Ehrman

That’s most of my links. I will say that the debate Ehrman was in has a pretty odd argument. He says,

If God did inspire the words of the Bible to make sure that the human authors wrote what He wanted to be written(that’s the doctrine of inspiration), why did He not preserve the words of the Bible, making sure that the human scribes who copied the text wrote what He wanted to be written?

This strikes me as odd, especially given free will defenses. Admittedly not open to a Calvinist, but an argument that Ehrman seems to neglect. It also seems that an Evangelical can merely respond that God did inspire the Bible to be copied correctly but was only worried about the main general ideas. (I’ve had many Evangelicals make this point to me when I make criticisms similar to Ehrman)

I disagree with Evangelicals on these points, of course, but it seems reasonable as a matter of faith for an Evangelical to believe the important doctrines were conveyed.

David: Judging from the anecdotal evidence that we have, are Mormons just paradoxical in our approach to the bible, vacillating between seeing the text as literal and seeing it as flawed, depending on the context?

Speaking as a causal outsider (with no skin in the game), I’d say, “Yep, it sure appears that way.”

Michael, to the degree I’ve discussed inerrancy with Evangelicals they typically say it’s just inerrancy of major ideas and not every detail. There are some fundamentalists who take it to extremes but I don’t think that is typical of Evangelcial thinkers. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m no expert on the nuances of inerrancy.

JTJ, why doesn’t he make that argument though? I think the counter argument that even if there are intentional changes they don’t affect meaning is a compelling one. Even though I’m very sympathetic obviously to his larger position. It’s just that I don’t think one can make the case he wants to with existing texts in a strong enough fashion. So I’d say any significant changes is more by omission or happens quite early in the textual history. That’s not to deny changes, but I just don’t see them being as problematic as Ehrman wants them to be.

Regarding “real problems in the Bible” which LDS are you referring to? I think many are pretty open to those as well as foundational issues. We may disagree over how to deal with such foundational issues. At least I just don’t see huge problems there among faithful intellectuals. Now if you mean the typical lay membership, I’d agree. But let’s be honest. Your typical member hasn’t really read their sacred texts closely at all in years and rarely in a more intellectual fashion. So of course one ought expect them to be naive and ignorant. But I think one has to be careful to distinguish groups of readers. (I think the same is true of Evangelicals – even though I disagree with them I think one has to engage the arguments that a more careful intellectual reader would provide. And there simply are defensible positions quite different from naive literalism.)

JTJ, well I’ve not read all of Ehrman’s books, but others have noted the doctrinal shifts. The difference between say John and Mark makes that quite apparent. And there are some major textual families that have more bias. So in that I agree with him. One can question how significant such textual families were. I obviously tend to agree with Ehrman’s thesis but don’t think it really addresses the Evangelical counterargument of why some families became more significant or others. Even with respect to John 8:3–11 an Evangelical could just (1) question the doctrinal relevance – noting that most of the principles can be found elsewhere especially in Paul and (2) attribute its inclusion to inspiration.

I’ll have to reread him on the apocalyptic prophet, although clearly others have made that same argument. Once again though you have to address (to an Evangelical) the role of the Pauline epistles. That is to the Evangelical the transmission must be considered holistically. If you reject that holistic assumption (as of course any secular reading must) then those making the distinctions are on much stronger ground.

My point is just that the argument depends upon a background of assumptions that have to be brought to light. Clearly I disagree with the Evangelical and am more sympathetic with Ehrman. But I recognize the assumptions I bring to the matter in order to make that judgment.

Regarding LDS and Biblical problems I don’t think appealing to expositionary practices is a compelling argument. Heck I like to think I’m familiar with most of the controversies and yet I talk that way too. I think we have to be careful not to read too much into rhetoric. Of course Pres. Packer almost certainly does read such matters in a very conservative fashion. I don’t think all do. And even those who just haven’t thought about the issue will speak in a traditional way without necessarily entailing a strong position.

Once again my point is that LDS thinkers who engage such issues can make a coherent position for Mormonism. It’s just a tad irrelevant to point to expositionary use as implying much about such more critical stances. Beyond that the more interesting question is the relevance of such texts in terms of LDS practices. I think that from early on – especially with Brigham Young – there was more flexibility and skepticism towards an inerrant view of their authority. Yet there is, as a practical matter, a “benefit of doubt” given towards scriptural texts.

The problem is that what is the most probable explanation is itself theory-dependent. If he makes that claim (which I’ve never seen him make honestly) then he’s simply making a mistake.

Thanks for the post on the debate. I am studying the Bible and theology. Currently I am reading Bart Ehrman’s textbook THE NEW TESTAMENT: A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS. While I agree with the argument that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, this does not prove a case for Mormonism (i.e. if the Evangelicals are wrong on a point, Mormonism is true by default). Evangelical Christianity (or in Dr. White’s case, Calvinism) and Mormonism each have their own sets of issues to address. While textural criticism of Biblical texts (along with other historical studies of Biblical times) might help us to understand if many of the Mormon doctrines were truths to early believers, their are other problems we still haven’t solved with the Book of Mormon, Church history, and other matters. However, I think if LDS members had a better understanding of the Bible and how it relates to Mormon doctrine, I think there will be better discussions with Evangelical Christians in the future.