Some people are getting upset with biblical scholar Michael Licona. Unfortunately, this is not the first time. The current controversy is over his new book: Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently.
Now I need to make something clear. I have not read Licona’s book (yet) and so I cannot critique or defend his position.
I can respond to what people have said. Some have said that Licona’s admission that there seems to be contradictions in the Bible, presumably the Gospels in particular, is a dangerous weakening of the defence of the Christian faith.
From what I know of Licona, I doubt he is questioning inerrancy. I suspect that he is acknowledging that if you look at all of the Gospels, that they present events in such a way that they could not have happened in exactly the same way that each Gospel describes them.
Even if that is not his exact thesis, it is one that I would put forward. For example, the synoptic Gospels put the cleansing of the temple at the end of Jesus’ ministry and John puts it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Some attempt to harmonize them by suggesting there were two cleansings. I believe it only happened once, and likely at the end as the synoptics describe it.
The differences between the Gospels could be described as contradictions, that is if we assume they are trying to give a precise and fully chronological description of the events of Jesus’ life. I don’t think they are.
It is not that the Gospels are full of errors. It is that they are not modern biographies and should not be held to modern standards. The Gospels correspond to the standards of the time and culture when they were written.
However, some people see this as a threat to inerrancy. Again, I am not saying that Licona questions inerrancy. But in this and his earlier controversy with Norman Geisler, people see a threat to inerrancy.
Even if it was demonstrated that the Bible was not inerrant, would that mean that we could not know anything about the events describe in it? Would an “error” in the timing of the cleansing of the temple mean we could not know for sure that Jesus rose from the dead?
I am not making a statement on inerrancy but I will say that we get along just fine with other sources even while knowing that they lack a stamp of inerrancy. Historians write textbooks and describe events with a level of certainty without using inerrant documents.
Even if inerrancy was not a thing, we could read the Gospels and get a very good sense of who Jesus is and what wants from his followers. We would be able to understand about the kingdom of God. We could be confident that Jesus died for us and rose again.
Is Michael Licona harming Christian apologetics, even by what people are assuming he wrote, by damaging our confidence in the Bible? Not at all. The truth is that seekers notice the contradictory details and insisting that they do not exist does not strengthen the case for Christianity.
I hope to read Licona’s book eventually. But right now, I see no reason for Christian apologists to see his work as dangerous. I actually think it is very helpful.
Please note that the link in this post is an Amazon link.
