From Friend to Friend: My View on Lydia McGrew’s The Mirror or the Mask, and Why Mike Licona Won’t Want to Ignore It

This has been a tough one for me from the beginning. I write this blog post soberly and with much prayer behind it.

Mike Licona and Lydia McGrew, both friends of mine, have been engaged (if that’s the word for it) in a strangely one-sided scholarly dispute over reasons for differences in the Gospels. Mike has presented his view in his book Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. Lydia has answered him, strictly online to date. But in a guest post here on Thinking Christian, Mike publicly stated he intends to ignore what she has to say. He cites her “less than charitable” tone and (elsewhere) her lack of credentials in the field as reasons. So I’m not sure Mike would even considered this a one-sided “scholarly” given that he doesn’t recognize her as a scholar in the relevant field.

It will soon be hard for my friend Mike to continue seeing her that way. Her new book The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices is available for pre-order now, carrying endorsements from at least one of the scholars Mike named in the aforementioned guest post, Craig Blomberg. The highly notable scholars J.P. Moreland, Peter J. Williams, and John Warwick Montgomery have also endorsed the book.

I’ve read an advance copy, and I find it reinforces a recommendation I’ve given Mike previously: He would not be wise to ignore what she’s saying. Why? I had one set of reasons when I wrote that recommendation, but this time I must add that it’s because she’s persuaded me she’s right: and Mike’s explanations for the Gospels’ differences do not hold up to scrutiny. Her book creates a strong and believable impression that she’s left no stone unturned. She’s covered all the issues and dealt with them quite knowledgeably.

I’m no scholar in the field. I recognize that. Does it matter that she’s persuaded me, when I could be be wrong myself? I think it does: not because my opinion should or would influence the scholarly debate, but because this debate cannot be simply for the scholars. It has serious pastoral ramifications.

What’s at Stake Here

We need to be clear on what’s at stake here, for which I’ll begin by stating what isn’t. Both Mike and Lydia take the Gospels to be true accounts of Jesus’ life. Both are fully persuaded of his deity, his perfect wisdom, his death for our sins, and his resurrection. They have no disagreement over the basic outlines of Christ’s life, or the need to trust in him for eternal salvation. These are not in question.

There’s plenty of dispute however, over matters that thousands of preachers are undoubtedly preaching on this very Sunday. Are these pastors getting their sermons wrong? That’s the question at stake, or at least one part of it, because if Mike’s view of the Gospels is right, then they’re all getting it wrong — seriously wrong.

At the risk of over-simplifying, Mike puts Gospel differences down to ancient writers’ and readers’ expectations. They all knew, he says, that writers in the first-century crafted biographies to communicate a true message without necessarily stating events the way you’d have seen or heard them happening if you were there to observe. That was fine, because readers knew that was the way things were done. So what he has delivered is essentially a new hermeneutic, a new way of determining what conclusions we can authentically draw from the Gospel texts. This is not trivial. His hermeneutic puts large portions of Jesus’ words in question.

Lydia’s answer, in short, starts with showing there is little to no evidence supporting the idea that the ancients read biographies that way. She shows there are far better ways to explain differences in the Gospels. And she demonstrates clearly and with multiple examples how Mike’s approach leaves us knowing very little for sure about what Jesus did or said on multiple occasions.

It’s not that Mike thinks the Gospels are wrong, but rather that we’re reading them wrong. When we read Jesus say, “I thirst,” we tend to think it means “I’m thirsty.” Mike says it means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” In the Fourth Gospel, John actually changed the day several events happened, to support the theology he had worked out by the time of his writing. If you find it strange that Jesus’ own life and teaching needed such revising to be good enough, so do I.

McGrew’s Credentials Established Through Her Work

Mike has chosen to ignore Lydia’s criticisms, for two main reason: He sees her tone as combative and her NT scholarly credentials as inadequate. That’s his opinion, and it’s open to disagreement on both counts.

Admittedly I’ve seen Lydia with a bone in her teeth. She can be quite dogged with her convictions. Maybe that seems combative, maybe it’s even crossed the line to becoming actually combative at times. You will find none of that, however, in The Mirror or the Mask. Nothing comes across as overstated, nothing is overly pointed, nothing the least bit unkind. It’s straightforwardly factual, moving from points of evidence to reasoned conclusions. She names names at times, but never out of proportion to the evidence and reasoning.

As for her credentials, if they were in doubt before, the overwhelmingly thorough research behind this book should settle that question for good. The book is massively detailed, to the degree that one might think it must also be massively boring. Quite the opposite, I’m happy to say. Maybe you’ve never encountered a lengthy work of scholarship that was carefully supported and carefully reasoned at every step, and was also completely enjoyable to read. I hadn’t either. Now I have, and now’s your chance.  She keeps it amazingly interesting throughout.

Did I mention, though, she includes a lot of detail? A lot of highly specific information? That was an understatement.  She scours the field like a search-and-rescue team trying to find a lost puppy, looking under every leaf and rock. Sometimes twice. Sometimes more. And she puts that detail to work, forming a case that’s both reasoned and persuasive.

Persuasive, Yes. To Whom?

But now I must return to the great question: Persuasive to whom?

Well, to me, for one. That means she’s persuasive to at least one very well-read, highly capable non-expert — precisely the kind of person Mike Licona cannot afford to ignore. It’s not because of who I am, but because of the many like me I represent.

While I am not an expert in NT scholarship, it’s a fair guess that my knowledge is at least as great as that of the average pastor. It’s also fair to say that very, very few pastors who read Mike’s material will be qualified to judge the work on its merits. Not even seminary students would be, or even most of their profs, those who work in other fields like church history, practical ministry, leadership, philosophy, or preaching.

So if Lydia McGrew doesn’t have the necessary qualifications, then almost no one does. No one, that is, except the small circle who have the New Testament credentials Mike insists on. People inside that guild will talk to each other, naturally, and it can be all very scholarly there, which is fine. Biblical scholarship has pastoral ramifications, however. If we don’t know Jesus’ actual words, even in close approximation, shouldn’t preachers quit saying we do? What will the scholars advise the pastors? Do the scholars even see their pastoral responsibilities here?

Taken from another perspective, Mike may have an even greater problem. Lydia’s view is bound to be especially persuasive to every evangelical who wants to think it’s safe to believe that Jesus said what the Gospels say he said, and that he did what the Gospels say he did. If Mike thinks the wider body of Christ should take his work seriously, he has to take the wider body of Christ seriously, not only in pastoral terms but also in persuasive terms. It won’t be an easy sell, that’s for sure.

Well Research, Documented, Reasoned

It will be especially hard with readers who set Lydia’s work alongside his for comparison. I did mention detail, didn’t I? Lydia dives into seemingly every detail in Mike’s work — and other scholars’ besides — and digs out even more information from elsewhere to go with it all. There’s no lack of data here, no hiding, no bluffing. Does Mike tell us there’s support for his theory in ancient writing workbooks? Lydia dives in the full distance, and with mounds of actual data shows that Mike’s theory doesn’t have near the support he claims it has. Does Mike say Plutarch’s writing demonstrates he uses “literary devices” to alter his narrative? She examines those instances in Plutarch, and once again presents a convincing argument that Mike’s conclusions lack support. Does Mike speak about apparent discrepancies between Gospel accounts? She takes those alleged discrepancies seriously, one by one, and shows how Mike’s approach is neither then only nor the best way to handle them.

Thus she proceeds, from beginning to end. Everything in the book simply shouts research, documentation, evidence, and reasoning, covering all the ground Mike covers and more.

My Recommendation, in Brotherly Love

But who am I? Not a scholar in the field. I could be wrong. I’m not credentialed; I’m just a well-read Christian thinker. That’s exactly who Lydia has demonstrated she can persuade with a work like this. Mike can no longer afford to ignore Lydia, because he can’t afford to ignore well-read Christian thinkers like me who I am quite sure will find Lydia’s view more believable.

That’s not to say that he couldn’t present counter-arguments. He might persuade me back again. I certainly hope he’ll answer, as he has not chosen to do so far. (It is largely because of that choice, I’m told, that Lydia is releasing this book without obtaining his comments in advance.)

I write this, as always, as a friend of his.  For his own good I call on  him to publish his answer, showing Lydia’s research in this book the same respect she shows his: examining it closely, and responding with data and sound reasoning.

I know Mike well enough to be sure that when he responds it will be in brotherly love. For that, however, he and his colleagues must open up conversation with her. She is not to be ignored.

And neither is the rest of the Church. This is no mere scholarly sideshow. There’s much at stake here. The outcome of this research, this scholarly dialogue (as it should be, if it hasn’t been already) will tell us whether and how reliably we can know what Jesus actually said, and what he actually did.

Mike has put questions on the table. Lydia has answered, and persuasively. The rest of us need them to work toward an answer, one in which all conservative, believing Christians can be confident. These are the deeds and words of Jesus we’re talking about. This matters. Mike dare not sweep the dialogue aside.