(7 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...Isn’t lying acceptable and even the “right thing to do” in some circumstances?
I became keenly interested in this question when writing my books oon early Christian forgeries (Forged and Forgery and Counterforgery) — canonical and non-canonical writings by authors claiming to be Peter, Paul, John, or even Jesus, knowing full well they were, well, someone else. Contrary to what you sometimes hear, this was decidedly (and repeatedly) talked of as a kind of “lying” throughout the ancient world, intentional attempts to deceive others.
But isn’t intentional deception the right thing to do sometimes?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
[1] For a popular treatment, see Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 3rd ed. (New York: Vintage Books, 1999).
I thought you might enjoy this C S Lewis anecdote.
“And once when we were walking on Bredon Hill, we met a bedraggled and exhausted fox. ‘Oh, poor thing,’ Jack said. ‘What shall we do when the hunt comes up? I can already hear them. Oh, I know — I have an idea.’ He cupped his hands and shouted to the first riders, “Hallo, yoicks, gone that way,” and pointed in the direction opposite to the one the fox had taken. The whole hunt followed his directions. There followed a long discussion about when lying was morally justifiable, but he boasted delightedly later to my wife that he had saved the life of a poor fox and showed no trace of guilt.”
― George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/30977-jack
These posts on lying connect in my mind to your video on redemption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz6wAPS1GMc
The link is: “invented.”
In the forgery work, “invented” is precise: a forger claims to be Peter when he is not, a demonstrable deception about a verifiable fact. The Scott Carroll case is clear for the same reason: a verifiable factual matter, with the correction in plain sight.
But “invented” in “how Christians invented the redemption” differs. No equivalent verifiable fact settles it the way authorship settles forgery. The issue is not whether someone lied about who wrote something, but whether the saving significance of Jesus’ death was constructed rather than recognized.
A forger manufactures false authorship. A community may also articulate a significance that an event already carried before anyone could state it, the way the meaning of a life often becomes sayable only after it has ended.
My historian’s question is: development into explicit atonement language after Easter is visible in the sources, yes. But what in the sources shows that this development is construction rather than articulation of a meaning already latent in the events? Can that distinction be adjudicated historically, or does “invented” here carry more confidence than the evidence can bear?
I don’t think there is any way to show that meaning is inherent in an event, since even if it were, it would be recognized only through human cognition, and we can’t trace the origins of cognition on the neurological level (generally — let alone for events 2000 years ago).
Thank you, Bart. I agree that historians cannot access meaning as though it were a property of an event independent of human cognition.
What I’m still wondering is whether that also limits the confidence we should have in describing later atonement language as “invented.” “Articulation” would also be a cognitive process. The historical question, as I see it, is whether the later language is better understood as a relatively free construction, or as a development from earlier materials already present in the events, Jesus’ words and actions, scriptural frameworks, and the earliest post-Easter interpretations.
Historians cannot trace the neurological origin of either process. But they can still ask about continuity, discontinuity, chronology, and explanatory dependence. So does the evidence actually allow us to distinguish construction from articulation? If not, wouldn’t “invented” carry more confidence than the evidence itself can establish?
Yup, it’s a tricky line from “invent” to “articulate.” The latter presupposes that the notion was already latent in the event, but I’m not sure how one would be able to demonstrate that historically. What one can say, I think, is that at one moment no one thought that and at a later moment people did. So the idea “came into existence” at some point. In my vocabulary, an idea that comes into existence is a kind of cognitive “invention,” though I can see how some people would find the term disturbing. Einstein didn’t “invent” general relativity, he recognized it. But the difference is that we can show that relatively existed before, and we cannot show that Jesus’ death was an atonement before. That’s a theological, not a historical claim.
Dear Dr Ehrman-If i may ask for a clarification, would i be correct in saying that you hold the Son of Man figure of Daniel to be a celestial, non human being endowed with an eschatological role? If so, would you recommend any academic discussions or books regarding this figure?
I think that’s how Jesus and other Jews at the time interpreted the figure. In its context, I think it is clearly a reference to the natoin of Israel (simply look at the interpretatoin given by the angel). For an alternative suggestoin — that it is the archangel Michael — I’d suggest you look at the commentary on DAniel by John Collins.
We each have dealt with the practical and ethical challenges of this issue. You have studied this topic in more depths almost all of us. At a fundamental level, Mark Twain captured an essential truth: “if you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” Within individual and professional life, this can be very important. It can define you: “whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters (Albert Einstein).” But history broadly and with respect to early Christianity are full of examples (as you have documented) of people who feel compelled to lie and deceive. We can each try to understand our own past untruthfulness, but you raise the important questions about trying to understand the actions of others. We live in a time when this is front and center in our daily political worlds. Can we learn anything from history which can help guide us in our difficult current challenges? I believe your thoughtful analyses of these difficult questions are important. Thank you.
I very much enjoy watching your Misquoting Jesus podcast. However I have recently been prompted to ask a question about the commercial adverts that break into your discussions. Are these vetted by your team such that you would stand by their content or are they just placed by an agency on your behalf?
Perhaps a very trivial reason for my bothering to ask is I recall a recent comment by you when you said that you were in the UK enduring temperatures of 96 degrees without air con. I’m currently watching an episode of your show as I do the ironing in even greater temperatures today in the UK. Suddenly up popped an advert extolling the virtues of a fantastic miniature air con portable gizmo. If this invention is so great I wondered why you don’t have one!!!!
The only adverts we ourselves have are for our own products/events. If you are hearing other commiercials they are put there by the podcast platform you are using.
And yes, that gizzmo has been getting advertized. So far as I can tell, it comes out of some guy’s garage. 🙂 (Can’t buy it in stores, I think)
Please my I ask, at what point in your faith journey did you stop praying? Did it happen as a result of your feeling, ‘What’s the point?’ Or did you feel that it was just hypocritical to do so? Thanks
It was only after I became agnostic.
What’s come to be called the “Golden Rule” is so ubiquitous in moral systems all over the world that it seems a necessary conclusion to arrive at from any sort of moral reasoning. So, do you think Jesus actually taught it or perhaps the educated gospel writers thought it was such a good idea that of course Jesus must have taught it and so placed it on his lips? There does seem to be at least a modicum of tension between the Golden Rule and an apocalyptic view of reality.
It aligns with the rest of his teaching, so I think he probably taught it. I would not at all say it’s ubiquitous though. It shows up in a number of places (dozen or so?) but not thousands. And it is usually phrased negatively (whta not to do) rather htan positively (what to do — that is pretty rare, though attested.)
You raise some very interesting points, Dr Ehrman. There is, I suppose, the middle ground of ‘diplomacy’, where you can be ‘economical with the truth’ at times. I know people who I’m pretty sure have never told a lie, but their honesty (often brutal honesty) has led to the loss of long standing friendships. Augustine’s path of truth, I would suggest, would be virtually impossible to adhere to in the real world, unless you were a billionaire or wanted to become a social pariah.
Kurt Vonnegut, in his novel, Cat’s Cradle, talks about FOMA, or “harmless untruths.” One of the most comforting lies ever told has to be: you don’t really die when you die. This is the “gospel truth” some are proclaiming, but it contradicts experience, evidence, and, objective reality. Could this one idea best explain why Christianity took off in the ancient world? “You mean, I can live forever! Sign me up!” I wonder. I wonder, too, whether those who lie are lying to others or if they are also lying to themselves. It is a complicated thing, but seeing when and why children lie can clue us in on why adults continue to do the same.
Fantastic book.
Regardless of ones belief of life after death, I think its pretty easy to say belief does not “contradict experience, evidence or objective reality”. For that to be true one would have to have died and come back to tell us there is no life after death.
Muddy waters are the last refuge of fundamentalist scoundrels.
There’s a famous Mahayana sutra, The Lotus Sutra, in which the Buddha is depicted as employing lies as an expedient means to eventually lead people to the truth. He defends this with the Parable of the Three Carts, in which a house is on fire and a father is trying to get his three sons to leave the house. They ignore his warning that the house is on fire, and so the father must find a way to entice them out of the house. He promises each of them a different kind of wonderful cart. But when they leave the house, they find that their father has given each of them the best kind of cart, a glorious white ox cart. So the Buddha, in this sutra, justifies lying as expedient means that will ultimately lead to the truth. This appears to be a consequentialist calculation.
This conflicts with a much earlier Buddhist rule concerning the three gates of right speech, which enjoins speaking only what is true, necessary and compassionate.
I have recently been reading discussions of John 6 where we are told that disciples of Jesus ceased to follow him because he required them to eat his body and drink his blood. They found this ‘a hard saying’.
I understand that during the exchange between Jesus and his followers he changes the verb he uses for eating from one which is the simple act of consuming food to one which involves munching and gnawing. Do you see any significance in this, please?
I’m not sure which verse you’re referring to where Jesus changes the verb. Could you ask the questoin again and include the verse reference?
Ever since learning of Paul’s SOP of misrepresenting himself, as he explains in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, I try to spend less time on Paul as I do not know when reading even his authentic letters if he is sharing his belief or what will help him win and gain the reward/blessings. Your books on Paul present him clearly, but how do we know if the Paul we consider in a particular instance is the real Paul as he may be spinning what he believes because of who he is writing to and their situation?
Yup, technically we don’t know if he fairly represents his views. Then again, that’s true of every writer who has ever lived! As you point out, though, it is a bit trickier with someone who says he changes his tune depending on the audience….
RECOMMENDATION FOR LECTURE CLASSES AND PRESENTATIONS.
Bart:
I recommend scheduling Dr. Stephen L. McKenzie for a couple of classes, in the same manner as you did for Joel Baden and John J. Collins.
He’s a specialist in the Historical Books of the Bible as well as a specialist in the Deuteronomistic history. I think Dr. McKenzie would add a great deal of depth to Old Testament studies in your catalog of classes and boost your offerings of OT classes.
I would highly recommend Dr Mckenzie for those classes and lectures; I know that, as a Gold member, I would attend all of them.
Sincerely,
David L. Laughlin
Thanks. Yes, he’s a very find scholar.
Interesting topic! I first thought of Corrie TenBoom hiding Jews from the Nazis and lying about where they were in order to save their lives. I believe Jesus addressed this when He quoted Hosea 6:6 “I desire mercy over sacrifices.” He quoted this in Matthew 12:1-13 and addressed the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” He used the example of David eating the showbread which by law was to only be eaten by the priest, but the law of compassion says David was starving so the greater law was adhered to. This showed that kindness was greater than strict rule following; that the law of compassion is greater than Torah law.
However, lying about being the author of a gospel, or a spurious, pseudo document, is wrong. Even disseminating information about authors, that the disseminator is not certain of being factual is untruthful as well. For this reason I would say that we know who the gospel authors were according to early church tradition (e.g. Irenaeus: Against Heresies bk. III, 1:1) or else we have to accuse church fathers of relaying false, exaggerated, information…..lies. They were responsible to verify factual accuracy of what they wrote about.
NEXT:
The idea suggesting that God lied through the prophecy of Jonah, that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, misses something foundational in the TaNaKh. God desires repentance above all else; repentance being inseparable from true faith. Jonah’s prophecy against Nineveh was a basic principle of “judgment will come upon you unless you repent.” Even though it isn’t stated that way in Jonah’s declaration, Jonah 3:10 makes the point perfectly clear. God wanted the Ninevites to believe and trust Him by turning back to him (e.g. 2nd Chronicles 7:14).
Lying to promote a (supposed) religious truth is self defeating; self contradictory. Lie=not true. This however is an active method within Islam. Takiyya is the practice of lying (deception) in order to ultimately advance the agenda of Islam. Quran-Surah 3:28,29 states that deception of an Islamic enemy is advocated. This is something far different from the law of kindness and compassion….or self preservation.
Christians who lie or exaggerate are also wrong. This is why so much was written against heresies in the ancient Church. Many professing christian teachers today teach lies as well, just listen to some of the prosperity televangelist.
Following up my recent query about the words for eating used by Jesus in John 6, I now offer more specific information as follows: John 6:53 has Jesus saying ‘εαν μη φαγητε την σαρκα του υιου του ανθρωπου…’ whereas in John 6:54 the verb changes and he says ‘ο τρωγων μου την σαρκα…’
Apparently most bibles translate both words simply as ‘eat’ although some versions eg the New American Bible use ‘chew/gnaw’ for the latter word.
As a result of Jesus’ speech in this passage, we are told that some of his disciples stop following him because they cannot accept the idea of eating his flesh. In my reading, it has been suggested that Jesus uses the more graphic term to impress upon his followers that he is really serious about the eating of his flesh (and indeed drinking his blood).
Please do you see any significance in using the two words for eating?
Yes, I’d say that’s possible. It’s also possible, and probably more widely thought, that he wants his hearers to know that he means a kind of intensive eating, really committed to it — so that the verb is not implying something about the material being consumed but the dedication of the one consuming it.
You say, “Maybe children have the right to know what parents honestly believe.” Could I turn that around and say, doesn’t the congregation have the right to know what the pastor really believes? You have said a number of times that there seems to be a brick wall between what is taught in seminaries and what is said from the pulpit. An example could be that Moses is thought to be legendary, but can you imagine the furor if the pastor said, “What we’ve told you about Moses and the Exodus is now thought to be legendary? However, modern scholarship comes down squarely on them being legendary.”
Yup, I absolutely agree!
“And if lying is justified in some instances, what better reason for lying than to get people to understand and believe the truth?”
When I finally gave up the struggle and admitted to myself that I couldn’t believe the “truth” of the Christian faith, this became a point of discomfort for me and still is. I have always said I would never try to talk anyone out of their belief, but over the years have tempered that by adding, unless their belief causes harm for others. Sadly, the last decade or so I’ve come to feel that the version(s) of Evangelical Christianity that seem to be increasing in prominence and power today are, in fact, quite harmful and I struggle with what role I should have. Do I have a responsibility to speak against what I believe to be a false “truth”, or do I allow friends and family to continue down what I see as a destructive path.
I know this has nothing to do with the actual focus of this blog entry, but this is what hit me.
The Quran permits concealing or even verbally denying one’s faith under coercion, such as when one’s life is in danger or one is facing persecution. This concept is commonly known as taqiyya.