I have a USDA conference this week, so I'm pleased to host Nick Peters' latest report on the latest Geisler shenanigans. The Ticker will return next week otherwise.
**
Norman Geisler has done it again. He still seems under the
impression that since he is commenting on something and he is the evangelical
pope, then his word is authoritative, without stopping to realize how that
statement will look to people in the field who study it.
An example from the apologetics field we can often see can
be found in objections to the Trinity. Jews, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses
have all asked me, “If Jesus is God, was He praying to Himself?” I could
understand someone being taught the Trinity for the first time wondering about
that, but if someone wants to argue against the idea, such a claim does not
show real in-depth study of the topic, but complete ignorance of the topic.
In his latest rant against Mike Licona, who for all we know
might have been snoring too loudly at night this time around, Geisler has
sought the authority of the early church fathers (ECF). It is a wonder that
more authority is needed besides all the (cough) scholars (cough)
of the ICBI (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy), but this is
Geisler’s main game. A great man has spoken. All be silent!
In Geisler’s rant, one will never come across a discussion
of Mike’s arguments. Geisler is banking on the fact that his readers will never
bother interacting with them. I recall a discussion with a Geislerite one time
where he told me I needed to read Geisler’s Systematic Theologies and Inerrancy that he edited and then get back to me. I told him I had already
read them (which is true) and was ready to discuss. I never got a reply. I have
no doubt this person never bothered to read Mike’s book and never will.
Geisler will keep going and pointing out all of his
arguments without responding to his critics, all the while expecting his
critics to respond to him or, if they do, like myself, JPH, Max Andrews, etc.,
then ignore them and hope that they go away, kind of like what happened with
the Ergun Caner debacle. The authoritarian tactics are all we see.
For now, I am going to be dealing with just one part of
Geisler’s rant. I can assure the reader that there will be soon (I am having
someone fact-checking one) on my blog a fuller response. A link to my blog can
be found below and my readers can know that this is a blog that JPH would recommend that
you follow. For all interested, one can do a web search for Mike Licona (and in
the interest of fairness, for all who don’t know, I will state what could be
seen as bias upfront in saying that he is my father-in-law) and read the
arguments I have up on my blog, arguments Geisler has never responded to.
What is it that Geisler has said that will be dealt with?
The following:
Further, it is highly unlikely that a resurrection story
would be influenced by a Greco-Roman genre source (which Licona embraces) since
the Greeks did not believe in the resurrection of the body (cf. Acts 17:32).
In fact, bodily resurrection was contrary to their dominant belief that
deliverance from the body, not a resurrection in the body, was of
the essence of salvation. Homer said death is final and resurrection does
not occur (Iliad 24.549-551). Hans-Josef Klauck declared, “There
is nowhere anything like the idea of Christian resurrection in the Greco-Roman
world” (The Religious Context of Early Christianity. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2000, p. 151)
It is hard to know where to begin with a statement like
this. It would certainly be news to scholars like N.T. Wright, Richard
Bauckham, Richard Burridge, and others. Geisler must think he has discovered
something that Licona does not know or any other NT scholars. Are they unaware
that the Greeks did not believe in resurrection? (Interesting, since N.T.
Wright says the Greeks were quite clear on that point in The Resurrection of
the Son of God.)
In Volume 6, Number 1, of the Christian Apologetics Journal,
Thomas Howe, who was one of Geisler’s students and is a professor at Southern
Evangelical Seminary, wrote a piece called “Does Genre Determine Meaning?” His
conclusion is that it does not. Instead, it enhances meaning. We agree with
this. Normally, one would think Geisler would, yet this idea seems to go
against it. It cannot be a Greco-Roman genre, because it has a resurrection in
it.
Geisler is saying it could not be influenced by a
Greco-Roman source. Why not? Are we to say the Christians lived in this culture
entirely yet none of their writing or thinking was influenced by their
surrounding culture? In a sense of course, we are not to think like the
culture, but we do often speak the way the culture speaks and write the way the
culture writes. If we want to express ourselves to a culture, we need to speak
in a way the culture understands. It does no good to go to people who speak
only Arabic and give the gospel in English.
Furthermore, Geisler should know that the terminology of the
early church was influenced by Greek philosophical ideas. Who would doubt that
Justin Martyr was influenced by Plato? Tertullian, the very one who said “What
has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” was influenced by the Latin rhetorical style
of his day. Augustine was heavily influenced by Neo-Platonism. Aquinas was
heavily influenced by Aristotle. The Jesuits said that the Greek philosophers
were gifts to the church and we should take what is true from their thought and
use it to spread the gospel.
Yet none of these thinkers were determined by what
influenced them. Plato held to a concept of reincarnation as a likely idea in Phaedo yet Augustine certainly did not hold to this. Aristotle said that
there was no after-life, yet Aquinas certainly denied this. Instead, Augustine
and Aquinas both took a style of thinking and methodology for uncovering truth
and used them in the service of the gospel.
In the same way, the gospel writers used a style of writing
that was known to their writers and adapted their writing to fit into that. It
would be a way that the audience would understand and keep in mind, most likely
the audience would not read what they wrote. Instead, most of them would hear
what was written and the story would be told by someone skilled in the art who
would add the necessary nuances and such to his delivery to make sure the point
came across. This would be expected in a high-context society.
What Geisler is doing is saying, “If the genre style is
Greco-Roman, all the beliefs must be Greco-Roman.” Genre styles do not have
beliefs. Authors do. Authors express themselves through different styles and
the genre is not a straitjacket. The style is just that.
It does not matter if the Greeks disbelieved in
resurrection. If every Greek believed in a resurrection, that does not mean
that the way they wrote or their genres would have changed. That could change the content, but
it would not change the means of communication. One can find many places in the
ancient world where there is wisdom literature, but that does not mean that
Proverbs cannot be wisdom literature since it has a different basis. There are
many creation accounts in the ancient world, but that does not mean Genesis is
not one since it has different beliefs in it.
Comments like this indicate that Geisler is out of touch
with the NT field. In fact, it is news to him that so many scholars believe
this about the NT. Unfortunately, his ignorance of the field is also affecting
those who follow him and will unfortunately get them in a retreat mode from the
scholarship. For the sake of argument, it could be correct that the Gospels are
not Greco-Roman biographies. Some people see Luke as different for instance.
There could be further evidence to change our minds that comes out in the
future. We should always be open to that.
The mistake of Geisler is using a simplistic objection much
like the one against the Trinity. It is absurd to think that no NT scholar has
realized that Greeks do not believe this and Geisler presents it as if it is a
devastating critique. If Geisler wants to argue against the possibility he
needs to look at the opposing arguments and not just his own. Does he think
Burridge is wrong? Then read Burridge and come back and say why he is wrong.
Present a scholarly argument where his positions are stated and his arguments
stated and then dealt with. Then, accept JPH’s challenge on the genre of the
Gospels. (Link below)
We can expect neither of these will be done. There is no need
after all. A great man has spoken. Who cares about the evidence? Let all be
silent in submission.
No comments:
Post a Comment