For those unfamiliar with the current inerrancy debate, Mike Licona with his “flexible-inerrancy” view have been on the march for quite a while now. Challenging the traditional view that Scripture is without error in all matters to which it speaks - historical, factual, and/or theological, he purports that while “inerrant” in its teaching, Scripture cannot be so in all other matters.
In summary, Licona equates the Gospels with ancient Greco-Roman biography, and while that doesn’t sound so bad, it must be noted that this genre includes literary devices of the day with errors, contradictions, intentional fabrications, and even a bit of legend in tow.[1] In other words, Licona asserts that since the aforementioned literary devices were both common and acceptable in the ancient world then they should also be acceptable in the Gospels as presumed parts of the same genre. He states forthrightly in his book, Jesus, Contradicted, “Although this book will not be addressing the historical reliability of the Gospels, I will be showing there that the claim that the Gospels are not reliable accounts of Jesus because of their many contradictions should be abandoned (Jesus, Contradicted 6, emphasis added) - Translation, “‘many contradictions’ in Scripture, just like in Greco-Roman biography – no problem.”
I am convinced that Licona’s “flexible inerrancy” view that Scripture is “true” in its “teachings” but not necessarily in historical or factual matters stands in stark contrast to the broader historical context in which the Gospels emerged with this same context, serving as as sufficient buffer against the kind of literature into which Licona forces the them. To be discussed in more detail in my upcoming book, Mike Licona, Contradicted, we can draw a vivid historical line between Israel’s post-exilic move back to Jerusalem and the first century educational structure and content under which Jesus and the disciples emerged. This historical incubator yielded not only the influential educational environment into which they were born but also the resulting messianic expectations so prevalent in first century Judaism and beyond. So, not only does Licona’s equation of the Gospels with ancient Greco-Roman biography stand in utter contrast to the first century Jewish worldview, but the more I read his work the more contradictions I find in his view.
We begin with an interview Licona had with Frank Turek because therein Licona distinguished ancient biography from its modern counterpart with an all-inclusive statement about the first century genre. “That's the way that they wrote back then,” he said, “they were entirely authorized to do this kind of stuff. They just didn't write like modern biographers” (emphasis added). In other words, the ancient genre to which Licona refers, here, is distinguishable from modern biography. While modern biography is more concerned with accuracy, the ancient genre both used and accepted certain literary devices rejected today. According to him first century Greco-Roman biography was laden with error, fabrications, and contradictions as an integral part of its type, and as he argues throughout his book, the Gospels follow suit.
Notice his wording carefully. He did not say, as some wrote back then, or as many, or even most wrote back then, but rather, “That’s the way they wrote back then,” he told Turek as if no such modern-like biography existed in that day. On the heels of this comprehensive statement, however, is where we find the problem. Just as he categorically declared the non-existence of anything resembling modern biography, he laughingly dismissed the name of one ancient biographer who did, in fact, write more like modern biographers. Said Licona of Asconius,
There's only one who wrote like modern historians, biographers, and that guy's name is Asconius, who wrote around the same time as when Paul was executed. Now, most people will never even have heard of Asconius. And the reason being is because people didn't care about him, because he was writing in a manner that people just didn't value back then. That's not what they wanted.[2]
Now back to my point. Contrary to Licona’s forthright and all-inclusive claim that ancient biographers did not write like their modern counterparts, we find that someone, in fact, actually did. Therein lies the contradiction. In other words, they did not write like modern biographers back then but then they did write like modern biographers.
Further, and after an elementary online search for Asconius, the reason for Licona’s hesitancy to give more credence to the ancient historian makes perfect sense. According to one source, for example, Asconius was noted for his reliability and primary source citations. In fact, Oxford Bibliographies tells us specifically that, Asconius conducted meticulous research and is noted for his reliability. He consulted primary sources such as the official state archives (Acta) and other writings produced in the age of Cicero. He often cites his sources and occasionally even confesses that his research proved fruitless on a particular topic.[3]
With such credibility as an ancient historian it makes perfect sense for Licona to amusingly dismiss Asconius as he does. Otherwise, his argument suffers.
Another source concurs. In a short overview of the first century biographer, “Biographs” pithily summarizes Asconius’ life and notes that not only are his works “highly valued by historians and scholars alike” - modern scholars, that is - but “they provide valuable insights into the political and legal landscape of Rome during Cicero’s time.”[4]
Asconius, then, is not near as insignificant as Licona implies and that leads to at least four conclusions. First, and contrary to his forthright claim that “they” did not write like modern biographers, examples of ancient historians/biographers who wrote more like their modern counterparts do indeed exist. In other words, Asconius contradicts Licona, and second, other concurrent works within that same ancient genre with varying degrees of accuracy were also written. Licona, himself, concedes this fact. He admits the disparity in accuracy among both historians and biographers of the ancient genre. This means, of course, that some were indeed more concerned with accurate reporting than others, with Asconius apparently leading the way on the more exact side. Said Licona in the introduction to his first book on the issue,
Ancient historians and biographers varied in their commitment to historical accuracy. Whereas Tacitus is regarded as a fairly accurate historian, Lucian of Samosata reported that when the Greek historian Aristobulus of Cassandreia read to Alexander a story he had invented concerning a battle between Alecxander and Porus, in which Alexander had single-handedly killed an elephant, Alexander discarded the book and said that Aristobulus should be treated in like manner.[5]
Noting the precision gaps between the above two authors, i.e. Tacitus and Aristobulus, Licona continues by marking the significant gap between the accuracies of Plutarch’s Lives…and the inaccuracies of Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius of Tyana, a combination of history and fiction.[6] Again, the former, Plutarch, appears higher on the accuracy spectrum than the latter, Philostratus. Despite this wide range of accuracy within Greco-Roman biography, Licona still chose Plutarch as his genre model for the Gospels.
But why?
Why did he choose Plutarch over other works with various degrees of precision?
His reasons are stated in Why Are There Differences in the Gospels,” and amounts to the structural similarities between Plutarch’s works and the Gospels, but this is hardly grounds for the full comparison he makes between them.[7] As such, his pick of Plutarch seems a bit arbitrary or, as noted below, a prime example of “genre-mining.”
Third and as revealing is the apparent “genre mining” practiced by Licona. Similar to the process of taking a quote out of context to make a point, a method called “quote mining,” Licona’s use of Plutarch is genre mining. In other words, he rips Plutarch from the broader array of ancient biographies available. Rather than considering the entire genre with the various degrees of accuracy therein, he chooses Plutarch who, per Bart Ehrman, is one of the most unreliable of the bunch[8] as the Gospels’ model. In other words, despite the fact that other Greco-Roman works, like Asconius, varied in reliability, he picked Plutarch as his comparative plum line.
Finally, even if the Gospels were part of the first century Greco-Roman class, the wide gaps in accuracy from work to work would leave logical room for an accurate recording of the life of Christ – more like Asconius, perhaps. Afterall, structure is not causal. Just because the Gospels and Plutarch’s Lives share structural similarities, for example, said structure does not cause the accuracy or inaccuracies therein. Licona, then, makes a significant leap from style to factual reliability in his conflation of the two. With Asconius in mind, then, Licona’s claims that “they” did not write like modern biographers back then coupled with his admission that someone did indeed do so, is an outright contradiction. Either they did or did not. He cannot have it both ways.
Further and as indicting to his view is the way he rips Plutarch’s Lives from the broader Greco-Roman genre as the model for the Gospels with all of its issues in tow. His insistence that the Gospels’ contain contradictions, error, and/or intentional fabrications as Plutarch does, overlooks the importance of the broader literary context. I am convinced, then, that despite his blanket claim Licona is contradicted by Asconius as an example of an ancient author who did indeed write more like modern historians/biographers, thus adding to the problems with his position.
[1] Licona’s considers the raising of certain saints at the Jesus’s death a possible mixing of apocalyptic legend, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, (185-186).
[2] Licona, “Cross Examined,” https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/6.11-Podcast-What-Does-Biblical-Inerrancy-Really-Mean.pdf
[3] John T. Ramsey, Oxford Bibliographies, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0408.xml)
[5] Mike Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn … p. 6
[6] Licona, Differences, p. 6
[7] Licona, Differences, pp. 3-4
[8] Bart Ehrman quoted from F. David Farnell, “Defending Inerrancy, A Critique of Licona’s Why are there Differences?” https://defendinginerrancy.com/a-review-of-liconas-why-are-there-differences/#post-3035-footnote-ref-24 December 29, 2016
Comentários