Recently Michael Licona posted a couple of videos to his YouTube channel, in which he asks a fellow scholar to comment on and respond to the current controversy between him and Norm Geisler on his view of the resurrected saints in Matthew 27. Here's one where Daniel Wallace responds to the controversy, and here's one where Paul Copan responds. (If there are others, please post them in the comments.) These videos are helpful, as they show careful scholars interacting with an important aspect of the debate, namely, the role of genre in inerrancy. However, discussing the controversy itself sidesteps perhaps the more important issue of whether Licona is correct in the first place. In his ETS paper presentation which I saw in San Francisco, Licona stated he was undecided on whether the statements about resurrected saints in Matthew 27 should be taken symbolically or literally. I think the best way to advance this discussion would be for him to come down on one side or the other, present his best arguments for that view, and then allow the scholarly community to discuss the evidence and merits of the case. The present discussion about whether the controversy has merit in some ways is tangential to the real question of how to understand the resurrected saints in this passage.