What do LDS make of his claims that most of the Bible is forgery? That accounts of the ressurection, etc are false?

Does he have any evidence to support such claims? Or is he using the fact that there was mistranslations to suggest that most of what is in the Bible is in fact false?

Then I saw that he made the original comment here already! It’s certainly something to think about.

Notwithstanding, I’m still a big fan of “How Wide the Divide?”, even if Robinson is not infallible.

As for Bart Erhman, I found one of his lectures completely fascinating, as well as educational. I collected the youtube segments of his speech at Stanford and posted them together on my blog. If anyone is interested:

Bart Ehrman: “Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know”
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus-scribes.html

The confusion may have occurred when Blomberg described Feinberg’s statement as an “abbreviated version of the [Chicago] declaration” (p. 35) but it’s hard to see how Feinberg’s one sentence is an abbreviated version of something containing a Summary Statement, nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and accompanying Exposition. Blomberg breaks down Feinberg’s sentence into five qualifications in order to frame a discussion about “Scripture’s truthfulness.” Robinson at times refers to the “common parameters” or “similar parameters” or “five qualifications” of the Chicago Statement. However, there are no “five qualifications” of the Chicago Statement and Robinson is actually referring to Blomberg’s elucidation of Feinberg’s one-sentence statement. It’s clearly a mistake that has created confusion and invited misunderstanding.

In the book, Robinson is attempting to draw a parallel between the eighth article of faith and the five qualifications as explained by Blomberg, not the entire Chicago Statement. Robinson’s purpose was to illustrate to Evangelicals that they should not be offended by the eighth article of faith qualification on the bible being true “as far as it is translated correctly” when Evangelicals themselves place several qualifications on “Scripture’s truthfulness,” namely the five qualifications as explained by Blomberg. Seen in that light, the qualification in the eighth article of faith pales by comparison and should not raise serious objections. This is the kind of dialectic that Robinson is using. In fact, had the discussion been about the actual articles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Robinson may have found Article X quite useful to his argument. There, the framers state: “We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

In Are Mormons Christian? Robinson points out that one of the problems with inerrancy is that it precludes an open canon and makes further revelation redundant. In his entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism “Doctrine: LDS Doctrine Compared With Other Christian Doctrines” Robinson states, in part, “Mormons deny both biblical inerrancy and sufficiency.” He notes in HWD that “Words like inerrancy, plenary and infallible are not scriptural, nor are they part of the LDS vocabulary.” (p. 205, ft 5). This leads me to believe Robinson was focusing on, and responding to, Blomberg’s discussion on scripture and not agreeing to endorse or to become a signatory to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. A more sensible reading is that the authors recognize that there are parameters of scripture not shared between them, and not in common, but that they can agree with those parameters that they do share. (p. 195). Indeed, Blomberg expressly states areas of inerrancy where he and Robinson differ (p. 200, fn 8). Robert Silvuka contrasts the authors’ stated views and provides other examples of where Blomberg and Robinson probably possess different understandings of inerrancy. See Robert M. Sivulka “Similar yet Different,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 31, no. 3 (1998): 196-98.

Most reviewers recognized that Robinson wasn’t advancing a fully developed inspiration theory, though reviewers wished that he had done so. In the chapter on scripture, I think his main goals were to place the eighth article of faith in perspective for Evangelical readers and defend an open canon. For his part, Blomberg doesn’t dwell a lot on inspiration theory other than to clarify misunderstandings about it and explain, among other things, that “No reputable Evangelical scholar or theologian believes in divine dictation for more than a tiny fraction of Scripture” (p. 37). This is clearly an area where further thoughtful dialogue and discussion might prove beneficial.

The obvious example for this is FARMS which frankly doesn’t read texts in an inerrant or literalist way. (Even those who’ve published at FARMS and adopted a strict translation theory are far more open about the content itself)

I think people conflate the burden or proof issue with literalism or inerrancy.

As for LDS students entering grad school in biblical studies (or religious studies more generally), I think I would foremost suggest that they find other Mormons who have already navigated some these waters to talk with about their concerns or what to expect in grad school before they dive right in all on their own. I personally struggled a lot at times because I didn’t have any support network. I think I would have benefited greatly at times had I just had someone to give me a little guidance. I wrote about this a while back at FPR here:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/03/the-yoke-of-biblical-fundamentalism-meeting-higher-biblical-criticism/,

I should really do my promised follow-up post, because I think this is an important topic of discussion for LDS students planning on attending grad school in biblical studies.

Best wishes,

TYD