Uploaded November 2024 | Updated September 2026, 6 days ago
In this video I respond carefully to the unfortunate and incorrect comparison that Dr. Licona has recently made between Mark's hyperbolic language in Mark 1:5 (that all Jerusalem and Judea was coming out to be baptized by John) and the fact-changing literary devices that I have argued the Gospel authors did not use. Licona has literally said that Mark is "changing the facts" in that verse, which is not the case. Mark's statement there is a recognizable figure of speech the semantic meaning of which is merely that many people in these regions were coming out to hear and be baptized by John.
In contrast, if John changed the day of the crucifixion or Matthew changed the location of the Sermon on the Mount, the semantic meaning of the stories in their Gospels really would be different from the historical facts. These would not be recognizable figures of speech.
I make this clear in various ways by showing how it relates to the analogy of a movie based on true events.
In fact, I emphasize that it would be possible to *agree* with me that "fact changing" is an accurate description of these alleged compositional devices while *disagreeing* with me about whether they occurred.
Clarity is so important. Christians who are scholars ought to strive *especially* hard to speak clearly and not to confuse people about what their, and their opponents', views are. Poor analogies only hinder clear thinking.
Check out _The Mirror or the Mask_ on the arguments about whether the Gospels are in a genre like movies based on true events:
amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1
Here is the most recent video in which Licona makes this comparison:
youtube.com/watch?v=-4cuWoY_p9g
Thumbnail courtesy of Freebibleimages.org
In this video I respond carefully to the unfortunate and incorrect comparison that Dr. Licona has recently made between Mark's hyperbolic language in Mark 1:5 (that all Jerusalem and Judea was coming out to be baptized by John) and the fact-changing literary devices that I have argued the Gospel authors did not use. Licona has literally said that Mark is "changing the facts" in that verse, which is not the case. Mark's statement there is a recognizable figure of speech the semantic meaning of which is merely that many people in these regions were coming out to hear and be baptized by John.
In contrast, if John changed the day of the crucifixion or Matthew changed the location of the Sermon on the Mount, the semantic meaning of the stories in their Gospels really would be different from the historical facts. These would not be recognizable figures of speech.
I make this clear in various ways by showing how it relates to the analogy of a movie based on true events.
In fact, I emphasize that it would be possible to *agree* with me that "fact changing" is an accurate description of these alleged compositional devices while *disagreeing* with me about whether they occurred.
Clarity is so important. Christians who are scholars ought to strive *especially* hard to speak clearly and not to confuse people about what their, and their opponents', views are. Poor analogies only hinder clear thinking.
Check out _The Mirror or the Mask_ on the arguments about whether the Gospels are in a genre like movies based on true events:
amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1
Here is the most recent video in which Licona makes this comparison:
youtube.com/watch?v=-4cuWoY_p9g
Thumbnail courtesy of Freebibleimages.org
