A Roundtable Discussion with Michael Licona on “The Resurrection of Jesus”

liconaGood article:

Daniel L. Akin, Craig L. Blomberg, Paul Copan, Michael J. Kruger, Michael R. Licona, and Charles L. Quarles. “A Roundtable Discussion with Michael Licona on The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.” Southeastern Theological Review 3 (2012): 71–98.

Some context:

  1. Michael Licona published this book last year.
  2. Norman Geisler vocally criticized Licona’s view on inerrancy because Licona proposed interpreting Matt 27:52–53 as an apocalyptic genre rather than as recounting literal historical events.
  3. Albert Mohler also criticized Licona’s view on inerrancy.
  4. Licona resigned his two SBC positions (North American Mission Board and Southern Evangelical Seminary).
  5. CT reported on the controversy.
  6. Michael Patton defended Licona.

This round-table discussion exemplifies how to directly address controversy in an edifying way.


  1. says

    Thanks for posting this, Andy (and other things). You keep me at the front end of books that come out faster than I can follow. I don’t read enough–I can’t–outside my field, but your blog helps me make selections of how I spend my time.

  2. Ben Wright says

    Andy, you might want to check your context statement #4. SES is definitely not one of the six SBC seminaries. It could be affiliated with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, or maybe there’s some other kind of relationship, but I’ve never heard anything to indicate that either is the case.

  3. says

    Hi Andy. I’m Mike’s son-in-law and I appreciate you writing this. On my own blog, I’ve done much writing on this topic. The way Geisler has handled this is a disgrace to the Christian community. Evangelicals should be stating clearly what they think about this and how real scholarly discussions should take place.

    • says

      Nick, does Geisler argue that that all genres must be historical in nature? What about parables, or aspects of poetry? Must Job 38-41 be historical account of the architecture of creation?
      I just can’t see any other way to make a genre suggestion as your father-in-law did, and to go from there to questioning Inerrancy. I don’t happen to agree about this passage, but Apocalypse is a legitimate genre, and there are some genre markers in the passage that might suggest it.
      And why is Norm Geisler critiquing a biblical scholar on his literary criticism? I just don’t understand.
      My guess is that either: 1) there is more to Licona’s views than just that passage; or 2) Geisler and Al Mohler are deciding based on their culture-bound studies what the Bible should be rather than letting it be what it says it is.

      • says

        Andy. Everything about Licona’s views can be found in his book. Geisler has been the one who has had a problem with it and others jumped on the bandwagon. I think #2 is definitely in effect. It’s also been pointed out to Geisler that William Lane Craig holds the exact same view and has for years and yet, Craig gets a free pass. I suspect there is something more going on behind the scenes on Geisler’s part.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *