This entire reasoning to me smacks of those who want to have the Bible inspired and inerrant just enough to be right on certain big issues, but Ok when it has some little errors in it. A way to accommodate some textual critics criticisms on what the scriptures actually state.I have seen all of her stuff on the issue. I am partially sympathetic to the concerns of Licona in his new book. Yet, the more I think about it even modern biographies differ just as much as ancient ones and so it becomes a no brainer that each would discuss what they feel is necessary even if they are intimately acquainted with prior ones. Unlike him I believe harmonization is quite doable. Heck if it wasn't why are people closer to the time period, who speak Greek and read Plutarch doing it?
They seem to deny inerrancy, and each have problems with the scriptures being the infallible witness of God to us.Thanks for reminding me about Licona. In Feb. 2014, Mike Licona posted a YouTube video in which he said and I quote, "Even if their were actual contradictions in the Gospels it wouldn't make a big difference in terms of the truth of Christianity." Licona then goes on to try to explain how compositional devices in the New Testament are akin to compositional devices used by Plutarch and are not the same kind of literal history we have today. He is wrong with regard to both Plutarch and the New Testament.
Both Licona and Evans have clearly departed from a Biblical understanding of the character of the Gospels