Michael Licona and Resurrection Controversy at CT

Earlier I posted on Al Mohler and Norman Geisler’s accusations that Michael Licona purportedly violates “inerrancy” in his superb book in defense of the historicity of the resurrection where Licona argued that the story of the raising of the holy men from ancient times in Matthew 27 was perhaps “poetic”.

Well, over at Christianity Today, there is a good write up on that dust-up. Notable is this quote which provides Craig Blomberg’s view on the debate:

In comments to Christianity Today, Craig Blomberg, a New Testament professor at Denver Seminary, complained of “the tragedy of ‘witch hunts’ of this nature.” He accused Licona’s critics of “going after fellow inerrantists with whom they disagree and making life miserable for them for a long time in ways that are unnecessary, inappropriate, and counterproductive to the important issues of the Kingdom.”

Blomberg is no liberal, he’s evangelical through and through, and he’s defended the historicity of the NT far better than most, so his comments are worth heeding!

"I found that the quality of the audio for this Facebook Live event to be ..."

Video of My SEBTS Library Talk ..."
"You need to become a foreign exchange student to rural America, where you can learn ..."

Michael Bird ACL Lecturer on The ..."
"There's not much Benedictine about the so-called "Benedict option". Christians should not retreat from the ..."

The Benedict Option and Christianity in ..."
"Thank you for this article. I have learned elsewhere about the Benedict Option. One of ..."

The Benedict Option and Christianity in ..."

Browse Our Archives



What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael Jensen

    Mohler’s a young earth creationist. Why do we listen to him again?

  • http://johngreenview.wordpress.com John Thomson

    Michael

    Are you not being guilty of the very thing of which Mohler is accused?

  • Michael F. Bird

    John, thanks for the question. No one wants to become what they are criticizing. But in reflection, I’m not trying to cast aspersions on anyone’s orthodoxy, as some are clearly (and I feel wrongfully) doing to Mike Licona.

  • http://johngreenview.wordpress.com John Thomson

    Michael B

    Sorry for the confusion, I was really addressing M Jensen.

  • Anonymous

    If you were to recommend one book on the resurrection, would you recommend this one or NT Wright’s? Thanks.

  • Nick Mackison

    This is good stuff Mike. It shows some of the dangers pertinent to confessional Christianity (a brand of which I was strongly attracted for a while). Too many circles are drawn too narrowly. I, to my shame, have been guilty of this sort of thing in the past.

  • Gabe

    One word: zombies.

  • http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/ pduggie

    I wonder if I’m crazy to think you are downplaying what seems to be an intention of the text, as expemplified by one important feature of Matt. 27.51-53, the clause ” and appeared to many ”

    So much of Matthew’s account seems to be reporting, though he has tholeogical purpose to be sure. But there is definitely a “hey this is what happened, here’s who saw it, and this is the lie that is circulating about what really happened.” It would seem dangerous to Matthews credibility if he deliberately added a poetic non-event to the mix.