[For better viewing, click here to view as a PDF file or here to view as a Microsoft Word document.]
Mike Licona Admits
Contradiction in the Gospels
Norman L. Geisler, January
2013
The Charge of Contradiction in the Gospels
Critic Bart Ehrman wrote: “Maybe when Mark
says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover was eaten (Mark
14:12; 15:25) and John says he died the day before it was eaten (John
19:14)—maybe that is a genuine difference,” that is, a real
contradiction (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 9). This is not an
uncommon claim for a Bible critic and agnostic like Bart Ehrman.
But is it consistent for an evangelical New Testament scholar like Mike
Licona? In a debate with Ehrman at Southern Evangelical
Seminary(Spring 2009), Licona said, “I think that John probably altered
the day [of Jesus’s crucifixion] in order for a theological—to make a
theological point there. But that does not mean that Jesus wasn’t
crucified.” In short, John contradicts the other Gospels on which
day Jesus was crucified.
Holding Greco-Roman Genre Allows for
Contradictions
But how can one hold to inerrancy, as Licona
claims to do, and yet affirm that there is a contradiction in the
Gospels? According to Licona, the answer is found in embracing the
Greco-Roman genre view of the Gospels. He claims this is a
“flexible genre,” and “it is often difficult to determine where history
ends and legend begins” (The Resurrection of Jesus, 34).
Indeed, he claims “Bios offered the ancient biographer great
flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches…and
they often included legends” (ibid., emphasis added).
Until recently, Licona has not offered a
public response to the charge that his reference to John contradicting
the synoptic Gospels on the day of Christ’s crucifixion is consistent
with the doctrine of inerrancy which he claims to accept. Despite his
belief that such scholarly discussions as these should not take place on
the internet, Linoca recently did a YouTube interview in which he sets
forth his “justification” for believing that there can be a
contradiction in the Gospels and yet one can claim they are inerrant!
In a professionally transcribed interview by
Lenny Esposito of Mike Licona on YouTube on November 23, 2012 at the
2012 Evangelical Theological Society meeting (see
http://youtu.be/TJ8rZukh_Bc),
Licona affirmed the following: “So um this didn’t really bother
me in terms of if there were contradictions in the Gospels. I
mean I believe in biblical inerrancy but I also realized that
biblical inerrancy is not one fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
The resurrection is. So if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity
is still true even if it turned out that some things in the Bible
weren't. So um it didn’t really bother me a whole lot even if some
contradictions existed. But it did bother a lot of
Christians.”
So, contradictions in the Gospels do not
bother Licona because inerrancy “is not one of the fundamental
doctrines.” Why? Because, says Licona, they don’t affect any
important doctrine like the resurrection of Christ. However,
Licona realized that “it did bother a lot of Christians.” In fact,
he said, “I asked the class [he was teaching] how many of this thing
[sic] about potential contradictions really bothers you, and the
majority of the class raised their hands” (emphasis is mine in all
these quotations).
How Greco-Roman Genre Allows for
Contradictions in Gospels
Since it bothered so many other Christians to
think that there may be contradictions in the Gospels, Licona said, “I
started reading ancient biographies written around the time of Jesus
because the majority of New Testament scholars, thanks to Richard
Burridge initially, and also people like Charles Talbert, David Aune,
and even more recently Craig Keener shows that uh the majority of New
Testament scholars regard the Gospels as ancient biographies,
Greco-Roman biographies.” So, what did he discover?
Licona replied, “They all followed Greco-Roman biographies. So I started
reading through these. There was like 80 to 100 written with in just a
couple 100 years of Jesus and the most prolific is Plutarch and he wrote
over 60, fifty of which have survived and so I read through all of those
not only to understand not only how ancient biography worked but to
actually read these.”
What did he find? Licona continued, “I
noticed that nine of the people that he [Plutarch] wrote biographies on
lived at the same time so this provided me as a historian a unique
opportunity because so, for example the assassination of Julius Cesar
is told in five different biographies by Plutarch, so you have the same
biographer telling the same story five different times and so by
noticing how Plutarch tells the story of Caesar's assassination
differently we can notice the kinds of biographical liberties that
Plutarch took and he is writing around the same time as some of the
Gospels are being written and in the same language, "Greek" to
boot.” So, “as I started to note some of these liberties
that he took I immediately started to recognize that these are the
same liberties that I noticed the Evangelists did, Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John.” So, “these most commonly cited differences in
the Gospels that skeptics like Ehrman like to refer to as contractions
aren't contradictions after all. They are just the standard
biographical liberties that ancient biographers of that day took.”
Licona admits that most of the problems in
the Gospels are just difficulties but not really contradictions.
He said, “a second point we can make is we have to look at genre of the
Gospels, the literary style and that's ancient biography and they were
allowed to take liberties. I want to point out a couple of
those liberties like time compression or lack of attention to
chronological detail …. So there's all of these different liberties
and I can give examples of some of these so that these aren't
contradictions they are just biographical liberties that were taken.
And then the third one, and I am trying to think what that third is
right off and um, oh you have to distinguish between a contradiction
and a difference.”
However, even in eyewitness accounts like the
Gospels, Licona insists that “there are certain cases when some
things can't be reconciled like the Titanic broke in half prior to
sinking, [or]the Titanic went down intact, um that can't be reconciled,
that is a contradiction and most of the things we find in the Gospels
are differences. I mean there are only maybe a handful of
things between Gospels that are potential contradictions and only one or
two that I found that are really stubborn for me at this point and they
are all in the peripherals again.”
An Evaluation of Licona’s View on
Contradictions in the Gospels
Licona’s view on contradictions in the Gospels includes
several important points. First, we will state the point and then give a
brief evaluation of it from the standpoint of historic biblical
inerrancy. Licona contends that:
First, most alleged contradictions are not real contradictions.
There are plausible ways to reconcile the discrepancies.
Response: With this point we have no disagreement as
such, expect that it does not go far enough. The historic doctrine of
inerrancy, as embraced by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and
The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), affirms that
all, not just most, alleged contradictions are not real, and there
are possible , if not plausible, ways to harmonize all of them. This we
have demonstrated in our volume, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties
(Baker, 2008). After examining some 800 alleged contradictions in
the Bible, we found not a single one proved to be a demonstrable error!
And the vast majority of them had possible, or even plausible,
explanations.
Actually, Licona employs several good principles in reconciling alleged
contradictions in Scripture. For one, he is opposed to “abusing the text
or to force meaning so they kind of twist the words to not mean what the
author meant but to mean something else.” Also, he rejects
“pushing twenty‑first century scientific classification onto animals
that did not exist 3500 years ago.” Had he applied similar logic to
imposing Greco-Roman categories on the Gospels, he could have avoided
his own error of using alien and extra-biblical categories on the
Gospels that yield legends and contradictions.
Second, there are some contradictions in the Gospels, but they are
only on peripheral matters and do not affect any essential doctrine of
the Christian Faith.
Response: Nowhere has Licona (or any other Bible critic) actually
proven there were any real contradictions in the Gospels. The one
Licona mentions about the day of Christ’s crucifixion has several
possible explanations. First, there could have been two different
Passovers, one following the Pharisees and the other the Sadducees.
Second, the Gospel writer could have been referring to two different
days, one the Passover day itself and the other the beginning of the
feast following the Passover (see Walvoord, ed. Bible Knowledge
Commentary, vol. 2, 258). Third, John could have been using
Roman time, not Jewish time. If so, there is no contradiction as to the
time of day. Further, John 19:14 is not contradictory to Mark
14:12 since it is possible that the “preparation” day to which John
referred could be the Friday before Sabbath of the Passover week.
This view was held by the great Greek Scholar A. T. Robertson who
affirmed that the phrase “day of the preparation of the Passover” in Jn.
19:14 means ”Friday”(Nisan 15), the day before the Sabbath in the
Passover week. This harmonizes with the other Gospels (cf. Mark
14:12). Ellicott’s Commentaries (vol. 6, 560-561) presents
the same view (in “Excursus F” by Prof. Plumptre): “Even the phrase
which seems most to suggest a different view, the ‘preparation of the
Passover’ in John XIX. 14, does not mean more on any strict
interpretation than the ‘Passover Friday,’ the Friday in Passover
week….” So, there are plausible explanations to the alleged
contradiction mentioned by Ehrman and Licona.
Third, these contradictions are not contrary to the Greco-Roman genre
of the Gospels which allows for legends and contradictions.
Response: It is true that Greco-Roman genre allows for legend and
error. But, despite its current popularity, it is not necessary to
take the Gospels as part of Greco-Roman genre. In fact, this Greco-Roman
genre view is a kind of current scholarly fad that stresses some
similarities but overlooks some crucial differences between the Gospels
and Greco-Roman biography. First of all, the Gospels themselves
claim to be historical and accurate. Luke wrote, “Just as those
who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
world have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also,
having followed all things closely for some time past, to
write an orderly account for you, most excellent
Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you
have been taught” (Lk. 1:1-4, emphasis added). This
claim for accurate historicity in Luke has been demonstrated in numerous
details in the work of Roman Historian Colin Hemer in his monumental
work, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenic History (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). He showed that in nearly 90 details of
the account of Luke in Acts, he is accurate in even minute historical
details. Not once has Luke been demonstrated to be in error.
Second, similarity does not prove identity. The Gospels are like
Greco-Roman biography in some respects, but they are not identical to
it. The Jewish nature of the New Testament is well known to biblical
scholars. The NT citations are overwhelmingly from the Old Testament.
It considers itself a fulfillment of the OT (Mt. 5:17-18 cf. Book of
Hebrews). The NT is rooted in Jewish history and considers itself a
fulfillment of it in Jesus the Messiah and his kingdom. The NT
writers give no evidence that they are borrowing from a Greco-Roman
genre.
Third, the Bible does use different genres of literature (History,
poetry, parable, etc.). But these are all known from inside the
Bible by use of the traditional “grammatico-historical exegesis” which
the ICBI framers embraced (Article XVIII). The genre categories
into which the Bible is said to fit are not determined by data outside
the Bible. The Gospels, for example, may be their own unique
genre, as many biblical scholars believe. As the ICBI statement puts it,
“Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (Chicago Statement, Article
XVIII). The Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible.
Fourth, whatever light extra-biblical information may shed on the
biblical text (e.g., in customs or use of words), it does not determine
the overall meaning of a text. The meaning of the biblical text is
found in the text and its context. Certainly, extra-biblical Greek
legend characteristics do not determine the meaning of the biblical
text. This is an unorthodox method[1]
and, when applied to the Bible, it yields an unorthodox conclusion.
Fourth, one can believe there are contradictions in the Gospels
without giving up his belief in inerrancy.
Response: The Law of Non-Contradiction that rules all
thought, including theological thought, demands that opposing views
cannot both be true. If one is true, then the opposing view is
false. But inerrancy demands that every affirmation in the Bible is
true. Jesus could not have been crucified on Friday Nisan 15 and not
crucified on that day. The claim that He was crucified on a day
that He was not is false. For inerrancy demands that all the
affirmations of the Bible are true. The ICBI statement on inerrancy
declares: “We affirm the unity and internal consistency of scripture”
(Article XIV). And “We deny that later revelations…ever correct or
contradict” other revelations (Article V).
Fifth, inerrancy is not an essential doctrine of Christianity like
the resurrection of Christ is. It is a non-essential or peripheral
doctrine.
Response: On the contrary, the inspiration of Scripture is one of
the essential or fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith, along
with the deity of Christ, His atoning death, and his bodily
resurrection.[2]
And inerrancy is an essential part of divine inspiration. Thus, a
divinely inspired error is a contradiction in terms. As the ETS
statement on inerrancy puts it, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its
entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in
the autographs” (emphasis added). It is clear from this statement
that the framers meant that the Bible is inerrant because it is
the Word of God. Inerrancy flows from inspiration and is a
necessary part of it. The Bible is the Word of God, and God cannot
error. Therefore, the Bible cannot err. After all, “God”
means the Theistic God who is omniscient, and an omniscient Mind cannot
make any errors in His Word. So, it is simply wrong to affirm that
“inerrancy is not an essential doctrine of Christianity.”
Concluding Comments
First of all, whatever else there may be to
commend Mike Licona’s view of Scripture, one thing is certain: his view
is not consistent with the historic view of inerrancy as held by the
framers of the ETS and ICBI statements. To claim, as he does, that
the Gospels represent Jesus as being crucified on different days, is a
flat contradiction. And contradictions are inconsistent with the
doctrine of inerrancy. To claim otherwise is unbiblical,[3]
irrational, and nonsensical.
Second, classifying the Gospels as
Greco-Roman biography which allows for errors and legends is not in
accord with the historic view of the full and factual inerrancy of
Scripture.[4]
An error is an error whether it is a legend or a contradiction.
And errors cannot be part of the inerrant Word of God.
Third, Licona adopts an unorthodox
methodology, and unorthodox methodology leads to unorthodox theology.
Any method that can be used to justify errors in the Gospels and yet be
able to claim they are inerrant is not only contrary to the Bible, and
the historic view on inerrancy, but it is contrary to logic and common
sense.
Finally, As Professor Al Mohler of Southern
Baptist Seminary pointed out in his critique of Licona’s view, “Licona
has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful
weapon” by denying or undermining the historicity of other sections of
the Gospels. For he uses an extra-biblical method by which he
claims “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend
begins” (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 34). He
also claims that “Bios offered the ancient biographer great
flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches…and
they often included legends” (ibid., emphasis added). What
is more, using that method, Licona came to the conclusion that an event
directly connected to the resurrection of Christ, and that occurred as a
result of it, namely the bodily resurrection of some saints (in Mt.
27:52-53), was merely a “poetical device,” “special effects” (ibid.,
552), or a “legend” (ibid., 34).[5]
This, indeed, is handing “the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus
Christ a powerful weapon.” For how can we be sure the resurrection of
Christ is historical when in the same passage the resurrection of some
saints that resulted from Christ’s resurrection it not considered
historical?
Copyright © 2013
NormanGeisler.net - All rights reserved
For further information please
visit
NormanGeisler.net and
BastionBooks.com
[1]
See Norman Geisler, “Methodological Unorthodoxy,” by Norman
Geisler and William Roach in Journal of the
International Society of Christian Apologetics (vol. 5 No.
1, 2012), 61-87.
[2]
See N.L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, Conviction without
Compromise (Harvest House, 2008), Part One for a
comprehensive list of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
Faith.
[3]
The Bible declares, “Avoid…contradictions” (ESV, Greek:
antitheseis, 1 Tim. 6:20).
[4]
See John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984).
[5]
Licona has since moderated his certainty about this conclusion,
but has not retracted either its possibility or reality.