The issue, of course, is bigger than this particular text. The issue is has really become about Licona's committment to the innerancy of scripture and what it means to believe that scripture is "without error." Can a person hold to the inerrancy of scripture without adopting a rigid literalism regarding certain texts? The above article quotes the Chicago statement on inerrancy:
Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement makes this point with precision: “We
affirm that the text of the Scripture is to be interpreted by
grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and
devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of
any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to
relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its
claims to authorship.” Furthermore, the Chicago Statement requires that “history
must be treated as history.”
But this quote highlights a problem faced regularly in our exegesis of an inerrant text. A committment to grammatico-historical exegesis requires that we do in fact take into account the literary forms and devices of scripture - including figurative or symbolic language. Most everyone would agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are not being faithful to the intent of scripture to take the number 144,000 literally in the book of Revelation. But it's pretty noncontroversial (in most circles) to identify the language of Revelation as largely symbolic. But what about other genres like the gospels? Licona isn't questioning whether the text of Matthew 27 is true. He's questioning whether or not a literalistic interpretation is faithful to the text's intent. It's not as simple as saying, "I believe in inerrancy, so therefore, I believe the text to be literally true." The word "literally" has been smuggled into the definition and has had the effect of dramatically changing the definition. The bumper sticker cliche "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." may sound good to some. But it is not only naive, it also (ironically) undermines the authority of the text. A committment to inerrancy actually calls us to study and discuss the literary meaning of a text not just the literal meaning of a text. A committment to inerrancy calls us to robust and humble hermeneutics where Christians may actually disagree with how to take certain texts while agreeing theologically with each other about what scripture is. We simply disagree with the best way to understand it.
Maybe Licona's right and maybe he's wrong on this text. But what this controversy reveals is the danger of a simplistic and overly literalistic understanding of inerrancy. It is frightening that some are calling for him to be kicked out of the ETS simply because he doesn't walk lock-step (on this ONE text) with this rigid definition of inerrancy. My goodness. Is this all that it takes for us to disfellowship each other? Have mercy. (It's worth noting, by the way, that Licona is now rather agnostic about the text in question. He says that it may be literal or figurative. But apparently that's not good enough for some of his inquisitors.) I am committed to inerrancy, but it's no wonder that so many young theologians and students are so cynical about this whole issue in light of these types of witch hunts.
