Historical vs. Apocalyptic: A false dichotomy

I'm not really sure what to make of this. Tom Gilson at Evangel calls attention to a theological dispute between Michael Licona, author of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, and  two leading "inerrantists," Norman Geisler and Albert Mohler. I have a great deal of respect for Mohler and his concerns about Licona's interpretation of Matthew 27:52-53 are well taken and expressed in a charitable manner. Geisler, on the other hand, has a penchant for making mountains out of molehills and his objections appear more calculated to discourage, rather than encourage, debate.

The passage in question is a pretty straightforward account of events concurrent with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Licona, however, argues that Matthew's account of the raising of "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep" might be interpreted "figuratively" as a form of apocalyptic literature. It is a "tentative" view which Licona may want to revise upon further reflection. However, the controversy exposes a problem which needs to be addressed by advocates of biblical inerrancy. There appears to have emerged a false dichotomy between "historical" and "apocalyptic" literature.

Is Matthew's account of the resurrection of the saints any less "historical" because he uses "apocalyptic" language to describe it? I would say precisely the opposite is true. The historical (not to mention, eschatological) significance of the bodies of the saints coming out of their tombs is only enhanced by Matthew's use of apocalyptic language. It is the same language employed by, among others, Ezekiel and Daniel to describe God's ultimate act of restoration. In using it to describe events concurrent with the cross, Matthew is driving home the point that, in Jesus Christ crucified and risen, that which had up to now been veiled has now been unveiled.

"The curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook and the rocks were split" (Matthew 27:51).

What happened when Jesus died and rose again was so literally earth-shaking that Matthew could use nothing but earth-shaking language to describe it.