Monday, September 12, 2011

Hubner on Licona

Interestingly, some Christians who are known for defending the faith have actually conceded to liberals on the historicity of the risen bodies in Matthew 27:52-53, though not on the historicity of other things like the crucifixion or resurrection. Mike Licona has recently gotten into a fiasco with Christian apologist Norman Geisler. Licona denies that this particular event happened.

Hubner’s claim is out-of-date. While that's an accurate statement of Licona's position in the book, he has subsequently modified his position, which was publicized two days before Hubner's post, both on Facebook (which Wintery Knight reproduced, with permission) as well as his son-in-law's blog:

Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.

Hubner might still take issue with Licona's current multiple-choice interpretation, but that's different from saying "Licona denies that this particular event happened." 

1 comment:

  1. It isn't accurate to say he does it as a concession to liberals. He does it based on a long study he's involved right now in Greco-Roman literature reading all the biographies he can.