“It is question that is outside of my expertise: I don’t know whether Dr. Licona’s interpretation is more likely to be correct than Dr. Mohler’s and Dr. Geisler’s or not.”

This statement above is not clear to me, because it follows your paragraph where you are referring to Licona’s statement where he says (his apocalyptic, non-historical) interpretation seems most plausible to him . Are you referring to Licona’s actual statement about Matt. 27:52-53, or to the broader question of whether his view can be considered within the bounds of inerrancy, in your statement above?

If the latter, then this is what the critique by Geisler and Mohler have engendered debate on, a debate that within the larger context of the renewed attack on the authority of the Word of God, is proper and healthy. If the former, then my questions about where you want to draw the line on what is miraculous and what is not, and the implied ‘I don’t need to know right now’, or ‘I’ll wait to render my opinion to some future time when all the experts weigh in”, seems inconsistent and arbitrary with all other opinions you do want to come down in favor of or against, and speaks, in my opinion, to a duality of epistemology. Yes, I’m being somewhat critical here brother. I wish we could sit down together over a cup of coffee or an ice cold beer face to face and talk about these things. So, go ahead, and tell me I’ve got it all wrong, but please know I pray only the best for you.

Observations:

o “Enforcement” appears to be lacking at times.

o Has Dr. Beckwith ever noticed Catholic clergy practicing interpretive pluralism of formal Magisterial doctrine?

———

With regards to Authorial Intent, suppose Matthew 27:52-53 was a historical event and both the Divine Author and His inspired human author Matthew intended people to understand it as a historical event. And that whether it had apocalyptic underpinnings or aspects to this factual event was subsidiary or secondary to the intent of the Author that it be known and understood as a historical event.

Granting this, if people were later led to believe that Matthew 27:52-53 was a non-historical event, what is the degree of damage that’s being done to Authorial intent, and more importantly, to the souls of people who then use the arguments of de-historicization to de-historicize other parts of the Bible that were meant to be understood as history?

Amen. I had forgotten how frustrating it was to argue with people who have all the answers but keep asking irrelevant questions.

I feel more heat here than necessary, but still there are some very good comments overall.

Michael Bauman’s #38 comment is especially excellent and should be noted with the caveat that (as far as I know) though apocalyptic literature generally is oriented toward the future, it can be used to reveal something deeper about the present and past.

Steve Drake is right that Licona meant “apocalyptic symbol” for Matthew 27: 52-53 to indicate a non-historical revealing, though he also admits (due to recent research) the possibility of it being a literally historical and apocalyptic description

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.

(bold mine)

As a side note, it would be useful to remind readers of the point of apocalyptic literature. One major purpose of it is to reveal to our imagination the true nature of what has become to us “ordinary” reality. As Christians, because we understand the true nature of reality to be inextricably tied to its eschatological future in Christ, apocalypse is rightly associated primarily with the future. But apocalyptic literature can be revelatory with respect to the present and past as well because the future has broken into the past and present in the resurrected Christ, and for the pastoral reason that God’s present and past workings can become obscured to us.

It is through apocalyptic literature’s re-framing and use of strange or highly sensory imagery that it re-vivifies our imagination which so easily loses a heart-level sense of God’s working within history (past, present and future). Frequently (especially in a disenchanted world), it takes such a refreshing of our imagination to “see anew” the reality of God’s presence in history and our lives. Literally historical descriptions can work as apocalypse (e.g. miracles and attendant language) as can non-strictly historical descriptions (likely Revelation).

peace and patience,

I think this discussion illustrates why some of us in the wider Christian community would like to think of ourselves as evangelicals and inerrantists but shy away from the terms because of the odious tactics of those who have appointed themselves as arbiters of what is and is not acceptable under some very narrow standards of interpretation.

And I object to the public manner in which they criticized Licona.

I did not (I repeat) deny the historicity of the New Testament. I didn’t even bring it up for discussion. Please read the end of the original post once again.