April 15, 2015

Twelve days ago I issued a challenge to critics of John Gee’s review of Paul Owen’s recent article on the Book of Mormon.  At that time I asked: Is there anyone besides Paul Owen—Mormon, non-Mormon, or anti-Mormon—who accepts Owen’s theory and explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon? So far no one has responded to the challenge.  Of course I don’t read everything written on the Mormon Blogosphere (God help me!), so there may be someone out that that… Read more

April 4, 2015

This week’s Hamblin-Peterson Deseret News Column focuses on what could be called the contemporary “Islamic Renaissance” occurring in parts of the Muslim world.   Be sure to check the photos as well. Read more

April 3, 2015

John Gee recently published a critique of Paul Owen’s “Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13-14,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014) The Maxwell Institute was concerned enough to publish two rejoinders to Gee (despite the fact that Gee works for the Institute): a house divided … (The second is no longer available as of this writing.  I’m not sure if this is a glitch, or intentional backpeddling. Blair… Read more

March 13, 2015

I’m off traveling for a while, and will have intermittent internet access, and time for blogging. For some photos, see: However, a delayed flight in Frankfurt (with 24 hours without sleep and counting), gives me a chance to opine a bit.  David Bokovoy continues his rather idiosyncratic discussion of the question of historicity here.  Again, I think he is missing (or obfuscating?) the point. Historical criticism is literary methodology which is fundamentally NOT about determining the historicity of claims… Read more

February 21, 2015

Hamblin and Peterson on the Authenticity of Scripture (Deseret News column).   Read more

February 19, 2015

Insights on identity of Mormon Progressives. Read more

February 18, 2015

In his ongoing attacks on the historicity of the Bible, David Bokovoy insists that the argument that the authors of the NT intended to describe actual historical people, places and events is false: [Some believers argue that]  Surely, therefore, the New Testament contains “historicity.”  Wellllll. . . No. It doesn’t. In fact, not at all. …. Mark didn’t set out to write a “history” or even a “biography” of Jesus. …. Instead, they [the Gospel authors] were meant to inspire and… Read more

February 18, 2015

In his blogs of the past few David Bokovoy has been using the term “historicity” in a rather idiosyncratic way, leading to a great deal of confusion.  Here is his definition. “Historicity” means the act of producing a work that attempts to depict an accurate representation of the real past.  Personally I’ve never seen the term used in this manner. According to the readily available Wikipedia: Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part… Read more

February 15, 2015

On his blog, David Bokovoy wrote: Surely, therefore, the New Testament contains “historicity.”  Wellllll. . . No. It doesn’t. In fact, not at all. I find this claim completely baffling.  First, texts don’t “contain historicity.”  People, events, places, etc. are historical or non-historical.  Texts describe fiction people, places and events, or they can describe historical people, places and events.  When a person is imaginary (e.g. Gandalf), we say he is fictional.  When a person really existed in the past (e.g. Alexander… Read more

February 13, 2015

David Bokovoy continues (alas) his assault on the historicity, authenticity, authority, and accuracy of the Bible, with his comments on the New Testament. I have many more things to say on this topic, but my schedule is overwhelming just now.  Hopefully later. In the meantime, might I be so impertinent to ask the obvious question: are the New Testament account of the resurrection of Jesus historical?  If not, did Jesus rise of the dead? Read more

Browse Our Archives