Getting Dr. Geisler right
(Originally published at What's Wrong With the World. Link to original post at 'permalink' below.)
Dr. Norman L. Geisler was one of the foremost defenders of the doctrine of inerrancy in the 20th and early 21st centuries. A tireless and prolific author, he was also an advocate of a rapprochement between evangelicalism and Thomistic philosophy. He passed away just this summer, on July 1, 2019.
One of the things that Dr. Geisler was known for in the years before his death was his set of serious objections to the literary device theories and genre criticism of evangelical apologist and scholar Michael Licona. Geisler held that Licona's views were incompatible with any doctrine of inerrancy worth the name and was alarmed by the redefinition of the term in a way that he believed rendered it meaningless. He wrote many articles on the subject and in fact got a bit of a name for himself as (allegedly) a witch hunter with a personal vendetta--a reputation that he (not surprisingly) disputed.
On Friday, October 11, Southern Evangelical Seminary hosted a dialogue between Michael Licona and Richard Howe (the latter being what one might call an old-fashioned inerrantist) on the question of what constitutes inerrancy. The video is available here. I make no claim whatsoever to have watched all of it, or even close.
At one point (about 23 minutes in), my name comes up in Dr. Licona's presentation, with a bit of snark about my not being an inerrantist--as, indeed, I am not and have made no secret of not being. Interestingly, this fact seems not to bother the inerrantist hard-liners nearly as much as it seems to bother Dr. Licona. The reference to my alleged "flat-footed literalism" is an unfortunately typical bit of rhetoric in lieu of answering my arguments. I've argued that Licona is wrong about the existence and the evangelists' use of fact-changing literary devices. Some of these arguments have existed for well over a year and a half in blog post form, but as a matter of public record, Licona refuses to engage with them. But I don't intend to talk about Licona's mention of me except extremely briefly. I'm more or less willing to regard it as free publicity. I will note further only that Licona continues to ignore my careful definition of the term "fictionalization." As I have said over and over again (see here and here), that term as I define it does not per se entail deceptiveness, though I do think that in fact the Gospel authors would have been deceptive if they had engaged in invisible factual change. That is because I also disagree (and have argued in detail for my position) with Licona's claim that the Gospel authors were writing in a genre like our biopics in which audiences expected invisible factual changes, though they couldn't tell where they arose. The term "fictionalization," however, is intended to include such movies, books, etc. See my many posts on this topic and read my forthcoming book, The Mirror or the Mask. And indeed we would unhesitatingly call such artistic productions in our own time "partially fictionalized," without necessarily intending any disparagement. I use the term "fictionalizing" as synonymous with "fact-changing." It refers to the fact that the alleged alterations in question are 1) invisible (the narratives appear realistic), 2) deliberate, 3) contrary to fact.
But that's not what this post is about. Instead, this post is about an eyebrow-raising representation of the views of Dr. Norman Geisler himself concerning chronology, which Licona uses to try to catch Dr. Howe. I'm glad to say that Howe patiently makes the relevant distinction and says that he would have to see the context of the quote from Dr. Geisler, thus avoiding any appearance of falling for a "gotcha."
Watch the video, beginning at about one hour and three minutes. Licona is talking about the narratives in Matthew and Mark of the cursing of the fig tree. He reads two sentences from this short "Bible Difficulties" article by Geisler, deliberately not saying who the author is. The two sentences are these:
Matthew, however, addresses the two trips of Christ to the temple as though they were one event. This gives the impression that the first day Christ entered the temple He drove out the buyers and sellers as well.
Howe pretty clearly does not recognize the author. As the dialogue continues, Licona eventually reveals that the author of the two sentences is Norman Geisler. Licona insists, and even explicitly repeats in the ensuing conversation, that these sentences mean that Dr. Geisler held that, in Matthew, Jesus cleansed the Temple on Sunday in Holy Week, contrary to fact and contrary to Mark, who implies that he cleansed the Temple on a later day.
In other words, Licona insists that Norman Geisler held that Matthew deliberately changed the chronology of Holy Week to something contrary to fact.
Now, to anyone who knows the history of the Geisler-Licona dispute, such a claim is simply astounding and highly implausible. Norman Geisler was adamantly, repeatedly, explicitly opposed to any notion that the Gospel authors deliberately changed the facts. The attempt to say that they wrote in a genre that permitted them to do so was the very basis of his objection to Licona's entire set of theories, and that such a view was incompatible with inerrancy (a doctrine for which Geisler would have cheerfully and unhesitatingly died) was a never-ending theme with him. On the face of it, such an interpretation of two sentences of Geisler's writing, sans context, is so improbable as to be incredible. Dr. Geisler would, I venture to say, have been as likely to be found standing on his head in the middle of Times Square whistling "I'll Fly Away" as to be found saying that Matthew or any other evangelist deliberately changed chronology in his Gospel to make it contrary to fact.
Here we must make a distinction that I have made over and over again, and that Licona persistently ignores. This is the distinction between achronological narration and dyschronological narration. In the former, an author narrates events out of order or briefly, leaving out details, and may accidentally give the impression that something happened in a way that it did not happen, but such a misunderstanding is a mere accident if it occurs. The author or speaker is not trying to give the impression that events happened in a way contrary to fact.
In the dialogue, Dr. Howe illustrates achronological narration (in this case achronological compression) by imagining himself phoning his mother to tell her about the conference and narrating briefly in a way that might accidentally make her think that several events all happened on the first day of the conference, when he was merely being inexplicit. If, on the other hand, he said explicitly that events happened on the first day of the conference when those events happened on the second day, that would be dyschronological narration. While Howe doesn't use that terminology (which is my invention), both he and Frank Turek (the moderator) point out this distinction to Licona.
With that in mind, here is the context of the two sentences from Geisler:
PROBLEM: Matthew places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing of the temple. But Mark places the cursing before the temple was cleansed. But, it cannot be both. Did one Gospel writer make a mistake?SOLUTION: Jesus actually cursed the fig tree on His way to the temple as Mark said, but this does not mean that Matthew’s account is mistaken. Christ made two trips to the temple, and He cursed the fig tree on His second trip.
Mark 11:11 says that Christ entered the temple the day of His triumphal entry. When Christ enters the temple, Mark does not mention Christ making any proclamations against any wrongdoing. Verse 12 says “Now the next day,” referring to the trip to the fig tree on the way to the temple on the second day. On this day, Christ threw out those buying and selling in the temple. Matthew, however, addresses the two trips of Christ to the temple as though they were one event. This gives the impression that the first day Christ entered the temple He drove out the buyers and sellers as well. Mark’s account, however, gives more detail to the events, revealing that there were actually two trips to the temple. In view of this, we have no reason to believe that there is a discrepancy in the accounts.
One may fairly say that this is somewhat too brief and does not directly address Matthew's reversed order in narrating the cleansing and Jesus' first encounter with the fig tree. If someone other than Geisler had written it, one might say that the explanation is somewhat ambiguous as between achronological and dyschronological narration. This is why everyone should start being much, much more explicit about that crucial distinction when discussing such matters. But the reference to Mark's account as "giving more detail" and "revealing that there were actually two trips" indicates that Geisler is taking Matthew to be narrating achronologically and leaving out this additional detail. In any event, one certainly cannot and should not say with any confidence that this short article attributes dyschronological narration to Matthew.
Despite the greater context of the article, and even despite the fact that Howe and Turek emphasize the distinction between deliberately and accidentally giving a contrary-to-fact impression, Licona does not correct or even for a moment doubt his interpretation of Geisler. On the contrary, he literally says, of moving the event to a different day, "Norm did this with Matthew." He also says, "I think it's pretty clear in Matthew that the cleansing took place on Sunday, and this is something that Norm and his [Richard Howe's] brother Tom agree on and numerous evangelicals say the same thing."
Permit me to express some doubt. I'm hoping to get in touch with Thomas Howe, who is still alive, to put the achronological/dyschronological distinction to him and to ask him if he would attribute the former or the latter to Matthew in the cursing of the fig tree. (Thomas Howe's health is poor and may make it impossible to obtain a statement from him on this or related topics.) I can't say about "numerous evangelicals," since they are unnamed. Certainly the persistent refusal on the part of Licona and other literary device theorists to make the distinction, and their use of evidence for achronological narration as if it supported dyschronological narration, has influenced some to get confused on the matter. We can perhaps hope that this doesn't yet extend to "numerous evangelicals."
As for Dr. Geisler's views, here is further evidence from his other writings about what he thought concerning chronological matters:
In his book Defending Inerrancy, co-written with Bill Roach, Geisler wrote critically concerning Clark Pinnock's attenuated concept of inerrancy. Geisler and Roach quote Pinnock as saying,
What could truly falsify the Bible would have to be something that could falsify the gospel and Christianity as well. It would have to be a difficulty that would radically call into question the truth of Jesus and his message of good news. Discovering some point of chronology in Matthew that could not be reconciled with a parallel in Luke would certainly not be any such thing….Inerrancy is a metaphor for the determination to trust God’s Word completely.
Geisler and Roach are having none of this as a concept of inerrancy. They say,
Here one sees the very weak “general” sense in which the word “inerrancy” is employed by Pinnock. It would have been more forthright simply to deny the term.
This seems highly relevant to any attempt to attribute a dyschronological interpretation of Matthew to Geisler.
Elsewhere in the book, Geisler and Roach praise a stricter definition of inerrancy on the grounds that
it “meant that the Bible is free from errors in matters of fact, science, history, and chronology…”
In discussing alleged Bible discrepancies more generally, Geisler makes the achronological/dyschronological distinction himself, though not with that terminology, concerning the stories of the temptations in the wilderness:
Sometimes there is a topical rearrangement of the snapshots in order to fit the theme of the Gospel writer. For example, Luke gives a different order of the temptation events than is found in Matthew. Matthew lists them as the temptation (1) to turn stones into bread, (2) to jump from the pinnacle of the temple, and (3) to worship Satan. But Luke reverses the last two. This fits both the grammar of the text and the purpose of Luke. Matthew uses the words “then” and “again” (4:5, 8) which indicate a chronological order, while Luke uses only “and” (Lk. 4:5, 9) to connect the events. So, Matthew lists them chronologically but Luke puts them climactically or topically, possibly to end on the high note of Jesus’ victory over Satan.
Note that here, when Geisler thinks that Matthew is clear about chronology, he takes that as decisive. It is because Luke is inexplicit, using only the word "and," that Geisler takes it that Luke may be narrating in an achronological fashion. And in this same article on various possible solutions to Bible discrepancies, Geisler again takes aim at the "genre criticism" that he so strongly opposed.
More tellingly still, Geisler expressly stated that Licona's own view that John changed the day of Jesus' crucifixion is incompatible with inerrancy.
Licona even goes so far as to affirm there is an error in the Gospels regarding on which day Jesus was crucified. He said “[John] may have changed the day and time of Jesus’ crucifixion in order to make a theological point.” Earlier in a debate with Bart Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary (Spring, 2009) he said, “I think that John probably altered the day [of Jesus’ crucifixion] in order for a theological—to make a theological point there.”But this is clearly contrary to the ICBI view of inerrancy which demands “the unity and internal consistency of Scripture” (Article XIV). Also, “We deny that later revelations…ever contradict it” (Article 5). We affirm the unity, harmony, and consistency of Scripture…. We deny that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or militates against another” (Hermeneutics Article XVII). WE affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all t.ruths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere…” (Hermeneutics Article XX).
If Geisler is adamant that it was contrary to inerrancy (and hence in his view false) to say that John changed the day of the crucifixion, it is extremely improbable that Geisler means to say that Matthew changed the day on which Jesus cleansed the Temple in Holy Week.
With all of this in hand, as well as the larger context of the two sentences Licona quotes, it is beyond doubt that Geisler meant to attribute achronological narration to Matthew, not dyschronological narration, as a solution to the difficulty of the fig tree.
One may, of course, find that solution unsatisfactory, but that's not the point here and now. The point here and now is that it is illegitimate to try to co-opt two sentences by one of the foremost defenders of unqualified inerrancy, even going so far as to say that he "agrees" that in Matthew the Temple cleansing takes place on Sunday, contrary to fact, when he does not say that at all.
What I find perhaps most disturbing is that Licona is so unequivocal and so insistent about this hugely improbable interpretation of Geisler. He never once stops and turns back and says, "Well, that's how those sentences read to me," acknowledging that this even could be a misunderstanding of Geisler, or "that's how I would interpret what Geisler says there, though I can see that you might interpret him as just saying that Matthew inadvertently gives a misimpression." Nothing of the kind. When Turek finally induces Licona even to acknowledge the distinction in question, Licona goes into his own reasons for not thinking that this was an accidental misimpression given by Matthew. That's certainly his prerogative to do. But that leaves uncorrected and unqualified his repeated claims that Geisler says that Matthew deliberately changed the day on which an event happened.
Norman Geisler has gone to be with the Lord, but I know that there are people who are very concerned, understandably, to preserve his legacy. Whether one agrees with him or not, it is only fair to represent his positions accurately. I find it a little surprising that Licona's new approach concerning Geisler, who opposed Licona's views to the last of his strength while he was alive, is to try now to interpret him as agreeing with Licona that Matthew used fact-changing literary devices. Such an interpretation should not be allowed to go unchallenged, in bare fairness to Geisler's memory.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment