, calling for a recognition that Scripture was written within certain specific contexts within which it is properly understood, and with which we must come to terms if we are to have a faith that is genuine, informed, and protected from fire on all sides.
Though I am displeased by the hardship Geisler has caused my friends with his misplaced authoritarianism, I also welcome the public exposure of the conflict. It is my hope that in its process, it will cause Geisler and others of his mindset to become increasingly marginalized; such that others outside the church will come to see that there are real and intelligent alternatives to that type of view, and a far more cerebral and judicious faith that can be had. In the end, this can only help us get rid of all the dross that Geisler's mindset produces -- which I would say includes everything the free-for-all exegesis used by everyone from the emergent church to 40 Days of Purpose, as well as the notion that scholarship is a dangerous thing that needs to be tightly controlled by (cough) "godly men in authority" like Al Mohler who wouldn't even know how to ask where the restroom was in the Biblical world without offending the natives and getting themselves clapped in a Roman jail.
We need to get leaders like Mohler and Geisler out of their leadership roles when it comes to issues like these. They have their own missions they can do tolerably well (for example, Mohler isn't as bad as all that when it comes to moral leadership issues), and they can stay there just fine; but they need to get themselves out of matters of Biblical exegesis and interpretation that they do not understand. If nothing else, I hope that this controversy will bring an end to, or at least seriously impair, the reign of authoritarian ignorance that leaders like these -- whether they be major leaders like Geisler or Mohler, or pastors who maintain an iron hand on local teachers out of fear of being exposed to new ideas.
11/17/2011
I’m doing tomorrow’s Ticker entry today for a couple of reasons. One is that Mike Licona is set today to do a presentation today at EPS on the subject of inerrancy. Another is that with various medical appointments the next two days, I may not get the chance to do a post here tomorrow. The third reason – Geisler’s in the process of sticking his foot into his mouth for the public at large again. Or maybe into some other orifice you can guess at.
Through means I won’t reveal, I’ve gotten hold of a “petition” Geisler is circulating on this subject. It consists of three parts:
1) Various quoted sound bites from Licona’s book where Licona uses words like “embellishment” or “legend”. Not all relate to Matthew 27, and at least one (on page 527) is a case of Licona quoting someone else (John Dominic Crossan), but Geisler doesn’t let little matters like accuracy stop him now any more than before.
In these quotes it seems to matter little whether Licona uses the words to reach a conclusion that some item is legendary, or whether he just presents it as a hypothesis to be considered in proper historical examination. Nor does it matter what arguments Licona presents pro and con.
In this, Geisler is imitating some of the worst atheists on the Internet; those who think it is a good argument to quote passages like Malachi 2:3 (“spread dung on your faces”) as though this proves that “Biblegod” is a cruel and disgusting being. In the same way, Geisler’s obvious intention is to merely charge the emotions and cause those who read these pull quotes to think that Licona is doing something horrible.
2) Various quotes from the Chicago Statement and certain related supplemental sources. Not that any of them actually apply. What has continued to elude Geisler before continues to elude him again: You can’t “dehistoricize” at text that wasn’t meant to be taken as historical. You can’t designate as a “distortion” a text that isn’t meant to distort history. You can’t “misrepresent” a text as legendary if the author’s intention was that it be understood as legendary. Things like proverbs do not report events that “actually occurred in the space-time world” and you can’t object to someone saying that some report didn’t happen there if the author’s intention is not to say it happened there either.
Geisler’s mental blocks in this regard are ones he no doubt hopes his petition readers and signers share; he also no doubt expects his readers to not have any clue about such things as purposeful and isolated use of legendary material in Greco-Roman biographies or other otherwise historical works. And of course, it continues to elude Geisler that his own old-earth view would be seen by many as denying that Gen. 1-11 are historical texts.
3) Last, the petition readers are asked to vote Yes or No on whether Licona’s view of inerrancy violates ICBI, and then sign. Yip dee diddle doo.
It’s not clear what Geisler plans to do with this candy bar once he gets done with it – and, we assume, he gets the results he wants. Will we be granted knowledge of who votes what way – and why? As on YouTube with voting there, a Yes or No doesn’t mean much if the person who votes is ignorant of the issues (eg, has no idea what a Greco-Roman bioi is, let alone how the genre functioned), or votes a certain way because voices in their head tell them how to vote, or vote a certain way because Geisler will harass and bully them as he did Licona if they vote the other way.
It also doesn’t mean much if Geisler cherry-picks who he sends this to (which is reflective of his own habits above, re collecting sound bites) to ensure that he gets all the Yes votes he wants. This was the tactic of the atheist Brian Flemming, who did “man on the street” interviews of Christians, asking them about obscure issues like Mithra knowing he’d get a lot of “duh what” answers which he crowed over. But Flemming wisely avoided taking a short walk down the way to Biola University, where he’d find classfuls of students and professors who would laugh off his idiotic questions.
In the same way, I’m not counting on Geisler to release this petition to more than perhaps a token few he knows won’t answer the way he wants – and also would have the requisite scholarship to get the point. In other words, I’m betting he wants ICBI all over again: Top heavy on those who are clueless or less educated in the relevant fields (eg, most pastors, business leaders, etc), the better to get a majority to render an uninformed opinion that coheres with what the results he wants.
If any process needed oversight, it surely is this one Geisler is putting into motion. But since his practice so far indicates he regards himself as above regulation (eg, removing challenges posted on his Facebook page), I have about as much confidence in this petition, procedurally, as I used to have in prison inmates doing their own legal work.
What it does show, at least – as if we had any doubts --is that anything that isn’t simple authoritarian bullying is beyond Geisler’s ability to handle. He has refused to attend a conference discussing these issues. He was refused to answer challenges. He has not engaged a single argument from any source on this point (although, to be fair, that is also because he doesn’t seem to “get” what the argument actually is, per above).
As some are aware, Geisler has a long record of this sort of bullying. Sometimes he gets what he wants (eg, Murray Harris, Robert Gundry). Other times he doesn’t, and he leaves in a huff (eg, Clark Pinnock). Yet other times he gets badly embarrassed (eg, Ergun Caner, and James White, though as is known, I don’t think White did that well either), and yet other times he gets mostly ignored (eg, Hank Hanegraaff on preterism). This round, it’s going to be “badly embarrassed” if Geisler doesn’t come to a grinding halt. Unlike most of these past issues (Caner’s being an exception), the Internet, the blogosphere, and lightning communications will keep Geisler from keeping a handle on all aspects of the situation. It will become clear and widely known when he is refusing challenges and using misleading quotes (as with Crossan above). He will be checked on in detail by numerous parties – and he’s not used to that.
We’ll keep on top of whatever else we hear about this petition.
11/23/2011
Apparently stung by having been grounded by bright stars like Copan and Wallace, Norman Geisler has issued yet another rather sorrowful analysis of the situation; and to get to the main point: No, he still does not get that you can’t dehistoricize a text that wasn’t meant to be taken as historical in the first place. I can’t comment on all that he says – at least half of his commentary is either not relevant to my views, or involves matters of which I have no knowledge, but I’ll touch on what I can.
Geisler starts by listing certain events and complaints, of which we have some commentary:
Licona objected to internet presentations of matters like this and insisted that these discussions should take place in a “scholarly” context. However, this premise is seriously flawed for several reasons. First of all, Licona posted his paper and other discussion on this topic on his web site.
This is frankly one of the most childish and silly objections I have seen in a long time. How is the posting of this paper and discussion on a web site contrary to discussion on the specific issue of inerrancy taking place in a scholarly context? Posting a paper is not a “discussion,” unless Geisler has now become so insensate that he is having “discussions” with his own computer screen. It is also standard today to post scholarly papers online; the Internet encapsulates a broad range of interests, including scholarly ones, so there is nothing remiss in posting the paper there. It seems rather that Geisler is becoming more and more frustrated with his inability to control the discussion (as he does on his Facebook page by deleting responses). As I noted previously, while Geisler may have gotten away with this sort of thing before (except with Caner), he won’t this time – because he will not and can not assert authoritarian control over every aspect of the situation.
Beyond that, Geisler does not specify what “other discussion” he has in mind, so it’s not possible to comment.
Second, he has not restrained his family and friends from carrying on a defense of his view on the internet.
Well isn’t that just too bad for Geisler. Once again, he’s merely frustrated because he can’t control everyone’s views and shut them up (as again, he does on his Facebook page) whenever he wants to. Beyond that, Licona’s family and friends are all adults and it is silly and childish to expect Licona to “restrain” anyone just because Geisler is having a herd of cows over this. Indeed, what this amounts to is that Geisler is objecting that Licona isn’t acting like a bully – the way he does.
Not that it matters. It is absurd in any event to make an issue of this, because Licona’s obvious point was that Geisler’s mode of posting open letters first was where his offense began. Geisler threw the genie out of the bottle, though, and now it is too late; he set the terms, and if he’s now being turned into a pumpkin because he didn’t want to take the steps the right way – in a scholarly context – he shouldn’t complain when he gets a taste of his own ipecac.
Third, Licona preferred an academic context which he knew would contain more persons who shared his view.
Note that this comes from a guy who (again) keeps deleting links from his Facebook page posted by those trying to share that point of view. This is also from a guy who (we are learning) only selectively sent out a petition and did not include on that list some he knew would not share HIS point of view. Beyond that, I’d like to see some statistical substance behind this claim – for it occurs to me that in academia, more people would share Licona’s views; whereas, in such a case, it is non-academics – people with less knowledge to make suitable judgments – who share Geisler’s views. If that is so, then perhaps Geisler needs to think about what that would mean: That in a class of people with the same faith commitment, it is the less informed, more ignorant people share his views.
Fourth, public review is appropriate for any published view such as Licona’s, but he feared this would be more negative.
I can’t comment here because Geisler is presuming to know Licona’s motives, which I am not privy to, but I would observe that in academia as a whole, it’s more usual among credible members to start with a more scholarly context before going public. Those that go public first are usually people with an axe to grind – like Bart Ehrman.
Fifth, the scholarly context of the EPS was not very scholarly in its format since no opposing paper was permitted on this controversial issue.
Oh really? Okay. So: Who submitted an opposing paper, please? And it was turned down, was it? How exactly, and for what stated reasons? It seems odd that Geisler names no names of persons who submitted these papers. If they exist, we’d like to know who they are.
Beyond this Geisler complains rather much about some of Licona’s stronger language in the paper. I’ll just say that Geisler can be grateful it wasn’t me writing the paper – I think he deserved even stronger language, frankly. As before, though, I don’t buy his retort that he professed personal love for Licona – as I said, that’s what all theological bullies do before they punch you in the nose.
In the next section, Geisler denies that punitive measures have been taken against others: Habermas and Copan. As I observed in a comment in the last post, Geisler and Holden are trying to force an artificial distinction because they know they've been exposed as bullies. Habermas was clearly uninvited precisely because he took a stance on inerrancy in reaction to the situation with Licona, and no amount of semantic gerrymandering will excuse or erase that. That it reflects Habermas’ own views is true, but also beside the point: This is a matter of speakers being denied a place because of a shared ideological commitment.
Of course, one might argue that Habermas was excluded on his own merits, but the situation would hardly be different had it been that Habermas was the one who wrote the book Geisler addressed, and then Licona came to his defense. The point rather is that Geisler and Co. are resorting to ideological bullying out of sheer ignorance of the facts (eg, about Greco-Roman bioi, inerrancy, etc) and a refusal to face them honestly and head on.
Next section: Geisler simply denies that he is unconsciously canonizing the interpretations, as the “record” supposedly shows. Sorry, but that record is scratched, and it is Geisler singing the same “dehistoricizing” line over and over again – the one that continues to evade him. He is indeed canonizing his interpretation by declaring the genre factors off limits and refusing to deal directly with them.
Next section: Comments on bullying and scholarship, and the alleged seriousness of the “problem”. It is here that Geisler needs to directly address the pertinent questions about things like genre, Greco-Roman bioi, etc. but as before, he is content to do a high-speed watusi in the opposite direction and resort to the usual canned warnings about “putting scholarship over lordship,” “methodological unorthodoxy,” etc. that he substitutes for honest appraisal of the data. Actually demonstrating that the method is bad – other than by appeal to authoritarian pronouncements – that is apparently beyond Geisler’s meager academic capabilities to perform.
Further sections on the doctrine of inerrancy warrant no comment from us, aside from that Geisler yet again shows that he doesn’t “get it,” when he says things like:
Rather, inerrancy as a doctrine covers the truthfulness of all of Scripture. Such a false claim to inerrancy is vacuous since according to Licona the Gospel affirmations could be completely false—in that they did not correspond to any historic reality—and yet the Bible would still be considered completely true!
Uh, yes…exactly. Thus for example, Proverbs are not absolute; yet they can still be considered completely true. Revelation, an apocalypse, can use wild imagery that isn’t literal, and also still be considered completely true. Geisler is oblivious here to the concept of a semantic contract between reader and writer/speaker which allows for such variations according to genre. Of course, the panic button is just that: There isn’t an actual genre similar to the gospels (bioi) in which the contents are what Geisler would call “completely false”. As we have noted, in bioi, such instances would be isolated. But they did exist, and Geisler’s repeated appeal to ICBI statements about “truthfulness” show that he remains oblivious to this.
Nor, again, would Mary Baker Eddy find any solace here as Geisler implies, because there is no first century genre package that would allow the sort of allegorization she forced onto the text. Rather, Geisler here is more like Eddy in his own methodology, as he tries to force his own modern conceptions – completely without respect for genre and contextual considerations – into the text.
I would note briefly Geisler’s referral to Blocher which shows that he (and Blocher) fail to grasp this point:
Blocher advocates a literal interpretation of the passage because the last words of verse 53 "sound as an emphatic claim of historical, factual, truthfulness with an intention akin to that of 1 Corinthians 15:6."
The problem is that the sort of statements Licona refers to in extrabiblical literature would also sound, to modern ears, like an emphatic claim of historical, factual, truthfulness. Thus this is not a useful criterion for making a decision.
After yet more oblivious and circular appeal to ICBI statements, Geisler accuses Licona of misusing the words of J. I. Packer. Since I do not have the access I would like to material by Packer, I’ll have to pass on commenting, other than to note that it is ironic that Geisler admits that if Licona is right about Packer, “this would only prove that Packer was inconsistent with his view own inerrancy.” Since Geisler himself holds to an old earth view, this is as much an admission that he is inconsistent in his views on inerrancy – and so, then, were many framers of ICBI! It is said that the age of the earth wasn’t part of the test, but my creationist friends would say that it needs to be – and that (using Geisler’s own methodology) such ICBI members as retain an old earth view are compromising because of the demands of science.
A further section discusses evidence of Matthew 27 as historical, and since (again) I do think it was, I need say nothing of that section, other than that I would say some of Geisler’s arguments for the historicity of the text are rather poor.
We return to comment with material on alleged “use of an invalid historical verification principle.” In this though there is little more than the standard head-in-sand approach we have seen time and time again from lesser-educated pastors and authorities like Geisler, Mohler, and Packer who, as we have said, wouldn’t know Agricola from Coca-Cola. It is also rooted in a naïve and childlike understanding of “faith” as separate from fact, as exemplified by this comment quoted from Packer:
It is good to test the credentials of Christianity by the most searching scholarship, and to make faith give account of itself at the bar of history. . . . [However], faith is rooted in the realization that the gospel is God’s word; and faith recognizes in its divine origin a full and sufficient guarantee of its veracity. So with Scripture, ‘God’s Word written’: faith rests its confidence in the truth of the biblical narratives, not on the critical acumen of the historian, but on the unfailing trustworthiness of God”
As we have shown, however, this is an invalid understanding of pistis (faith). Indeed it is more akin to the sort of view held by critics like Bultmann, who denied the historicity of the texts. This brand of faith was a resort used to rescue faith from disbelief – and that is what Packer is unwittingly offering here as well. And, I will add, Packer too, in the quote Geisler offers, maintains the same lack of realizations about genre and “dehistoricizing” non-historical texts.
Geisler thereafter retreats to the canned sound bite that Licona’s type of “historiography was conceived by liberal scholars and is suited to their end. “ That is simply nonsense. Liberalism does not make the Gospels into Greco-Roman bioi any more than it turned the Agricola of Tacitus into a bioi. Geisler is simply waving around the “L word” (liberal, not Licona!) to inspire uncritical fear.
So, in the end: Geisler continues to refuse to confront the critical issues of interpretation head on, and prefers to resort to obscurantist, authoritarian bullying. He is hiding behind the wall of his own Facebook page and even his own past reputation as a way of avoiding the core issues which decide the matter.
That’s a turkey so dry that not even a lakeful of gravy will make it palatable.
Added: A longtime reader sent this note which he has given us leave to reproduce:
Just read Geisler's latest response on his website to Licona's EPS paper. He maintains that his and other views on Genesis are not the same thing as Licona's view on Matthew because no matter what, they believe the events of Genesis are historical! It may be conveyed using "symbols", but he still believes in a literal Adam and Eve!
On one level, I am unconcerned with this. No one seriously studying the OT or NT looks to Geisler for information. Only the most faithy of the faithies will listen to him. But it is frustrating how he doesn't get it. His definition of inerrancy removes our ability to understand Scripture lest we claim God grants Christians access to reasoning abilities left unavailable to non-Christians.
Without the social-historical context of scripture first, what can we know? Geisler seems to think (in an almost paranoid way) that this places an insurmountable barrier between him and God. The way I see it, God (unlike the aloof deities of Greece, Rome, and the ANE) chose to interact with people at specific times, places and in specific ways. Doesn't this reveal how close God is willing to be with His creation? Are the 66 books of the Bible fully sufficient to disclose (inter-textually) what God desires/expects of mankind? If so, why then did he take between 2000BCE-95CE to give it to us? Why did he then wait for 300-400 years for these documents to become canonized formally?
One last thing. At several points through his latest posts, Geisler calls (presumably his) the Bible the "fundamental of fundamentals." This strikes me as a very Islamic view of Christian scripture. In a very real way I can see someone building a case that Geisler's view if scripture is so lofty, it almost could be called "second incarnation". Really, logically, it seems like this is the view Geisler would be forced to defend...
12/2/2011
Just in the last two days, a major posting on the Licona-Geisler issue has been made by Steve Lemke of New Orleans Baptist Seminary (link below). Both my ministry associate and I are listed by Lemke as Licona’s defenders, along with many others (and those defending Geisler as well).
It is worth a read, as are many of the comments, including those from Max Andrews, who is evaluating a “petition” that has been posted asking for views on whether Licona is in the right or not. (Ah yes – truth decided the Wikipedia way.)
Today though I want to make a point about what is at stake here in the larger picture. This is more than a tension between two major names in apologetics. This is also about what will happen later, depending on which side takes the day in the ideological war (and in essence, that is what it is). Of course, I have no Turtledove Time Machine, and so do not consider these “predictions” inerrant (or even to me a poetic device – HA!). Some new controversy could arise and change everything. But let’s just make some hazards, shall we? What happens if Geisler wins?
If Geisler wins, then authoritarian bullying will have won the day over reasoned discourse. Evangelical scholars will fear to produce new ideas lest they lose their jobs or suffer other sanctions. Less and less credible scholarly and apologetics material will be produced. There will be fewer resources for future apologists, and in turn, fewer tools to use to evangelize in an effective way. (And by that, I am purposely excluding the methods of evangelism I find inadequate, ranging from the emergent “Jesus is your bud” method to the commonplace “personal testimony” method which turns Jesus into little more than Dr. Phil with holes in his wrists – both of which takes us far from the Biblical model of preaching the facts.)
The world at large will see that we don’t conduct ourselves according to rational guidelines when discussing doctrine. Who wants to join that bunch when they think bullying is the way to solve problems? Not that we don’t have enough problems already in that respect; but one more on the fire? Not needed.
And what else? Our own problem-solving (heh!) will follow this model, set by commenter Ron Hale, on Lemke’s article:
Dr. Lemke,
As I have read your great article and the work of Tim Rogers, Peter Lumpkins, plus the Christianity Today article by Bobby Ross, Jr …. I am reminded of a verse of scripture on humility; that of a younger Christian man submitting to the wisdom of an older man.
“Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (I Peter 5:5).
When this matter was “first” brought to Dr. Licona’s attention by the distinguished professors Dr. Geisler and later by Dr. Mohler, he could have chosen to be humbly submissive; yet that didn’t seem to be the case, therefore, all this avoided.
To this, a reader, Randy, replied:
I’m not intending to be contentious, but are you implying that this verse teaches Licona should have abandoned his interpretation out of sheer deference to Geisler? What if an older, respected person in your church disagreed with you about a particular passage and asked you to change your mind. Are you saying you would be biblically obligated to do it? Something doesn’t seem quite right about that.
And Hale qualified:
I have mentioned two scholars … yet … you only refer to Dr. Geisler. If one … then two wise men in my congregation sought to correct me on a passage of Scripture, I would be obligated to clothe myself in humility and respect what they had to say. Changing my mind (repenting) is a different matter.
Since I feel that Licona was incorrect in his interpretation of these verses, yes … I wish that he had listened in respect and changed his mind. Thanks.
(I’m glad Hale qualified that, because if he hadn’t, as my local ministry partner Carey pointed out, we’d all have to defer to Harold Camping, as he’s older than all of us!)
My own reply lays out the final problem I want to highlight, if Geisler and his group take the day:
Good grief. That’s the kind of thoughtless devotion to authoritarianism that got us into this mess to begin with.
Geisler and Mohler are not “scholars”. They may have some serious education in unrelated areas, but they are popularists more than anything else. They also do not have any expertise in the field of NT studies, and in the narrow topical interest area, which directly concerns Licona’s thesis. They are not fit to judge whether he was correct or not.
In the non-specialized world of the New Testament era, the advice to heed (supposedly) older, wiser men was a lot easier to deal with. In today’s world, with its many narrow fields of specialization and burgeoning fields of knowledge, it takes a lot more for an older man to be “wiser”on a subject than in the first century.
And so, yet one more reason why we need to get better education in our churches — so that we don’t blindly follow some interpretation we assign to the text ourselves based on a bare surface reading, as opposed to the generating contexts.
Hale’s commentary exemplifies a serious problem with the authoritarian way. His use of 1 Peter 5:5 is entirely inappropriate, as I explained. But it’s also rather typical of the blindsided way that the authoritarians use Scripture: Without respect for contexts… unless it happens to serve their purposes, of course. And sadly, if you correct them on this sort of thing, they’ll just bring up 5 other passages they think support their views, and in the process make the same or similar interpretive errors each of the five times. And if you think that's bad, imagine Hale trying to counsel people using the Bible. I'd rather have my poodle do it than someone like Hale who is contextually clueless.
For that reason, it’s little wonder so many of our pastors teach such insipid sermons; and little wonder, in turn, that their congregations as a whole do so little to serve the Kingdom. America has incredible resources, and if even a tenth of that could be turned to serve and implement the Kingdom in the world – well, you can connect the dots.
What is at stake here is far more than Geisler vs. Licona – it’s also the future of Christianity in America. The good news is that Licona’s side of the debate has an excellent chance of taking the day – in good measure because Licona has a much better idea how to get the word out. I consider Licona’s interviews of Wallace and Copan, for example, to have been sheer tactical brilliance, and hope he will do more like them.
Stay tuned. It’s not over, and I’ll be on the front lines as usual…especially seeing as how I bought the bulletproof vest.
12/19/2011
It seems my vid "Geisler's Christmas Carol" has provoked a response by Dr. Thomas Howe, who I gather is not aware that it's me who is the creative impetus behind it. He has a few comments I'll respond to here, though I will also be skipping much that has to do with Licona's readings of passages that I do not agree with.
First of all, it is unprecedented that an author, including Matthew, would stick a piece of apocalyptic literature in the midst of historical reports...
No, actually, it would have had a great deal of precedent. Licona's original volume argued that this sort of thing did indeed happen; and as I learned from my study of mimesis, ancient writers did stick in non-historical sidelights for artistic effect (just not to the enormous extent argued by Dennis MacDonald). So this "all or nothing" perception of the ancient craft of writing is not arrived at by way of serious consideration of ancient literary composition, and requires a great deal more argument to establish. 12/23: This as well, in spite of Howe's new quotation of Osborne expressing incredulity that Matthew might do such a thing. Authors did indeed do this without what we would call a "hint" -- an explicit indication. Indeed, in a high context society, the "hint" would be in the writing itself, an allusion the reader would be expected to recognize. (Though I reiterate, I do not agree Matthew did that in this case.)
By the same token, Jesus' own Resurrection was also unprecedented; and the logic Howe uses here is essentially the same as that of David Hume, who argued that the unprecedented experience of miracles counted as a strike against their historicity. That's not really a door we want to open in Christian apologetics.
Not only is it nearly impossible to know with any degree of certainty what the intent of an author was, it is even more difficult to prove one’s suppositions about an author’s intent.
I find it odd that Howe can say such a thing, since by this reckoning, we can have no idea what his intentions are by saying this either. But they are not said first from him anyway, for as he says further:
At one point, the ghost asks Geisler something like this: “Isn’t an author’s intent part of understanding the text?” The maker of the video has Geisler answering yes to this question. Unfortunately, the makers of this video did not bother to try to understand either Geisler or his position on such an issue, and Geisler has written enough that it would take far less energy to discover his position than to produce a video. Geisler would never have answered yes to such a question. All it would have taken for the makers of the video to understanding Geisler’s position would have been actually read some of his writings, especially his article on “Does Purpose Determine Meaning.”
Several points here.
First, I have in fact read Geisler's rather outlandish arguments in this regard from back when he was trying to turn Gundry into 7 layer dip, and consider them little more than an extended exercise in self-contradiction. Gundry rightly dismissed such shenanigans by Geisler, as I noted in a Ticker entry some months ago:
**
...Geisler offers what can only be described as an astonishing analysis in which he argues that the purpose and intention of an author shouldn’t be part of our interpretive exercise. Gundry is accused of confusing the “what” of a passage with the “why” of a passage and it is argued that one does not need to know a “why” in order to understand a “what”.
This is misguided for a couple of reasons. One is that the Biblical text was written in a high context society, in which the audience is frequently assumed to be in on the “why” Therefore, the lack of a “why” in a text is not sufficient argument to say that there was not one that was understood. Geisler offers the example of Ex. 23:19 (“you are not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk”) and notes that commentators have offered multiple speculations as to the “why” of this verse. But, Geisler says, “the children of Israel did not need to know why; all they needed to know was what it meant, and that is clear without knowing the purpose.” Really? The false step here is that simply because we do not know the purpose, this means that they did not know it. When evaluating a high context text, that sort of hypothesis is without basis. But even if it were not, it would remain that the law did have some purpose, even if it were not revealed to Israel at any point in its history by whatever means.
Geisler’s most disturbing comment in this regard is, “No method is legitimate if it goes behind or beyond the text to find the meaning.” This sounds more like an obscurantist KJV Onlyist attitude than something that would be said by a serious disciple. In essence, it forbids us to seek defining contexts of all sorts – whether they involve insights from anthropology, from linguistics, or even from genre study. It goes further than that: To read our Bibles, we have to be literate in a language, and we learned that language from somewhere “beyond” the text. Gundry rightly replies: “I refuse to separate the text from the author’s mind, as Geisler does. To make such a separation is to empty the text of any meaning except what we read into it…”
In all of this, I cannot help but think that Geisler was in a mode of panic and could not see the deficiency in his reasoning and the inevitable results of his statement. In no place did he provide a serious, legitimate answer to why midrash is not compatible with inerrancy (as Moo allowed that it was!); indeed he did not even rightly grasp what midrash was. His stance has even broader implications beyond the Bible: It undercuts arguments about the “intent” of the authors of the Constitution, for example. But the critical issue here is one of classification and intent, and Geisler’s professions about intent amount to a scorched earth policy with respect to exegesis.
**
A further irony is that those who say such things are also in no way able to assert, then, that Matthew would never insert a dash of apocalypse in an otherwise historical narrative -- they're no more able to discern intent than anyone else. Those who declare that we cannot know Matthew's intent undercut their own criticisms of Licona.
Second, Howe says that the question of the Ghost of Inerrancy Past was "something like this" –“Isn’t an author’s intent part of understanding the text?” I think "something like" is a rather generous way to put it. Here's the actual dialogue:
GIP: No. You see here. Does not inerrancy consider the intentions of the author?
NG: Well, yes...
So, no, the question was not exactly about understanding the text; it was about inerrancy. And I think it would be vain to argue that inerrancy doesn't take into account authorial intention: The ICBI statement quite clearly refers to this:
We affirm 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.
“Literary forms and devices” is something that can’t be considered without acknowledging awareness of authorial intention. The obvious answer then to the question asked of Geisler by the ghost is yes.
That said, we are assured by Howe that unlike in my vid, Geisler would never have answered “yes” to the question, as Howe puts it. Actually, I rather doubt that Geisler would have answered no, unless he found himself trapped and in over his head as he did in his exchange with Gundry. For example, I am quite sure that Geisler would argue vociferously against any notion that his “intent” in Chosen But Free could have been to enable others to become champion ping pong players. In turn, if Geisler disappeared and was unable to advise us, it would be entirely absurd to suggest that his intent in CBF was not (among other things) to respond to positions of James White. While some authorial intentions may be more obscure and difficult to discern than others, it is clear that to claim in a blanket fashion that author intent is not part of understanding a text, or that it is "nearly impossible to know with any degree of certainty what the intent of an author was," is simply abject, self-refuting nonsense.
In addition, since Geisler has repeatedly argued (whether soundly or not) that it was the intentions of the framers of ICBI to put a stop to the sort of interpretive work Gundry was doing then and Licona is doing now, he has already answered "yes" to the question Howe poses by his own actions.
Finally, we should note a statement in the ICBI’s statement on hermeneutics (or ICBH, written by JI Packer) which says, “The initial quest is always for what God’s penman meant by what he wrote.” He then goes on to say that one should not include attempts to go “behind the text.” In this regard it appears Geisler is in some way trying to conflate these two concepts, one that is allowed by ICBH and one that is not; alternatively, Geisler is arbitrarily deciding what he thinks is “getting behind the text” and what is not. Whatever the case, it seems again that this reveals that it is Geisler’s preferences, not ICBI or scholarship, that is deciding what is legitimate and what is not.
Howe goes on:
In defense of Licona’s claim, Licona and others have attempted to appeal to an analogy between statements in Revelation and the statements in Matthew’s Gospel. For example, some have argued that if we take Matthew’s statement literally, we would have to believe that Satan is a literal dragon. But this completely misses the point.
I don't know about "others" but the point of my analogy was nothing like that. Rather, it was:
1) Licona's argument is that Matt. 27:51-3 is a mini-apocalypse, like Revelation.
2) Given this view of his, accusing him of denying inerrancy would be like saying someone denied inerrancy because they didn't take Satan to be a literal dragon.
Indeed, Howe's criticisms even fail to accurately represent Licona's argument, which indeed is that Matt. 27:51-53 is an apocalyptic statement -- not that it didn't occur as a historical event. If also it is apocalyptic, then to suggest this means that Matthew was not telling the literal truth is also a misguided claim. The view Howe proposes comes of a binary reading of the text derived from modern fundamentalism -- not from the sort of serious study of genre and composition Licona offered.
Even in the wildly fantastic statements in Enoch, one can only assume that Enoch believed that the events he describes actually occurred. Whether they occurred or not, Enoch presents them as actual events. Nowhere does Enoch say he did not believe his apocalyptic descriptions and symbols referred to actual historical events, so we can only grant that he in fact did believe this.
That may be so, but in apocalyptic, as is implied here, what is described in the text -- the symbols -- are "code" (to put it simply) for some other event. In that respect, Licona would say that indeed, the event Mathew intended to indicate by his "code" in 27:51-3 actually did happen: namely, it accentuates that God’s Son had just been killed (the literal event).
As a final aspect of this issue, the charge has been laid that I and others “do not understand” inerrancy. Actually, I understand it all too well, and it is summed up well by this user comment by “JediMasterJarrett” on the video, and my reply (both edited for grammatical clarity):
JMJ: Different understanding of inerrancy. Norman Geisler and others believe in an absolute inerrancy and verbal inspiration; God dictated to man word for word. Therefore they see everything in the Bible as literal. Mike Licona and others believe in an full inerrancy and plenary inspiration; God inspired the teaching taught by the authors which are wholly true. Which deals with the problem of phenomenal language (sun setting and rising) and other biblical problems that absolute inerrancy cannot answer.
JPH: A good way to put it. Another is that Geisler and Co believe in a 21st century form of inerrancy, while Licona believes in a 1st century form. Now I wonder which one would apply...
Geisler's views are an example of the absurdity that results from a 21st century view of inerrancy. Another is of the sort I noted in a review of The Jesus Crisis some years ago -- a book with criticisms of scholars that resemble in many ways those of Geisler and Howe -- showing that indeed I understand inerrancy as both sides see it all too well:
**
I've answered points claiming contradiction between Matt and Luke's versions of the Sermon on the Mount by noting that Matt's version is likely to be an anthology -- a collection of Jesus' teachings, organized by Matthew according to his purpose as the composer of a handbook of faith; whereas Luke is more on the historical side, and reports what was actually said on that occasion.
No big problem. Both writers were following standard literary and historical practices for the time. But Thomas insists that such an approach "inevitably leads to diminishing historical accuracy in the Gospels" -- for you see, Matthew 5:1-2 "indicates Jesus began at a certain point to give the Sermon's contents." And what of the literary-device explanation above? Thomas wonders, then, "why would (Matthew) mislead his readers" into thinking that Jesus made this full sermon on one occasion?
What is missing here: This was a normal practice for the day. No one would be "misled" into thinking this was a full sermon because no one would have thought it was meant to be recorded as such in the first place. But Thomas, clearly, does not agree, with comments like this in response to Blomberg's assertion that Biblical writers followed the typical practices for composers of the day: "Despite what the practice of ancient historians may have been, Matthew's intention to cite a continuous discourse from a single occasion is conspicuous. Was he mistaken?" "No matter what the alleged motives of the writers in so doing, that kind of action is fundamentally problematic at best and dishonest at worst." (!) The only difference between these comment and comments like C. Dennis McKinsey's "read the Bible like a newspaper" is that McKinsey is nastier in his formulations. And yet we are told that it is we who propose such solutions who are "run(ning) roughshod over the historicity of the Sermon's introductory and concluding formulas".
You might wonder, of course, how Thomas suggests that we resolve the differences in the Sermon, and his answer is: By harmonization -- of an extreme, unnecessary sort. Put it this way: Did Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor" or "Blessed are the poor in spirit"? Thomas replies: He said both, and on the same occasion. Matt and Luke just chose to report one or the other: "Most probably Jesus repeated this beatitude in at least two different forms when he preached His Sermon on the Mount/Plain, using the third person once and the second person another time and referring to the Kingdom of God by different titles." Odd here how omission is not a sin; but commission is. I thought it was Matthew's intent to show he was citing a continuous discourse? If that is the case, isn't he "misleading" his readers by not giving a full report and leaving things out?
**
Understand that I am not saying here that the two types of inerrancy are poles apart on all issues. I expect they would agree on solutions to 85-90% of the standard “Bible contradictions and problem” produced by critics like C. Dennis McKinsey or Sam Harris. It is that remaining 10-15% that is the difference, and it is a huge, problematic difference. Explanations like Thomas' are contrived and absurd, and will do little to protect the flock from the critiques of our faith by the likes of Bart Ehrman, and I have for many years had to counsel Christians whose faith was in danger because they saw the weakness of such explanations. In offering these types of explanations, teachers like Thomas and Geisler are doing far more harm than good --- and that is a point I have been making repeatedly for many years now. I understand inerrancy -- very well.
In the end, I find it astonishing that such criticisms as these come from those who are acting as leaders in our churches and educational institutions. But as I also know well, there have also been, at the other extreme, atheists who make similar mistakes and argue in similarly outlandish ways; some (like the late Ken Pulliam) were even once fundamentalists themselves. The need is strong for us to cleanse ourselves of this sort of poor thinking if we want to protect the faith of future generations from those like Ehrman and Pulliam who have turned their evangelistic zeal in the wrong direction.
12/24/2011
On 12/22, Mrs H and I celebrated anniversary #21, and Norman Geisler laid a new egg in his efforts to outdo the stereotypical Inquisitor of the cartoon world. His latest effort, titled “Licona’s Denial of Inerrancy: The List Grows,” repeats a lot of the arguments we have already refuted here, and we can sum by saying that no – he still doesn’t get that you can't “dehistoricize” a text that wasn’t meant to be historical; he still thinks he can prop ICBI's 300+ 'scholars" as a counter (in spite of: many NOT being scholars; many of those who are scholars being scholars in specialities unrelated to Licona''s thesis; many being deceased; two of them openly disagreeing with him on this issue -- which he doesn't want to mention -- and even one of them having gone apostate). So there's a lot not new there, and there's also (again) a lot directed specifically to Licona's views on Matt 27, which we do not share. So again, our own comments on that will be limited to what is relevant to us.
In contrast, shortly thereafter, Geisler also uploaded a rather whiny piece on our video “Geisler’s Christmas Carol,” and we’ll consider that as well, but separately; it’s title is, “Statements on the Pro Licona YouTube Video Attack on Dr. Geisler.”
Geisler objects that he is concerned that "we have come to the point where one cannot critique a position" without being accused of bullying. But of course, it is much more than that Geisler has "critiqued a position." He has also brought his influence to bear in such a way that Licona has been denied speaking engagements, had to resign certain positions, and has lost income. Geisler himself may not have himself wielded the knife, but he did provide the sharpening service; he is not merely "critiquing". As is typical, bullies attempt to minimize the damage they cause ("I only pushed him down!") as though that in some way relieves them of their responsibility for the injuries they cause. It does not. The aggravation caused to Licona (and others) lies as a debt on Geisler's shoulders; so likewise he will receive his reward for any who are driven from reading Licona's works because of his self-centered crusade. Geisler may well expect to join those whose fate is to scrub toilets in the New Jerusalem.
In the essay towards Licona, Geisler continues to deftly avoid confronting us directly. He expresses awareness of our video, which he calls "offensive" (chuckle!) and claims was "produced by his son-in-law and friend who falsely caricaturing scholarly critiques of his view and wrongly claiming that we said Licona had sinned.' " I'm afraid part of that is too incoherent to comment on, but two points in reply. First, the production credit is part of a covering of an obvious mistake in which Nick Peters at one point was reckoned to be the producer of the film, not me. I have no idea how this mistake came to pass on the part of Geisler's supporters, since Nick is listed only as a voice, and the film credits clearly list Tekton as the film producer. That means me. The emendation to "son-in-law and friend" fails to obscure this mistake. Nick can not in any sense be called a "producer" of the film. That was and is solely my designation. But perhaps Geisler felt that a student was an easier target for him to bully than a "wildcard" apologist who isn't cowed by his bullying tactics, is not in thrall to any person whom he can influence, and doesn't grant him any of the inertial respect he has gathered over the years (in my view, mostly undeservedly, and oblivious to the actually generally low-level and basic quality of his apologetics).
Second, it is a wonder to note that Geisler apparently understands the video is as grossly literalistic a fashion as he reads the Bible. What he apparently alludes to here is a scene in which the cartoon Licona asks why the cartoon Geisler posted all over town notices with Licona's picture that said, "Sinner repent!" Why Geisler takes this to mean that we think he literally called Licona a sinner I cannot imagine; next I suppose he'll think I meant to relate that he literally posted flyers all over town, literally kicked Licona 50 feet in the air (complete with cartoon sound effect), and literally had to use a stepladder to speak to Licona face to face. (Well...maybe he did have to do that literally; after all, this whole incident has made him into rather a small person indeed.)
So what of that flyer then? The phrase "sinner repent" was chosen in order to draw an analogy between Geisler and hellfire fundamentalist preachers who mindlessly demand that "sinners repent" and use bullying tactics. The point being, while Geisler has not called Licona a sinner, he has treated him like one -- and that cannot be denied save with the most skilled of rationalizations covered (as indeed in the video) by gratuitous "I love you brother"s that ring as hollow as a chocolate Santa.
Geisler then notes:
Even Southern Evangelical Seminary, where Licona was once a faculty member, condemned this approach in a letter from “the office of the president,” saying, “We believe this video was totally unnecessary and is in extremely poor taste” (12/9/2011). One influential alumnus wrote the school, saying, “It was immature, inappropriate and distasteful” and recommended that “whoever made this video needs to pull it down and apologize for doing it” (12/21/2011).
I find it odd that the office of the president was able to make such a comment on a video 7 days before it was released. Presumably this is a typo. In any event, all of this rhetoric is not supported here with any sort of reasoning why it is immature, inappropriate, etc. and I have news for Geisler and those who wrote these things: "Because it gored my oxen" isn't a good enough reason -- and it will neither come down nor be the subject of any apology, unless and until Geisler undoes the damage he has done (and also, as noted, does an SR-71 wingwalk for me).
In light of his actions, Geisler's further request for a "reasoned reply to all the critiques that have been made" is itself more cartoonish that his Scrooge persona. This comes from a man who has deleted challenges containing just such replies from his Facebook page. Geisler is bothered by Licona's reported declination to read his critiques, and calls that "both unscholarly and insulting." I have read the critiques. I think Licona has better ways to spend his time. Thomas Howe was the first to issue anything that even approached a scholarly and viable critique, and that was just in the last few days; Geisler, for the most part, has done little more than repeat the same authoritarian nonsense and panic polemic time and time again, and for the most part, he continues to do so here.
Yet again, his argument appeals to ICBI; and it is Article 13 and his use of it to which I would devote some attention next:
Article 13: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves 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 [is] so referred to by Christ.” This makes it unmistakable clear that myths, legends, and embellishments, such as Licona allows in the Gospels, cannot be part of an inerrant (wholly truthful) book such as the Bible.
But hold on here. Apocalypse -- the genre in which Licona argued for the key text to be put -- is not a "generic category." Furthermore, the point of Licona's argument is that it does not "present itself as factual" once all the evidence is considered. It also attempts to argue that yes, there are good reasons for not taking the key text as literal, which is the very effort at a "hermenuetical test" Geisler says is required. If Geisler wanted to get it right, he would not say Licona denied inerrancy, but that Licona tried and failed to offer a sufficient hermenuetical test for his reading to "pass" as a way to deliteralize the text.
Again, I must note for the record that I do not find Licona's arguments regarding Matt 27 persuasive. But I also find Geisler's arguments for a violation of ICBI even less persuasive. His attempt to draw an analogy between the biblical narrative and road signs (!) shows a remarkable lack of grasp of the complexity and richness of available genres and modes of expression in the Biblical world. Geisler is a hyper-literalist trapped in what N. T. Wright might call a hurricane of first century literary production values. When he further insists that ICBI's framers were specifically out to stop the sort of thing Licona is doing, I can believe it - because if Geisler is typical of the framers, then they are mistaking Licona's views for something they are not, and made much the same mistake with Robert Gundry.
And yet again, Geisler finds it necessary to thump the panic button until it breaks; he again uses the outlandish example of Mary Baker Eddy, having ignored a point I made here some time ago that Eddy's methods, unlike Licona's, could link to no precedent in first century literature. But Geisler, of course, simply rejects out of hand as "not a suitable model" Licona's effort to use such literature -- not because he has shown that it is actually unsuitable (eg, per my challenge on the Gospels being Greco-Roman bioi), but merely on his authoritarian say-so.
I would next comment on Geisler's complaints about "counting heads." After his repeat appeal to the "scholars" of ICBI, he also rather questionably appeals to this:
Second, if the circle of scholars is rightfully broadened to include academically credentialed evangelical scholars, then the vote has already been taken, and it is not favorable to Licona. For after two years of discussion and scholarly interchange and at a regularly scheduled annual meeting of The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), the largest group of evangelical scholars in the world, voted in 1983 with an overwhelming 70% majority to ask Robert Gundry to resign from ETS for “dehistoricizing” parts of the Gospel record, as Licona has done.
70% majority? Not quite. The vote was 116 to 41, with a far greater combined number abstaining. Geisler is not telling the whole truth here: It was only 70% of the voting group that he is referring to, not the whole membership of ETS.
Geisler then reveals the results of the "survey" we have noted here before (andwhich was effectivly critiqued by Max Andrews, and here as well, dismissed rightly as little more than an exercise akin to trusting Wikipedia). Not surprisingly, 76% of respondents voted against Licona, but given the loaded way he presented the matter, I would give that survey as much credence as i would the yes-no voting procedures on YouTube -- and for much the same reason: Insufficient indication of voting numbers (it is interesting that Geisler only presents percentages, and not number of votes -- what if only 100 people voted?), and no qualification of the voting population as qualified to assess the situation (as opposed to eg, voting as they did because they think aliens told them to vote a certain way). Geisler's "survey" is little more than a bad statistical joke.
I think an even bigger joke, however, is this commentary:
Furthermore, there is a latent but serious flaw in the contention that only a specialized group of scholars are capable of determining what is meant by inerrancy. It is in fact a kind of scholarly elitism which denies the rest of the body of Christ have a valuable role to play in formulation what they are asked to confess. Or, to put it another way, it is a replacement of the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Church with a Teaching Magisterium of biblical Scholars. This violates the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and excludes the very people for whom the confessions or statements of Faith are made. And the history of doctrinal declension has proven that it begins in the pulpit, not the pews. It is generated in the seminaries, not in the sanctuaries.
Wowie zowie -- was Geisler trying to pack as much epic fail into one paragraph as he could with this one? If he was, it is one of the few things he's done right so far.
First: There's no "elitism" here because the sort of knowledge used by scholars to arrive at what is meant by inerrancy is available freely to all. If there is any "elitism" here, it is an elite of serious disciples -- and Jesus himself declared greater rewards for those who worked harder, and so to that extent, himself indicated that an "elite" would exist -- one of merit and rewards -- within his Body. Paul also admonished Timothy to study to show himself approved -- and if we take that as exemplary, as I am sure Geisler does, then it is an example which means we should all become the "elite".
Second: Despite Geisler's professions about "the rest of the Body of Christ," it is a brute fact that a body, as Paul says, has many parts. Not all can be the "brain" in the body. In fact I'd say most today want to be the backside in the Body of Christ, the part that remains seated. Still, there is no Biblical warrant for this idea that everyone should have a say in formulating confessions. The appeal to the priesthood of believers is frankly inane; does this also make us all equally competent at evangelism, preaching, teaching, apologetics, and all else? If it does, then why doesn't Geisler just find a Christian vagrant down at the Salvation Army and have them write his next book? Why does he appeal to the "scholars" at ICBI if their being "scholars" (haw haw!) doesn't make any difference? Why read Thomas Howe's critique of Licona when a critique by Elmo P. Thudpucker, Christian motorcycle mechanic -- a member of the same "priesthood" as Howe -- can do the same job? Geisler has no warrant for making the formulation and understanding of doctrine an exception, save his own need to special plead his case.
In reality, the "priesthood of all believers" relates to one thing only -- our ability to directly engage in a covenant with God, and not rely on priests to broker the covenant apparatus for us. It doesn't make us all equals in ability or gifts. Geisler is merely begging an exception for an area of his concern.
Finally on the above, I wonder about Geisler's profession that it is the pulpit and seminaries that generate doctrinal declension. I'd like to see some stats on that, because it doesn't quite ring true. Joseph Smith was a barely educated teenager who could have done better Biblical exegesis with a bucket of KFC chicken bones than with his brain. Mary Baker Eddy, Geisler's fave whipping button for panic this round, didn’t have any serious education to speak of and was mainly self-taught. Jim Jones, head of the People's Temple, had a degree...in education. Ellen White of Adventism had no formal schooling.
Reaching back, we find that Arius, who started the Arian heresy, held some rank in the church. However, so likewise did his opponent Athansius; if this proves anything, it is that the pulpits and seminaries police their ranks and provide the counter for deviancies within themselves -- and ironically, it is Geisler who has called on the "scholars" of ICBI, and it is a scholar, Thomas Howe, who so far has provided the one reasoned and scholarly critique of Licona from Geisler's camp. Why didn't Geisler link up with someone in the pews to do this job? We may add that the example of Arius, and any other before the modern era, won't really work anyway; in ages prior to mass communication, it could only be members of an elite class (like Arius and Athanasius) who, being one of the few literate people around (literacy being around 5-10%) had the knowledge, power, and ability to spread doctrinal declension. Joe Pew, circa 300 AD, had very little chance of getting his personal declension past the front door. So such examples as Arius would not adequately serve to prove Geisler' s point.
I'm sure that some heresies or declensions somewhere did indeed begin with either pulpit or seminary, but apart from Geisler assuming what he wants to prove with Licona and Gundry, the only examples that come to mind are Murray Harris and Clark Pinnock -- and one can hardly compare their deviancy and influence to the prior examples. It appears that Geisler was so anxious to provide a snappy consonance that would stick in readers' memories ("seminaries/sanctuaries", "pews/pulpits") that he forgot to validate his claim.
In close on Licona, Geisler offers props for his upcoming book on the subject of inerrancy. One is tempted to wonder at times whether Geisler's attack on Licona is some sort of attempt to draw attention to this new book and give it an early sales boost; it would be a much better explanation for why Licona has been singled out this round, than Geisler's hollow retort that he went after a lot of people in his book -- after all, he still hasn't gone after me, and still hasn't gone after William Lane Craig, and using examples from his book will spoil a surprise for those he hopes will read it. Such a stunt would not be beyond Geisler or many other authors. However, we can just about guarantee that it will do nothing to further informed, reasoned, and intelligent faith of the sort that can withstand the attacks of modern critics.
That leaves Geisler’s commentary on our video, and there’s not much more to it; it's shorter by far. It preserves the original error stating that “a student has made a video” and repeats some of the same ox-gored complaints we noted earlier, though again, actual explanations of why the video is in poor taste, unkind, distasteful, etc. In all this, it is anonymous “Alumni” from Southern Evangelical Seminary who are quoted, though why anyone should give their opinions any credence is also not explained. Apparently, we’re supposed to submit like good little authoritarian managed drones and shut up when some “alumnus” has a hissy fit. So, here’s all I need to say, really, for example to the longest complaint:
1) They used the classical Christmas Carol story in a very distasteful way….
No I didn’t. There, that’s as much argument as they provided. End of discussion, I win. But really, since they don't explain what the Dickens they mean by this, at least in what is quoted, there's no more response warranted than that.
2) Like Dr. Geisler or not, he deserves respect. Furthermore, Dr. Geisler is far more accomplished than the youngens who made the video.
Bah humbug is the best response to that one. Geisler has been giving up his “respect” with bells on these days, between the embarrassing incident with Caner and now with Licona. As for “more accomplished,” I’m not sure what that means. Has he written more books than I have? That’s true. But Danielle Steel has us both beat. Has he produced better apologetics than I have? Actually – no, he hasn’t. In fact his type of apologetics has done more harm than good when it comes to protection from the Ehrman hyenas.
3) The video was sarcastic and put words into Dr. Geisler’s mouth. This shows not only immaturity, but further strengthens Dr. Geisler’s position...
Sarcastic? That it was, and deservedly so; satire tends to be that way. after all. That’s an even exchange again. As for words in his mouth, unfortunately, we’re not told specifically where that was done, and yes, the ellipses is where the quote ends.
4) He makes the point repetitively that those who support Dr. Geisler’s view are clones of Dr. Geisler, eluding that all who hold to the position that Dr. Geisler does are non-thinkers...
Really? I can’t recall where that point was made once, much less “repetitively” in the vid, and once again, unless it is hidden behind those triple dots, we’re not told how or when in the vid this happened. That said, I have said in other forums that Geisler does have a lot of “Kool Aid drinkers” behind him – I know because they’ve written to me.
5) This video seems to mock inerrancy despite the fact that it tries to skirt that it is the main issue...
Nope. It doesn’t mock inerrancy at all and it doesn’t skirt any issues but addresses them directly. Maybe they should try watching it again, and pay attention this time.
6) Lastly, while he illustrates physical attacks on Dr. Geisler in humor, it is still depicting physical attacks. It also explicitly is threatening to take action against Dr. Geisler... This is stooping to verbal threats and scare tactics.
Oh dear. Never mind that Mike Licona gets kicked 50 feet in the air; compared to that, all Geisler gets is a couple of snowballs to the noggin. Hey folks...it’s a CARTOON. Do these guys call ASPCA to complain about Wile E. Coyote?
Finally, one of these poor souls is quoted as saying that they “reported the video to YouTube for a TOS violation” as being “like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts”.
Now that’s the biggest laugh riot at all. These poor fellows need to get on some big boy pants, because what I offered was exceptionally mild compared to what those fundy atheists have to offer on YouTube. And heck, you may as well report your local editorial cartoonist for all those horrible drawings of Obama.
Really though, that's a good way to close off this one -- because it shows how Geisler's camp deals with these issues: By squelching competing voices with authoritarian bullying. But it won't work this time -- not for a Christmas Carol minute.
1/18/2012
Today I've released a third video on TektonTV related to Norman Geisler, but this one's not related specifically to the Licona debacle. It does, however, go back to an issue that Geisler himself has compared to the Licona situation, and in which the historical roots of that interaction reside.
For this one, I've reached back to the early 80s and the interactions with Robert Gundry. Like Licona, Gundry suggested that parts of Matthew were not meant to be taken as history; though where Licona suggested that an isolated passage be read as apocalyptic, Gundry suggested that rather more narrative portions (like the magi) be taken as midrash. Like Licona, Gundry was accused by Geisler of violating inerrancy, and like Licona, some scholars came to Gundry's defense on this point, and Geisler himself failed to grasp the very simple point that you can't dehistoricize a text not meant to be taken as historical.
For the vid I adopted as my parody theme the Terminator cycle of stories; most of the vid is set in a post-apocalyptic world where Geisler's stances (and that of others like him) have allowed fundamentalist atheists to gain power. Gundry makes an appearance, as does Bart Ehrman (as "the Ehrmanator," reprogrammed and sent back in time to rescue Geisler from assassination). The bulk of the vid in that setting is devoted to a dialogue between Geisler and a character I use to represent my point of view in my vids; many of Geisler's lines and arguments, and the single line by Gundry, come directly from the 1983 exchange between them in JETS.
I won't give away more than that, save to say that the critical narrative turn rests on the very issue of "author intention" that was a hinge point (one of several, but in my mind, one of the most important) for the discussion between Geisler and Gundry. (On that, see prior Ticker post linked below.) Geisler's arguments in this regard, I found to be exceptionally outlandish, and the vid illustrates the predicament one can get into when one denies that intention of the author should be considered when interpreting a text.
It's on this occasion as well that it is also appropriate to say a few words about Chapter 7 of Defending Inerrancy, on Kevin Vanhoozer. Before DI, I had not heard of Vanhoozer, and I freely admit that much of what DI ascribes to him involves matters of semantic and literary theory I don't get into. However, of significance for today is that in this chapter, Geisler and Roach use some of the very same arguments Geisler used against Gundry -- at some points, word for word.
How odd that in nearly 30 years, and even after Gundry's pointed critique, and surely many others, Geisler has still not changed his arguments. Beyond that, here are some other problems with Ch 7.
Vanhoozer is criticized for making what DI calls "up front genre decisions" about the Biblical text. (See more about "up front" below.) Here we see the basis for Geisler's resistance to Licona's classification of the Gospels as Greco-Roman bioi -- as well as some of the most patently obscurantist argumentation to be found in DI. Such decisions are called "misdirected and dangerous" (!) for it may lead to "the denial of the historicity of long-held historical sections of Scripture..." That these "long-held" views might be in error is apparently not considered an option; once again, Great Men Have Spoken, and their word too is inerrant and infallible.
Sadly, rational argumentation against such decisions is sorely lacking from Geisler and Roach. Their first point is a non-starter, saying that just because one myth or legend from antiquity contains "unusual feats," this does not mean a Biblical story with unusual feats is also a myth of legend. This is true, but it is also beside the point, and reflects a highly simplistic and simplified version of what Licona, for example, has argued. No one is making genre decisions on the mere basis of the reporting of "unusual feats," least of all Licona, who (Geisler seems to fail to notice) is arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (an unusual feat). DI beats this drum further in the chapter, but it is not on the mere basis of reportage of miracles that the Gospels are classified as Greco-Roman biography -- indeed, that is not even on the genre radar of scholars like Burridge and Talbert.
The second argument designates as "question-begging" the idea that one can make genre decisions based on comparison to extrabiblical material. In other words, scholars like Burridge and Talbert, when they provide detailed expositions indicating strong correspondence between the Gospels and ancient biographies, are merely question-begging. This is problematic, we are told, because it "does not allow for the possibility that the Bible may offer a new genre of its own that does not fit any of these categories, for example, redemptive history or (in the New Testament) Gospel history."
Uh...what was that about begging the question?
Words like “absurd” one might suppose to not be appropriate when addressing someone like Geisler, but there are frankly no better words for such a nonsensical argument.
In a nutshell, genres like "redemptive history" or "Gospel history" are simply manufactured categories Geisler invents to save his views. They, and his suggestion of some new and unknown category, and merely contrivances, and have no basis in fact whatsoever.
It's worth stopping here for a "by the way". In the 1981 volume Inerrancy, of which Geisler was the editor, Walter Kaiser issued a strong warning against the notion that Biblical words might take on new and different meanings unknown to the language as it was used in the first century. Kaiser's warning is a well founded one; yet Geisler's special plea for a potential "new genre" contains an opposing sentiment. This makes it all the more clear that Geisler's plea is simply made up to suit the corner he is backed into. Compare the words of Kaiser and those of Geisler. While one may be talking about genre and the other about language, the principle remains the same, and it is hard to see how Geisler’s special plea does not open the door Kaiser warns against.
To make matters worse, DI goes on to confuse the issue by giving as an alleged analogy the way liberal scholars have denied Paul the Pastoral epistles based on "style and vocabulary." What this is supposed to have to do with matters of genre is not explained. At the same time, the middle ground of Paul as authority and Luke as author of the Pastorals isn't considered in the mix. Genre and vocabulary/writing style are two entirely different discussions, and it is exemplary of Geisler's lack of serious scholarship in this area that he thinks he has made an appropriate analogy.
The third reason given is quite nearly incoherent, arguing that an up- front genre decision in some way constitutes a rejection of the historical-grammatical method, inasmuch as the critic is thereby "legislating the meaning of the text rather than listening to it." This is reflective as well of Geisler's contrived arguments against author intention against Gundry; it does not occur to him that in selecting genre that is clearly that of e.g., Greco-Roman biography, the author was saying something to which we should listen. However, Geisler once again handily contrives the excuse that "Gospel literature may become a genre category of its own" to forestall any objections. (He does this specifically to counter the straw man noted above, regarding working of miracles as a genre signal, which again, doesn't properly represent anything anyone is actually arguing.)
I need to break here and segue into some comments on Ch 15, regarding what Geisler apparently means by an "up front" genre decision. From his comments, and those derived from Thomas Howe, it appears that he means that scholars like Vanhoozer are somehow deciding on the genre of a text before assigning its contents any meaning whatsoever. I somehow doubt that this is the actual procedure being employed, and suppose rather that this is yet another case of Geisler either misunderstanding what is going on, or else painting the matter in black and white terms that are not justified by the actual practices. The scholars I have observed are doing exactly what DI allows, which is using genre to arrive at decisions about significance, not "basic meaning" of a text. That Geisler does not indeed understand what is going on is indicated by his inclusion of Licona as an example of the process being done incorrectly.
Thereafter, we see partial repeats of Geisler's arguments against Gundry, which are addressed by the vid. This time though, rather than appeal to Exodus 23:19 at first -- he does so later in Ch 15 -- Geisler offers a new analogy, but one with no more merit:
If a person says to another, "Here is one thousand dollars I am giving to you," it is perfectly clear what those words mean apart from knowing the purpose of the giver. If he later learns that the giver was trying to buy his support for a cause he did not believe in, then he understands the purpose (significance) of the words, but they do not get any new meaning. The meaning remains the same.
There are a couple of obvious problems here. One is that Geisler has carefully cherry-picked or constructed the simplest phrase possible to support his contentions; a more complex phrase in length or content (as the vid shows) would not serve him. The second problem is that despite his argument, in semantics as well as normal discourse, purpose is considered essential to completely determining meaning. Without it, the "thousand dollars" statement is void of critical information which would be of concern to the one receiving the money. In the real world, no one simply walks up to someone else and says, "here is one thousand dollars I am giving to you," hands over the money, and walks off never to be seen again. That and only that is the sort of situation in which Geisler's strict sort of parsing would possibly have any relevance. In the real world, however, people give such sums for a purpose, and that purpose is critical to interpreting the statement and deciding meaning -- and what we are to do about it.
In Ch. 15, DI reiterates this distinction between "meaning" and "purpose," using a new sentence, "come over to my house." But not only is this again a cherry-picked example, it is also, as with the money offer, subject to limitation in use: In the real world, conversation and interaction is not restricted to limited-expression one-liners like that one. No one considers such an invitation without consideration of purpose -- whether based on past considerations (such as the inviter being a good friend with whom one has dined in the past) or present ones (the inviter is dressed shabbily, seems to be high on drugs, and is carrying pornographic magazines) which indicate purpose.
Here as well, Geisler again appeals to Ex. 23:19, as he did with Gundry, as well as repeating some of his arguments about not looking beyond a text for meaning. In our prior post, and in the vid, we point out the serious contextual flaws in his argument. One point we might add is that Geisler overstates the point when he says, "if purpose determines meaning, then no one would know what the meaning is." In typical black and white fashion, Geisler chooses to falsely characterize the argument as being that purpose exhaustively determines meaning, which is not what anyone is arguing in the first place. Rather, it is argued that knowing purpose completes our grasp of meaning; bare words do not (as the money and invitation examples indicate).
One final note for today. I have repeatedly wondered here about the role of the 300 or so ICBI members (he says “scholars”) Geisler appeals to, noting that two have openly disagreed with Geisler regarding the Licona issue, many are dead, many are not scholars, and one is even now apostate. This has always made it questionable just how powerful Geisler’s appeal to this body of 300+ is. Over the past several days I have made contact with several of the 300+ of that body and inquired about the exact role they played as members of that body. The answer almost to a person has been that they played no role whatsoever in the formulation, composition, and construction of the statements on inerrancy – this was solely the domain of those who were noted as framers. Only one of the 300 I spoke to indicated that they played any greater role – in which they were able, behind the scenes, to give some personal feedback to one of the framers.
Thus it is that Geisler’s repeated appeals to these 300+ “scholars” is shown at last to be, in every way, without merit in terms of how he uses them to subvert Licona’s arguments. The 300 were merely little more than a rubber stamp body – not an active partner in the composition and application of the statements.
2/8/2012
Norman Geisler has of late resorted to a new tactic -- I mean new to this controversy with Licona, not new in general -- of using proxies to stand and speak for him. In so doing, though, he ends up neatly illustrating the failure of his authoritarian tactics, and so as well merely greases the slide that is taking him further down into the pit of obscurity and irrelevance.
His first effort in this direction was drawing a testimony from Paige Patterson. Nick Peters nicely dissected Patterson's pep speech, so I won't need to say much more, apart from noting that the selection of Patterson as a supporter speaks to a certain moral problem inherent in Geisler's authoritarian methods.
Patterson apparently did some good in the past, but in more recent years, has become a figure of questionable moral dealings. The interested reader might want to search his name and tie it to, first, the name "Darrell Gilyard" and second, and separately, to the name "Sheri Klouda". The bottom line in these (and in other places) is that Patterson has promoted what can only charitably be described as misogynist viewpoints -- which in turn leads to serious questions about Geisler's judgment in his choice of spokesman-proxies.
Geisler's next proxy was David Farnell, a Biblical scholar of highly questionable academic achievement. Again, Nick did a number on this one, but I have this to add: Farnell was co-editor, with Robert Thomas, of the caveman-beat-chest volume The Jesus Crisis -- a book deserving of apocalyptic opprobrium for its denigration of serious scholarship. (It is one of the few books I have ever distinctly listed as Not Recommend.)
At about the same time, Geisler rang up a co-authored letter from Ergun Caner and D. L. Moody of Arlington Baptist College. Not unsurprisingly, it is, like Patterson's commentary, remarkable for its lack of serious content and engagement with arguments; it is little more than a catena of the standard empty threats (e.g., "the absolute sufficiency of Scripture in the narrative are now both being diluted and denied,") pep-talk statements ("we stand with you in this issue") and papal horn-blowing in support of Geisler's efforts (" Your leadership is once again so sorely needed, and you have stood like Athanasius."). Once again it seems that cooperative back-patting is part of the good old boy system in place here.
And yet the commentary is also illustrative in many ways of the way Geisler operates. For one, even more so than Patterson by far, is the appeal to the questionable moral character Ergun Caner has become. Since Geisler has stubbornly refused to answer charges regarding his defense of Caner, it is worth asking again whether this does not in fact reflect Geisler's poor moral judgment. Is he now so desperate in circling the wagons that he is willing to take on any sort of support in his defense? How about Jim Bakker next, then?
In contrast, the use of Moody is understandable; few would see that name and not make an immediate connection to his prior namesake. That said, neither he nor his namesake has any rank as a scholar; so once again, it would seem to be a case of a Great Man speaking, one to whom we are expected to offer immediate deference merely because they have spoken.
Moody and Caner do seem to briefly allude to my video when they say, "we all see through the childish attacks you have faced." It is a curiosity that more than one from Geisler's support group have used the "childish" canard here; they, like certain atheists I have dealt with, seem oblivious to the use of animated features in the education of adults (see link below) as well as the popularity of animation among adults for entertainment purposes.
It is also said, "personal attacks are often offered when the opposition cannot answer the clarity of your position." That of course is a joke in itself; Geisler has been repeatedly answered, and it is in part because he has refused to reply in turn -- even deleting a link to my challenge from his Facebook page -- that I felt that materials like Geisler's Christmas Carol became necessary. And of course, it is hardly a "personal attack" either, to the extent that it accurately reflects Geisler's own behavior in personally attacking Licona and others.
Finally, just lately, Geisler has rung up Emir Caner -- Ergun's brother. Yes, of course, the moral opprobrium hangs like a scent here as well; and yes, of course, this Caner offers no more substance than the other one. There is the usual threat language ("path to liberalism," " placing the resurrection of Jesus itself in jeopardy"; "naturalistic presuppositions," -- even though the latter forms no part of Licona's arguments regarding Matthew 27); the usual pep-talking ("It is imperative, then, that Bible believers stand firm on the historicity and trustworthiness on this doctrine," " we cannot, in the name of friendships or sincere motives, let our guards down when a generation of new believers are relying on present Christian soldiers to take their proper stand.") -- but not on iota of actual engagement with the issues.
So what do we have in sum? We have a collection of authoritarian testimonies; we have little to no argument (only Farnell makes even the slightest attempt at that, and he fails badly, as Nick shows); we have support from at two to three men of questionable moral character and one man of questionable academic character. This is the best stable Geisler can assemble in his defense, and it speaks for himself.
He'd be better off collecting some more testimonies from "anonymous."
4/6/12
Just when you thought he had finally shut up...
Yes, he’s at it again. Norman Geisler has reigned in another guest piece in his anti-Licona crusade, but as usual, it’s not that impressive. Christopher Cone is the President of Tyndale Seminary – an unaccredited institution, though to be fair, he also has a real degree from the University of North Texas...in philosophy. Pardon me if I ask why someone with these kinds of credentials gets status over Licona with his doctorate in NT studies. Maybe it’s because Geisler thinks his degree in philosophy is adequate for that too.
Not that there’s much deserving of attention anyway. Cone is somewhat more judicious in his language than past critics of Licona have been, but he’s no more apt to produce substance than they are. Take out the sermonizing and the descriptive text, and here’s what we have left (and our comments):
1) It’s dangerous to get into a place where you “betray a preference for historiography over and against the Biblical data as inspired.” Yes, it’s that fundamentalist head in sand routine again, the one that has generated enough apostasies and cognitive dissonance to fill college bowl games and the Final Four for a thousand years. Let’s make this plain: If something disproves inerrancy, or the Resurrection, or any other “inspired” doctrine, we do no service clinging to it, and if anything make it harder to believe. For if we disprove one of these, then obviously, we also prove there was no “inspiration” to begin with. Geisler is a chief leader in this viciously circular system, and it has caused him to make monumentally absurd exegetical and historical arguments, to the point (as we have shown in prior entries on this issue) that he badly self-contradicts.
2) Maybe the Gospels aren’t really Greco-Roman bioi. Unfortunately, to get to this conclusion, Cone quotes several points from Richard Burridge which definitively place the Gospels in the bioi category, and then sums them up by saying that Burridge “admits” nothing requires putting them there. It’s hard to see how that comes out of statements like:
“Therefore the Gospels must belong to the genre of Bios”
“The four canonical gospels belong together as Bioi Iesou, unlike the non-canonical gospels, many of which have lost the generic features of Bios. Furthermore, nothing in the social setting of the gospel texts, writers and audiences prevents them being interpreted as Bioi.”
To get from these statements some idea that Burridge “admits” that “there is nothing that prevents their genre classification, there is also nothing that requires it”, as Cone puts it, is ludicrous. This is a perverse reading of Burridge that comes closest in audacity to Mormon interpretations of texts like Genesis 1:26 and 1 Cor. 15:29.
Burridge places the gospels firmly in the bios genre. So do Talbert, Votaw, and a number of other scholars. The only dispute is to what extent the gospels may be classified within that genre – eg, what type of biography are they?
Cone also applies some heavy fundamentalist spin when he says that the genre “allows the interpreter to arbitrarily cast aside certain aspects of the text as long as we don’t cast aside the centrality of Jesus.” Er, no. It is not in the least “arbitrary.” Licona gave a number of arguments for his classification of Matthew 27; he did not simply “arbitrarily” designate it as literally non-historical. Cone knows this, because he even briefly describes those arguments. Cone’s claim that scholars like Burridge use the genre classification system to “redeem the Scriptures from rationalistic critiques” is simply obscurantist nonsense, the product of the sort of childlike, fundamentalist mindset that uses such responses the way an infant uses a pacifier.
The fact is, the Gospels are bioi. From this, conclusions follow. Cone’s proper response (or Geisler’s) would be to answer, in detail, the arguments for the Gospels as bioi (as indicated in my challenge which remains ignored to this day). Instead, Cone opts for a technique beneath contempt: Twisting unwarranted uncertainty out of Burridge’s language to cast vague and unsubstantiated doubts.
Like Geisler, Cone also cannot get the simple point that techniques like Licona’s do not “undermine the authority of the text.” What they undermine, rather, is the contrived structure that fundamentalists like Geisler and Cone have imposed on the text; the modern readings they assume, and the exegetical decisions they make based on the assumption that the authors of the Bible were Ken and Barbie, just like us.
I should say a word about where Cone says, “Licona admits, if any of the text is legend, it becomes difficult to know where the legend ends and the history begins.” No page number is given for this reference, but it possibly refers to a comment Licona made on page 34, in which he noted that ancient bios generally had history in view, and that different biographers took varying degrees of liberty: Some reported fantastic stuff, some reported seriously. This may indeed make things difficult (especially for someone like Geisler or Cone who’d rather bully or throw threats around than learn and do the necessary academic spadework), but it’s no more difficult than (say) the prospects facing any true disciple of Jesus, who might choose to learn Greek, or educate themselves in apologetics, or what have you. Licona’s point (again, assuming this is what Cone had in mind, which is “difficult” to discern – ha ha! – without a page number from a book with over 700 pages), at any rate, is rather more nuanced than Cone lets on, and reflects an epistemic difficulty most of us face every day in one form or another. Difficult, indeed.
It should further be noted that part of Licona’s point is that when one approaches the Gospels as a historian, not a believer, there are challenges to face as a result of the Gospels belonging to the genre of bioi. This is one of several challenges related to analysis of eyewitness testimony from historical sources. Regrettably, neither Cone nor Geisler see, to be able to grasp how thinking Christians (such as myself, Licona, Nick Peters, and so many others) can recognize a distinction being made between what is believed in by faith (loyalty) alone and what can be proved with reasonable certainty by a historian or scholar.
What else? Top it all off with the usual unwarranted panic-button threats of uncertainty (“And if the Gospel writers had the flexibility of inventing speeches, how can I have any certainty about what Jesus said?”) and the only thing that needs to be added is a vision of a miniature Satan in red tights cackling on Licona’s shoulder. Cone concludes with the vague suggestion that rather than bios, the Gospels are “simply…historical narrative.” Not that that helps him; as I have noted, even straight history written by the ancients took creative (what we would call literally non-historical) detours now and then. And yes, despite Cone, Luke is biography too (he seems to think that because Luke says he reports “the exact truth”, this somehow takes his Gospel out of that genre).
I have news for Cone: The issue is not how foolish we look to Skeptics. It’s how foolish he (and Geisler) actually are when they make these kinds of arguments.
5/15/2012
Norman Geisler still doesn’t know when it is in his best interests to leave well enough alone. Indeed, at this point he seems to be taking on the habits of a cyberstalker, digging out whatever little opportunity he can to say the same things he’s already said once before which weren’t correct before and haven’t gotten any more correct with age.
Geisler’s peashot is aimed this time at an interview Licona did for a website that is geared towards helping people select a school. One wonders why Geisler would even bother, but at this point, his obsession is apparently so great that Licona could probably appear opposite Big Bird as a special guest on Sesame Street and it would result in a 500 page Geisler response. Further than that I look for a Geisler article in the future which begins, “Recently Mike Licona was taking out his trash and...”
But like I said, there’s little new here, really. Geisler repeats the same stale arguments we’ve covered before in prior entries you can see under the subject link for this post.
He still hasn’t learned that Greco-Roman bioi is not a “generic category” and still has not taken up my challenge to refute scholars like Burridge; all he adds is the sort of frightened, head-in-sand language we have come to expect from an unschooled fundamentalist in over his head (e.g., Licona was “poisoned by his baptism into Greco-Roman literature which penetrated his mind by unbiblical presuppositions” – next week, Licona will “go to hay-ul if he don’t repent”).
He still doesn’t get that maybe, just maybe, Gary Habermas one-upped him by thinking more deeply about his position on these subjects between 1983 (the time of Robert Gundry’s confab) and now (for as we may expect, someone like Geisler pretty much intellectually stays in stone no matter how long he takes, and no matter how much scholarship bounces off his scalp).
He continues to quote unnamed and anonymous sound bites as though anyone ought to pay attention, and sound bites as well for unqualified “great men” like Mohler and Patterson (who still doesn’t deserve that bronze statue – sorry – but does deserve the pigeons that come with it).
He still thinks he can hoist the 300 ICBI “scholars” (ha ha!) as authorities and that relatively and contextually unqualified people like himself, Packer, and Sproul are competent to judge this matter. No, sorry, none of that trio is within their depth here.
He still hoists that rather silly argument about not being able to discern author intention. Apparently being chased around by the Ehrmanator didn’t give him a clue.
He’s still hoisting his inconsequential “survey” of “leaders and laypersons” (the old Brian Flemming technique).
He still whines about being made into a cartoon and quotes a few anonymous people with too-tight Fruit of the Looms who were disturbed by it. Aww. How sad.
He still fudges in reporting that ETS kicked out Gundry with a 70% vote (never mind all the abstentions). And he still has delusional views of himself as a new Martin Luther (“Here we must stand. We can do no other.”).
He manages to expand all of this stale bread into 25 or so points, but nowhere does he advance his arguments one step, much less responds to detailed criticisms of his errors offered by this blog and so many others.
One the few “new” bits is where Geisler says:
Licona boasts of his successful debates with many noted unbelievers using his “new historiographical approach.” Yet I was told by some persons friendly to Licona view who were present at the Bart Ehrman debate that they believed that Licona had lost the debate. After the event, one father told me that he was informed by his son who heard the debate that he did not want to go to church any more!
Well, gee, Norm. I have been told by tons of people – atheists and Christians alike – that you botched and made a fool of yourself in your “debate” with Farrell Till. And I’ve seen it used repeatedly by atheists as an example of how piddly-poor Christian apologetics really is. And in fact, thanks to you, I probably had to beat Till on the bunions a few more times than would have been necessary had you done a competent job of it. News flash: This is why I find debates useless. As someone once said, the “atheist” side could be represented by a dog howling “I Dream of Jeannie” off key, and there would be atheists who would still say the Christian lost.
But anyway, given all that, maybe you’d better get that redwood out of your eyeball before trying to take that toothpick out of Licona’s. The way you keep spinning around, you're liable to kill people with it.
5/17/2012
This week the Geisler debacle is moving at a fast pace, and the latest news – which happened so fast I wasn’t able to comment within “real time” – is that J. I. Packer has stuck his foot in Geisler’s mouth and Geisler is now trying to extract it. You can see more on this at the link below, where Nick Peters has blogged on it; my own humble contribution this time will be to address something Geisler says in his damage control manifesto, reporting a phone conversation he had with Packer:
[Packer] affirmed that his statement was only referring to inerrancy in a formal sense, not in a material sense. He said both Robert Gundry and Mike Licona have denied inerrancy in a material (factual) sense.
Oh really?
Only problem is, when we look at Packer’s quote:
What biblical inerrancy means is that Scripture, rightly interpreted, is true and trustworthy. I don't think Licona's guess about Matthew's meaning is plausible, but it is not an inerrancy question.
...he not only seems to have forgotten to make that distinction, he also rendered it immaterial by saying it is “not an inerrancy question.”
The main problem, though, is that Geisler handily didn’t explain what he meant by those distinctions (wouldn’t want anyone to know so they could think critically about it, right?), so it’s kind of hard to evaluate this. Since he was being so coy, I had to try to figure out what he and Packer meant by these distinctions, but there was some difficulty with that. So what I say below will be entirely provisional, and I will correct it later as needed, if needed.
I have found two different definitions of “formal” inerrancy – one that says, it means the Bible is right in every detail; the other that says, that the Bible as a self-enclosed entity, does not contradict itself.
In contrast, I can find only one definition of “material” inerrancy, which is that Scripture does not lie or deceive.
If we’re charitable here, we’ll have to assume Geisler had in mind – if any of this! – the second version of “formal” inerrancy, since the first version is essentially synonymous with “material” inerrancy as defined. But if that is what he meant, “formal inerrancy” is worth exactly two cents. It means in essence that if they Bible says that tomatoes can talk, then there is no violation of inerrancy as long as it doesn’t say somewhere else that tomatoes do not talk.
So if Packer was indeed talking about formal inerrancy in this sense only, he was saying nothing informative – that Licona was not saying that the Matthew 27 saints, according to Scripture, did and also did not rise. But he couldn’t have meant that, since Packer was clearly aware, as he says, “What Dr. Licona offers is an interpretive hypothesis as to Matthew's meaning.” He clearly knows it has nothing to do with a “formal inerrancy” question as we have seen by these definitions.
So what then of denying it in a “material” sense? Packer’s own comment just noted also is out of bounds in that case. Packer said it was an “interpretive” question – not one where the Bible was being accused of lying or deceiving. (Of course, we have seen that Geisler does have problems understanding that the genre of apocalyptic is not a “lie” or “deception” in the first place – in other words, as we have said so many times now, he can’t see that you can’t “dehistoricize” a text not meant to be taken as history in the first place.)
So in the end, what for this? It’s hard to say, since Geisler doesn’t say exactly what he means by “material” and “formal” inerrancy. If he manages to define this out further, maybe we can say more, and we'll try this analysis again. As it is, it’s fairly clear that this rousting out of Packer is little more than major league damage control.
8/6/2012
Norman Geisler, apparently afflicted with Mike Licona Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (MLOCD), has just put out yet another item on the usual you know what, apparently in observance of a scholarly conclave Licona took part in. No, there’s nothing new to address in it: It’s just the same old “great man speaking” routine, with the same bad arguments, and the same horrendous mistakes (including STILL saying Nick Peters “produced” Geisler’s Christmas Carol).
Licona, of course, has been anathematized by one of Geisler’s pet organizations, the International Society of Christian Apologetics (ISCA). That’s one reason I no longer associate with that organization any more, but now they have given me another.
Horn’s co-author of Petrus Romanus, Cris Putnam, was also a speaker at the last ISCA conference I went to in Raleigh in 2011. At the time, I had no idea Putnam was involved in such lunacy, and indeed, that is what it is. Sitting on my table right now is another book by Horn which connects UFOs, prophecy, and genetic engineering to the idea of the “Watchers” in Genesis 6 – with the premise apparently being that we can expect the Watchers to make a return somehow involving all these elements. Just how loony this will get remains to be seen for when I read the book in whole.
Beyond that, Petrus Romanus and Apollyon Rising 2012 both include lunacy about Freemason conspiracies, and ideas that America was founded as a sort of occult Freemason paradise. Yes, you heard me. This is loonier than even Acharya S could come up with.
In light of all that, Geisler is faced with a conundrum, one I expect he will ignore.
He, and his pet organization, have publicly condemned Mike Licona for his adherence to credible scholarly methodology.
Yet his organization has also welcomed, and accepted papers from, someone who teaches, and cooperates with someone who teaches, UFO/Freemason/conspiracy theory lunacy.
Isn’t there something wrong here?
8/22/2012
Yes, Norman Geisler is at it again; all it takes to set him off repeating the same old stuff these days is a yak sneezing in Alberta. The latest incarnation, though, is more about Craig Blomberg than Mike Licona, and as usual we’ll just pick out what’s new – which isn’t much.
Geisler says that using Licona’s arguments, one could easily dehistoricize the Resurrection of Jesus, and he uses James Dunn as an example. Unfortunately, he fails to notice that while Dunn does indeed use the informing contexts of Second Temple Judaism to comment on the Resurrection, he doesn’t actually go on to say that this means the Resurrection was non-historical, or that it was apocalyptic (per Licona on Matthew 27). Geisler merely jumps the Dunn, as it were, thusly:
For Dunn, Jesus had in mind that "His death would introduce the final climactic period, to be followed shortly ('after three days'?) by the general resurrection, the implementation of the new covenant, and the coming of the kingdom.” Here Dunn’s imposition of Jewish eschatology genre effectively eviscerates any idea of Jesus’ physical, literal resurrection on the Sunday after His crucifixion and places it entirely into distant future of Jewish expectations of a final resurrection at the Last Judgment.
It does? Well, no, it doesn’t. What Dunn is saying – wrongly, but that is beside the point here – is that he thinks Jesus’ Resurrection was seen by Jesus as being a signifier of the general resurrection. Nothing Dunn says in this quoted sentence in any way releases a judgment about the Resurrection of Jesus as physical or not, literal or not (and though Dunn may or may not say something else that does that, I have no recollection of him doing so in his many works I have read). If anything, it favors a physical and literal reading of it, but Geisler errs profoundly in that he is inserting his dispensational eschatology into Dunn’s words. Dunn is not referring to a “distant future” but a general resurrection three days, or “shortly,” thereafter.
Let me emphasize again that I do consider Dunn wrong in his reading here. However, this is not made any better by Geisler abusing it to enact his own exegetical fantasies.
After another quick bash at Licona, Geisler gets on Blomberg’s case for the rest of the article. We can skip a lot of this; there’s some typical amusement (e.g., both Geisler and Mohler are unworthily called “scholars”!) and typical panic button pushing (“opening up a proverbial avenue for major portions of the Gospels to be labeled as non-historical in genre”) to start, before we get to hear the ambulance siren. It’s again little atypical though; Blomberg’s views represent a “significant, substantive shift” from Geisler’s head-in-sand exegetical approach to one that tries to understand the Bible as it was written by those who wrote it, though of course, it is not put quite that way.
We are told, “Blomberg apparently chose to ignore The Jesus Crisis (1998) and has already catalogued the evangelical disaster that such a blend of grammatico-historical and historical-critical elements precipitates in interpretive approaches.” Yes, and it’s a good thing he did ignore it. The Jesus Crisis was one of the most obscurantist, naïve, and misguided caveman-manifestos produced by Christians this century. See link below to my review, where I address the very example of the Sermon on the Mount that Geisler chooses to highlight. The authors of The Jesus Crisis, as I pointed out, displayed the heights of incompetence in their analysis, and in the end resorted to an utterly illogical and inconsistent ruse of harmonization which failed to respect the literary contexts of the NT era. As I put it:
Let's take the prime example. I've answered points claiming contradiction between Matt and Luke's versions of the Sermon on the Mount by noting that Matt's version is likely to be an anthology -- a collection of Jesus' teachings, organized by Matthew according to his purpose as the composer of a handbook of faith; whereas Luke is more on the historical side, and reports what was actually said on that occasion.
No big problem. Both writers were following standard literary and historical practices for the time. But Thomas insists that such an approach "inevitably leads to diminishing historical accuracy in the Gospels" -- for you see, Matthew 5:1-2 "indicates Jesus began at a certain point to give the Sermon's contents." And what of the literary-device explanation above? Thomas wonders, then, "why would (Matthew) mislead his readers" into thinking that Jesus made this full sermon on one occasion?
What is missing here: This was a normal practice for the day. No one would be "misled" into thinking this was a full sermon because no one would have thought it was meant to be recorded as such in the first place. But Thomas, clearly, does not agree, with comments like this in response to Blomberg's assertion that Biblical writers followed the typical practices for composers of the day: "Despite what the practice of ancient historians may have been, Matthew's intention to cite a continuous discourse from a single occasion is conspicuous. Was he mistaken?" "No matter what the alleged motives of the writers in so doing, that kind of action is fundamentally problematic at best and dishonest at worst." (!) The only difference between these comment and comments like C. Dennis McKinsey's "read the Bible like a newspaper" is that McKinsey is nastier in his formulations. And yet we are told that it is we who propose such solutions who are "run(ning) roughshod over the historicity of the Sermon's introductory and concluding formulas".
You might wonder, of course, how Thomas suggests that we resolve the differences in the Sermon, and his answer is: By harmonization -- of an extreme, unnecessary sort. Put it this way: Did Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor" or "Blessed are the poor in spirit"? Thomas replies: He said both, and on the same occasion. Matt and Luke just chose to report one or the other: "Most probably Jesus repeated this beatitude in at least two different forms when he preached His Sermon on the Mount/Plain, using the third person once and the second person another time and referring to the Kingdom of God by different titles." Odd here how omission is not a sin; but commission is. I thought it was Matthew's intent to show he was citing a continuous discourse? If that is the case, isn't he "misleading" his readers by not giving a full report and leaving things out?
There follows from Geisler and extended rant (it may as well be called that) on how George Eldon Ladd tried to please both sides, so to speak, and failed. I am sure many view Geisler’s adherence to old earth views the same way. Then we get to an extended second rant on how Blomberg defended Robert Gundry, and Geisler repeats all the usual buzzwords, including the misuse of stats from the vote which expelled Gundry from ETS.
We then get to a collection of reputed “sins” by Blomberg in which he allegedly supported dehistoricizing procedures. I will only say here that I disagree in whole or part with most of Blomberg’s solutions, as whether I do or not would be beside the point. In each case, like Gundry and Licona, it is the same thing over and over again: Blomberg suggests some contextualizing solution to an issue; Geisler harrumphs back that this is not in accord with his fundamentalist vision of what was meant by ICBI, and doesn’t even touch Blomberg’s arguments, except with a cattle prod from a distance. For example, in “answering” Blomberg’s suggestion of a benign pseudonymity for certain NT books, Geisler merely raises panic:
Yet, how could one ever known the motive of such ghost writers? Would not such a false writer go against all moral standards of Christianity?
Here Geisler steps into a pile of non sequitur of his own creation: He has rapidly moved from uncertainty (“How could we know?”) to certainty (“We know this would be immoral!”). He has also merely raised the spectre of panic without justification. I do not agree with the whole of Blomberg’s thesis here, but I imagine he would answer that the benign motives of the writers are proven by 1) the contents of the writings in question, which obviously do not serve any self-seeking purpose for the author; 2) the fact that the church at large evaluated and accepted these writings. Either way, inciting unreasoning panic isn’t an argument.
Geisler notes something close to my heart as well:
Interestingly, recently, Craig Blomberg blames books like Harold Lindsell's Battle For the Bible (1976) and such a book as The Jesus Crisis for people leaving the faith because of their strong stance on inerrancy as a presupposition.
And he does so rightly. I have encountered numerous apostates over the years who left the faith, or dealt with many Christians in a faith crisis, because of exegetical midden like Lindsell’s, and The Jesus Crisis, provided answers that were utterly impossible to defend of justify. Of course, Geisler himself sits on a throne well above all of this; he never answers emails from people hurt by his stance, or gets down in the trenches with the likes of a Dennis McKinsey. Well, scratch that: He did debate Farrell Till, and did so by reading prepared statements the whole way through. That sure does the job, doesn’t it?
Geisler complains:
In doing this, evangelicals of this approach, subject the Scripture to forms of historical criticism that will always place the Bible on the defensive in that it can never be shown to reflect historical trustworthiness. Indeed, logically, probability for one person may not be probability for another. What is accomplished is that the Gospels are placed on shifting sands that never have any foundational certainty for “certainty” cannot be entertained by their methods.
Indeed? Let me put it this way: If Geisler thinks this, it is only because the sort of work being done by scholars (term deserved) like Licona, Blomberg, and Bock is atmospherically beyond his comprehension. The sands do not “shift” – Geisler is wearing greasy sneakers.
This is also shown when he says this further, on a point I will use to close:
The fact, however, is that “probability” logically rests in the “eye of the beholder” and what is probable to one may be improbable to another. For instance, what Blomberg finds “probable” may not be to critics of the Gospels who do not accept his logic. This also places Scripture on an acutely subjective level which logical impact of these approach is to reduce the Gospels to a shifting-sand of “one-up-manship” in scholarly debate as to who accepts whose arguments for what reasons or not. Blomberg argues that “an evenhanded treatment of the data [from analysis of the Gospel material] does not lead to a distrust of the accuracy of the Gospels.” But, this is actually exceedingly naïve, for who is to dictate to whom what is “evenhanded”? Many liberals would think these Blomberg has imposed his own evangelical presuppositions and is VERY FAR from being “evenhanded.”
Wait a minute.
Is this the same Geisler who is even now arguing a point? Why is he bothering if “what is probable to one may be improbable to another”? Isn’t he worried that his critics will not “accept his logic”? Doesn’t he care that many would think he has imposed his own presuppositions and is “VERY FAR” from being evenhanded?
Consistency sure demands a lot of us, doesn’t it?
2/11/2013
I just noted something so hilarious that I thought a second entry today was warranted.
Norman Geisler has an e-book out -- published in 2012 -- titled Beware of Philosophy. It includes a section, "Beware of Historical Criticism" which includes a summary version of the whole Licona/Matt. 27 incident. Nothing new there, but a moment of hilarity is achieved by this opening to the section:
Other evangelical scholars who have bought into the philosophical presuppositions of negative higher criticism have been exposed in an excellent new work by Robert Thomas and David Farnell titled The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship.
Uh...wait a minute.
This e-book by Geisler was just put out last year (2012). The Jesus Crisis was put out in 1998. So how can it be a "new work"?
It isn't, of course. What happened here is that Geisler apparently just lifted this portion of the section from a 1998 address he gave in 1998, when Jesus Crisis WAS new. But apparently he has so much (arrogant) confidence in the perpetual authoritativeness of his own words that he didn't even bother to edit his older material carefully.
Now my day's supply of comedy is complete. Thanks, Norm.