Sometimes it’s enough to make my blood boil. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
If you were to interview the 7,346,235,000 occupants of this planet, you would find *no* group of people who declare themselves MORE committed to “truth” than the evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christianity, historically, is about nothing other than the Truth. Jesus himself said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me” (John 14:6); and “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free” (John 8:32). The Christian faith, for these people, is all about finding the Truth that leads to eternal life.
So why do so many of their spokespersons simply tell lies? Or at least propagate willful ignorance? Those are the two choices: they either know what they’re saying is absolutely false or they don’t go to the bother of finding out, when the information is readily available to anyone who wants to take 38 seconds to look for it.
I don’t get it. Well, OK, I do. My books on forgery argued that in antiquity Christians did this because they thought that in some circumstances it was appropriate to disseminate false information in order to convert or convince people, to propagate a lie in order to promote the truth. Possibly some modern spokespersons for the evangelical cause feel the same way? (In this post I will be talking about just one instance. I know of many others….)
It just seems terribly ironic to me. Why should the people they *attack* (by spreading misinformation about them) (either intentionally or in willful ignorance) be the ones who are not afraid of the truth, when *they’re* the ones insisting on the divine virtue of Truth?
So, you’re wondering where this rant is coming from.
I’ve been following the rather brilliant posts about the exposure of the culprit behind the nonsense of an alleged first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark by our fellow blog member and occasional guest poster Brent Nongbri on his own blog. One of the posts has drawn my ire. NOT against Brent! But against the subject of one of his post. It concerns the original director of the Green Collection (a private collection of ancient biblical antiquities, especially manuscripts, many of them on display now in the Bible Museum in Washington), Scott Carroll, who touts himself as a great expert on ancient manuscripts, even though it is not clear what his actual qualifications are, other than the fact that he has been employed by very wealthy persons to buy manuscripts (that’s not the same thing as being able to analyze them – a very technical skill that takes many years of training). I say it’s not clear because I can’t find a c.v. for him anywhere, nowhere that he actually indicates his training, other than that he’s bought a lot of manuscripts for very rich people.
Carroll is evidently the person who purchased the alleged blockbuster first-century copy of Mark (which actually dates to the end of the second century or beginning of the third, and is simply a tiny scrap with parts of a few verses on it) for the Green Collection (financed by the Green family that runs the retail outlet Hobby Lobby). [NOTE: in an earlier post I indicated he bought it for the Museum of the Bible. I got that wrong. The Museum of the Bible does not purchase manuscripts. It displays the manuscripts purchased for the Green Collection by the owners of the Hobby Lobby.]
Carroll is a hard-core evangelical who goes around the world declaring that his manuscript purchases validate the “truth” of evangelical claims about the Bible (and hence, by implication, about their understanding of the Christian faith). Two days ago I read one of Brent Nongbri’s blogs in which he provided an actual transcript of one of Scott Carroll’s talks, where he maligns me personally, by name, as a crazy liberal who now has been categorically disproven in his claims by the discoveries of ancient manuscripts.
But what he says about my “claims” are absolutely, demonstrably, incontrovertibly FALSE. Grotesquely false. He either knows it and is lying through his teeth to convince his evangelical audiences (who evidently express their enthusiastic approval when he makes this comment), or he has willfully remained ignorant by not simply checking to see if what he claims I think, say, write, and teach is what in fact I have thought, said, written, and taught.
Here is the transcript of the talk, taken from Brent’s post: https://brentnongbri.com/2019/06/24/revisiting-some-scott-carroll-comments-in-light-of-the-first-century-mark-purchase-agreement/. (I need to point out that Brent has record of Carroll saying the *same* thing in public talks going back to 2012!)
There is an interesting comment in Carroll’s 2016 talk to the Koinonia Institute at about the 40 minute mark (and, once again, thanks to the resourceful David Bradnick for digging up this video):
“Let me add one more text from, uh, the gospels I don’t have a picture of, that should be published sometime this year. And you’ll hear about it, and when you do, you’ll remember, ‘Oh yes, uh, Scott Carroll mentioned it.’ There’s actually a, a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that’s been discovered that has been tentatively dated somewhere between 70 AD and like 110 AD. So Gospel of Mark, maybe dating as early as 70 AD. Um, this is outstanding because, uh, the more liberal scholars, uh, like Bart Ehrman from, uh, from the University of North Carolina, uh, has said that the, uh, Gospel of Mark was the last gospel written, and was probably written around 200. So this will completely, uh, cause him to have to rework his chronologies. That’s what these liberal scholars do. They’ll take things that are early and date them late, and take things that are late and date them early and try to turn topsy-turvey the, um, our understanding of, of things. And so, he’s already crying foul that he’s not had time to, uh, see the manuscript at all, but it’s fortunately in the hands of conservative scholars who usually don’t get an opportunity to work with these things, who are in the process of preparing them for publication. So, uh, that is something to look for. That’ll be major–While these other things may not be international news, that’ll be major international news when that’s published. And so, you heard it here first, and you heard it well in advance of its publication.”
What can I say? Since I was a graduate student 40 years ago I have never, ever thought, said, or written any such drivel. I have *always* thought that Mark was the first Gospel written, and that it was produced sometime around the year 70 CE. I used to think it was probably written slightly before the Jewish war, maybe 68-70 CE; I now think it was written slightly later, maybe 70-72 CE. That’s the extent of my change.
It would be very, very, easy to see that this is what I’ve always said. It is in every book I have ever written about the Gospels and/or Jesus. Among other things, it is in my textbook on the New Testament that first appeared in 1997 and has been in wide circulation ever since. That would be, uh, 19 years before Carroll claims I said something completely and crazily different.
So why is he either lying or spreading willful ignorance? Because it serves his purposes. His evangelical audience relish the idea that now the Truth will show why these liberal biblical critics are flat-out wrong, why these opponents of truth will be shown up for what they really are. That’s an important goal for people like Scott Carroll. They are enthusiastic to spread slander and false information in support of their cause, willing to propagate easily discredited misinformation or to flat-out lie in service of their Truth.
Why are people like that so afraid of simply being honest and fair, and having reasonable disagreements?
Glad you spoke up about this.
Now I understand why you weren’t able to answer my question, and in fact repeat the same question, perhaps a little more politely than me: Is Carroll really this stupid or is he purposely misrepresenting your/consensus opinion on the dating of Mark to score apologetic points?
I just assumed he had some ‘scholarly’ credentials from some evangelical seminary of some kind. Apparently he’s unknown to real scholars such as yourself.
Thus, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and just consider him to be stupid.
He actually has a PhD in “ancient studies” (or some such thing) from University of Ohio, Miami, under E. Yamauchi. Proclaims himself as one of the world’s experts on ancient manuscripts, but apparently hasn’t published much on it. The palaeographers that I know tell me he doesn’t know what he’s talking about…..
Is E. Yamauchi the real deal in the scholarly community?
Thanks
He was a serious scholar who produced real work; but he did have a very decided evangelical-apologist approach on some issues, and he was the sort of professor evangelicals who otherwise would not go anywhere near a secular insitution could gravitate toward.
Dr. Ehrman
I know you can’t assent to this, but Im thinking everyone should give this guy an indian burn, dutch rub, noogie, purple nurple or, at least a bad review on Yelp! There choice!
Re: your ultimate sentence: Could money have something to do with it?
Never hurts!
Being honest and fair could have the effect of leaving one with no audience, or a much smaller audience than one might like. Once you have something like an ideology, truth is quickly sacrificed. It’s something like toeing the party line. Comrade Stalin is always right! The Bible is always right! Genetic transmission of acquired characteristics is consistent with Marx, therefore it must be the truth! And Comrade Stalin approves! The fossil record does not agree with Comrade Bible, therefore it must be wrong! Let us make reality consistent with Comrade Bible! And so on. Really seems to be a bit like that. Maybe it makes sense to speak of varying forms of Christian ideology, just as we speak of other inflexible and authoritarian ideologies. The same mechanisms might be at work. George Orwell was truly one of the great prophets of the age. He certainly had a lot of insight into human nature.
I enjoy your thinking so much! I am no scholar and live deep in the Bible Belt, so am surrounded by Evangelicals. I remind myself daily that there are all kinds of Christians. And sometimes, I have to wonder why their behavior is so at odds with Jesus’ teaching?Most often it comes down to the ancient motivators, money, influence, power.
karensimons , you & I are in the same boat!! I was born, raised, & live in the deep south. it has taken me 50 years to finally figure out the propaganda that I was “taught” as gospel. Don’t get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Jesus, BUT, by taking the approach of really studying, and figuring out fact from fiction, I have bettered my relationship with Jesus.
Also, Dr. Ehrman, you answered your own question correctly: “Because it serves his purposes.” That seems to be a fundamental standard in seminary school
It often takes an outsider to just see straight through the despicable lies (and allowing that all “quotes by famous people” need to be taken with a pinch of salt, if Mahatma Ghandi did say: ‘I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.’ he was spot-on!
That should give the evangelicals pause. If only . .
THanks for explaining why an early fragment would be important
I think they’re telling blue lies. Blue lies are lies that are not told to benefit the individual, but to benefit the group. Group psychology is extremely powerful – we have evolved to be a groupish species. It can even cause us to make elementary mistakes – Jonathan Haidt tells the story of two groups who were given a set of figures that showed that a cream helped or didn’t help a skin disorder, and people were pretty good at performing an easy statistical analysis (it involved looking not at the bare numbers, but at percentages). They then gave the same figures to pro- and contra- gun control people, and people were suddenly unable to do this if it went against their personal conviction.
Interesting….
You may also want to ask how Christians in the US, who claim they are the moral backbone of the country, can read “Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ¨For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ and then stay silent while children are being held in abject squalor, while children are *dying* on the border.
Yes, I often wonder how the sheep and the goats fits into social and political discourse and what we most value: human life or American values. They aren’t the same thing, though obviously there is huge overlap (at least for me, since for me, the greatest American values are the ones that value all human lives).
I agree with you that it’s a group-think thing. If you change your opinion it pitts you against your group and you’ll lose the support and esteem.
However, it is abundantly clear that the problem is not reserved exclusively to Christians, and you prove this yourself using the illegal immigration example. I’m an old man yet I’ve never seen more hypocracy than the press’s fabricated Trump scandals. Not that I want to get into a political argument on this forum, nor that have an interest in defending one politician over another. Group-think which you identified puts us in the area of politics, and when politics becomes entangled with the logical thought process, logical thought goes out the window.
This just rounds out my mental picture of the evangelical who is fundamentalist, takes the bible literally, and misjudges those who disagree as unchristian or not “real” Christians. On more that one occasion, i have been in a bible bookstore trying to find nrsv gift Bibles among the many King James versions when an employee welcomes me with a big smile and asks what church I go to. When I answer with the name of a mainline liberal denominatiin, I watch the smile disappear and the face cloud over!
Of course the most insidious aspect of this controversial fragment (and its reception among the conservative apologists) is that somehow a 1st Century copy of any NT text validates the(ir) theological message of the NT; which it absolutely does not, anymore than the Pilate inscription now proves that Jesus actually did die for the sin(s) of the world. Ridiculous. It is so sad to see people outside of their own discipline making sweeping claims about matters over which they are certainly unprepared, at best, positively ignorant at worst. Talk about dishonesty.
Yup, I agree: fake arguments of no relevance — for material finds that actually are indeed really significant, but for *other* reasons.
None of us know for sure what we are talking about when it comes to God. We all think we are right. The more I learn the less I know.
I remember people arguing that Mark was pre-AD 70 (at year 67 CE) which did not give enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman writers to mockingly turn Vespasian’s military opponent, Jesus of Galilee and his mariners at the Battle of Galilee into a peaceful, non-militant, tax-paying Messiah.
Why do you now date Mark 70-72 CE?
I searched your blog posts with “Dating the Gospel of Mark” but do not see a title announcing pushing the date over AD70 mark. Please let your audience and your students know what research and consensus brought this about.
= = =
Have these people no shame, no respect? Can any scholarly journals, the SBL, National Geographic, Christianity Today, Christian Science Monitor publish accounts of lies and willful ignorance, so things like this spread out into the larger media?
We sympathize that you have been wronged. That is wrong.
= = =
We were looking for you to comment on Conservative scholars not getting a chance to work with ancient manuscripts, since you bolded the text.
I think Mark 13 suggests that Jerusalem had already been destroyed.
GAME OVER: Mark has been dated after AD 70.
Definition of Game Over:
I remember people arguing that Mark was pre-AD 70 (at year 67 CE) which did not give enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman writers to mockingly turn Vespasian’s military opponent, Jesus of Galilee and his mariners at the Battle of Galilee into a peaceful, non-militant, tax-paying Messiah.
I remember people arguing that Mark was pre-AD 70 (at year 67 CE) which did not give enough time for pro-Vespasian/pro-Roman but more importantly pro-Josephus writers to include Josephus’ experience of seeing the three crucifixions of Calvary tableau, then beg General Titus for permission to take them down and try to resuscitate them, being successful with only one surviving crucifixion, as in the gospels.
= = =
I am planning on going to the library today and read Mark 13.
There’s an excellent article by Christopher B Zeichmann that argues the taxation episode (Mark 12:13-17) should be dated to 71 CE at the earliest. It’s a good article and is an entirely separate argument from the destruction of the temple being known by Mark:
https://www.academia.edu/34194619/
It’s a fresh perspective that would appear to provide corroborating evidence for a date in the early-mid 70’s (or later).
Thx for the link. I like how Zeichmann arrives at a very precise date: not before 29 August 71 CE. Would that other historical dates were as firmly established.
Dr Ehrman –
Curious your reaction to the Zeichmann thesis (in the two above comments): Mark is post-71CE based on the denarius (acceptable for tax)?
Many thanks!
I’m afraid I haven’t looked into it or seen anyone else’s responses.
Is it normal for other people with WordPress accounts to be able to see the 5 latest pending comments to Bart’s blog in Dashboard?
I can see that I’ve made 40 comments, he’s approved 83465, has 5 spam, and 14 in the trash. Wondering if this is a security flaw.
No idea! I’ll ask my guru Steven.
You should seriously consider suing him for libel and donating all the money to charity
Bart.. all I can say, even though it’s in Matthew 5.11, not Mark, is
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”
Interested to lean that you used to think Mark “was probably written slightly before the Jewish war, maybe 68-70 CE; I now think it was written slightly later, maybe 70-72 CE.” I think so too, mainly because of the references to the destruction of the Temple. Is that your reasoning as well?
Yup.
Wouldn´t the destruction of the temple have fit into Jesus’ apocalyptic framework, in that it was expected to be destroyed and replaced by a more spiritually exalted form? (as meant to metaphorically parallel the general resurrection into newer, imperishable bodies?) OR, were Jesus’ predictions likely not so specific (and maybe he even believed the temple was to be spared?) and, thus, after the temple had been destroyed, it had been narrated in Mark to vindicate Jesus’ prophetic power in general? How much scholarly support does the first view receive, and in their view, does this significantly undermine the 70 AD dating, or do they have other reasons for supposing it to be accurate?
Yes, he may well have predicted a destructoin of the Temple. IN fact I think he did. It’s the specificity that appears to be hinted at in Mark 13, and especially even more in Matthew and Luke, that suggests they were written after the fact.
I know there are a lot or moral religious people in the world, but I have come to the conclusion that religion itself is not a source of morality, as many people mistakenly think, but rather it is an institution which bends morality to strengthen and propagate itself. I heard this recently that I think fits: “A religious person will do what he is told [by his holy book or leaders] no matter what is right, whereas a spiritual person will do what is right no matter what he is told.” We need more spiritual people and less religion in the world.
My view is that religion is not inherently bad or good, but a channel that can be very dangerous or very useful. I have no problem at all with informed Christians who aren’t dogmatic — they do a *world* of good. As do Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so on…. But awful people are awful. It just seems worse when they’re sanctimonious about it.
Hmmm…scandal in academia…crazy right wing billionaires…theft of mysterious ancient documents…I would guess there is a great book to be written about all this. And yourself, Dr Nongbri and Dr Moss all well regarded writers. Who’ll get there first?
“Lying or spreading willful ignorance”. This describes the whole of Christian apologetics not just Scott Carroll.
Anyone sufficiently misguided as to willfully question any part of such an obvious truth must, by definition, believe all the whacked out things, so there’s really no reason to check facts. Belief in errant transmission = belief that Mark was written last in 200 CE. QED.
The overwhelming majority of Evangelical Christians simply regurgitate what they have been told. If what they are told comes from a leader within their faith they would never question them, surely they would never break one of God’s most sacred commandments. This was a significant reason I left Christianity. As a skeptic of all things, I researched the claims and found so much of what they said simply wasn’t so.
As I’ve said more than a few times on this blog: the basis of all this religious fantasy is fear. And the sect of Christianity that dwells most deeply in the morass that is this religious fantasyland is this crowd of ultra-conservative, evangelical super-Christians such as the individual you mentioned. Lies, deceit, deception are righteous because these people fantasize that they are doing the work of the Lord and, in that way, gaining salvation for their also-fantasized souls.
These unfortunate individuals dwell in a living hell of fear, guilt, and the always-present threat of eternal damnation. They say that they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but they are racked by FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) that belief and acceptance might not be enough to merit salvation. Many of them have been indoctrinated into these dismal beliefs since early childhood and others stumble into this pit in their adult years. All of these fearful believers have closed minds that are impervious to rational conversation.
I would agree it is often (but not always) true with those Christians who’ve put all their marbles on Church doctrine, but atheists and others will do exactly the same, and such people cannot be reasoned with. They know everything already so why try to enlightened them? I say.
I have a friend who has studied only the Bible all his long life and teaches sermons today, and will prove one phrase of the Bible is not contradictory to another by quoting other biblical scripture. He, being a friend, is happy to review my writing that is critical of the Christian Church, and he last year reviewed my book on the theme that Jesus was not crucified it was someone else, and he gave me a five-star review ( http://www.verbaltruth.com – it’s there in the reviews ) and said it was well written and well developed — but he didn’t believe any of it.
Two other Christian friends will not read my books anymore and sincerely fear I am damned to eternity (seriously).
I have a few atheist and secular friends who find my metaphysical writings not deemed factual by Science to be incredible and ridiculous.
Dr. Ehrman,
I would disagree with you on your statement about no other group of people being committed to the “truth”.
I talked with a friend in college(“Iowa State University”), who was a Muslim. He refused to even look at the bible, saying “Why should I look at anything else, when the Koran has the whole truth”.
Just my opinion, but I think that really conservative Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are equally close minded. Confirmation bias.
Thanks,
Brian
I think I said no other group was *more* committed to the truth. Yes, others are equally so!
For many people, the word “truth” has become a cipher for “what I am going to believe anyway”.
Yes indeed!!!
Dr. Carroll’s education and skills are something of a mystery. You’re right: he lacks a central, regularly-updated CV anywhere at any institution with whom he’s ever been involved; this is strange for such a supposed recognized expert in all things ancient. There are a few basic sketches, his LinkedIn, and some other sources, from which one can assemble the following:
* Miami University, PhD in Ancient Studies 1984 – 1987
* Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Master of Arts in Christian Backgrounds and Early Church History 1981 – 1983
* Tennessee Temple University, Bachelor of Arts
* Studies at Hebrew Union College (post-doctoral work involving languages; no degree)
If Miami University had a doctoral program in Ancient Studies in the 1980s they certainly don’t now. He claims “My training is in ancient languages, archeology, history. I think that we were required in my program to have 13 ancient languages, of which some I read well, others I don’t” (https://bit.ly/2FyGbeQ). On one of his pages (https://bit.ly/2X0MIoA) he claims to be “Master of numerous languages including Akkadian, Aramaic, Classical Egyptian, Coptic, Ge’ez, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac” and also “Director of archaeological excavations in Egypt.”
All of this is strangely dissonant with his ignorance of so many things. Take his handling of artifacts from antiquity, as Roberta Mazza and others point out. His carelessness with ancient papyri manuscripts shown in videos of his theatrical academic displays shows “ignorance in papyrology and conservation care of papyri…” (quoted by Art Crimes professor Noah Charney in a Salon article at https://bit.ly/2LmcJfM).
He lacks familiarity with the history of biblical textual criticism and dating of the gospels either, as you mentioned. I found video of him speaking with Josh McDowell (https://youtu.be/RD9CIH-l25Y) wherein he says around the 5-minute point that “Mark was one that the critics had always dated late.” He’s made similar gaffes on this topic as well.
When one combines that with the fact that he limited attendance at his cartonnage-dissolving spectacles to a “gallery of about 200 ‘invite-only’ Christian apologists” (https://bit.ly/2NbAXfc) it all tells me that he has a biased agenda here that causes a lack of rigor, a certain feverish carelessness with priceless artifacts, and even inflation of his credentials to bolster his reputation in the conservative Christian community, which has never appeared to have been burdened by an excess of cautious incredulity.
So sad. You are right to be angry.
Sorry Doc, but to me this is the greatest compliment you could receive.
I mean, nobody is going to pull me out of a list of famous scholars and lie about me because they don’t even know I exist (and of course that’s because I’m not an expert). And don’t think you could go there with a copy of your earliest published work and show them where you claim ca. 65-70 CE and show them a true statement of your beliefs to prove he lied–they don’t care. You just have “true facts”, but he has “Truth”. You’ll never beat that.
So go have a beer with friends and family, and toast the fact that all your hard years of scholarship made you smart enough and famous enough to need to be taken down. Even if with a lie.
P.S. I honestly thought my earlier comment about Misery Chastain was going over the top, and that you might not allow it to post, but TODAY’S post says to me I didn’t go far enough. Maybe exaggerated claims by pseudo-scholars should be another section of your blog?
And please invite these people to do a guest post on the blog!
Sometimes I wonder if there actually is a “Liars for Jesus” club.
Evangelical Christians overwhelmingly voted for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and he employs blatant falsehoods on a daily basis. It is not about “truth,” it is about controlling the minds and actions of the gullible. Sad.
Politics and the winners haven’t been a marker for honesty for a long time. Certainly comparing most candidates claims with facts shows real issues. Interesting that the last election had both candidates with very negative ratings on the honesty issue. In this case I didn’t see honesty as a real issue or decider for most people that supported either candidate. For example, I never heard a Hillary supporter make a reasonable argument that supported her claims of ignorance about computer and email security when they see videos she did for the State Dept workforce on the same issues, or compare her claims with the STATE IG report, etc. People voted against people or for other issues or just along party lines, such as wanting “change”, picking judges, foreign affairs, etc. I don’t think you can tag honesty or not on who wins elections.
Dr. Ehrman, can you blog about the left out gospels again?
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
“Secret the spoke
Didymos wrote
Wrote Didymos
Spoke the secret”.
(114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
“Simon to Mary
For not life
I lead
To male
She
Become spirit
Males
Woman
Herself enter heaven
(Mirror writing backards)
Heaven enter
Herself Woman
Males spirit
Become she
Male to
Lead
I life not
For Mary to Simon”.
(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him
(31) Jesus said, “No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him
Jesus, there gods! Gods there, two. Am Jesus. prophet.
In village. Heals.
Know.
Know.
Heals village.
In prophet, Jesus.
Am two. There! Gods! Gods! There! Jesus.
First, you should sue him for his lies. I find you to be ALWAYS honest, even if ON OCCASION I disagree with you.
Second, all of these private collectors no more speak for Evangelicals than Candida Moss speaks for Catholics.
But there are PLENTY of examples of both official spokesmen and ordained clergy of all denominations and the Church herself, that are blatant liars. But SO are many so-called scholars who just want to peddle books. And your honesty and superb scholarship are TWO of the reasons I am so grateful to read your works and to learn from you.
I hate it when Christians do that. I remember reading your blog back when Father Robert Barron made a comment about a new book you wrote and you could tell by the comment that he didn’t even read the book! People can be brutal towards others with a different perspective when defending their own version of the truth.
Liars for Jesus. The evangelical community is full of them.
You are a target because you are very effective. Don’t let Carroll or Wallace or anyone change what you do or waste your time engaging them. They seem able to embarrass themselves without any help.
For sake of argument, I wonder if could legally be considered libel? After all, making those kinds of false claims could impact you financially and your job (through hurting reputation book sales, etc.). There is a big difference between interpreting or shading what someone says and flat out making false claims.
Ugh. This question of those that claim “truth” to be the very bedrock of their faith, and how they can systematically ignore truth, has bothered me since beginning my journey out of fundamentalist Christianity. It’s precisely because I valued truth, that I found my way out. For far too long I sought answers from apologists I assumed to be smarter than me, and when I couldn’t find a suitable answer to my questions, I “put it in the Lords hands.” This works only for as long as you are unwilling to consider that you could be wrong about it all, the Bible as inerrant, the resurrection, etc. For me it began with an honest investigation of evolution vs creation. Then I wondered “what else did they lie to me about?” Once I assumed that God was not afraid of me sincerely seeking the truth, and sought out differing opinions, there was no turning back. Unfortunately, when one starts with “I know, that I know, that I know the ‘truth,’” there seems to be no end to the lengths & depths of confirmation bias employed.
Fundamentalist seem desperate. The truth about forgeries, errors And inconsistencies in the NT is affecting Attendance, particularly The younger people.
They needed a “win” and to discredit real scholars. So a rich diehard fundamentalist was easily duped into believing there was a early copy of Mark. Then the cover up started. Thankfully these hypocrites cannot cover up the truth through lies, threats and intimidation as was the norm in centuries past. Keep up the good work.
Off topic: Where in Chapter 1 of the Acts does it say Jesus’ Ascension takes place 40 days after the resurrection: that certainly seems like a long time for Jesus and his disciples to be walking around Jerusalem without any reaction from the Romans. Also it seems that this would have been documented somewhere in the Roman records.
Read it! You’ll see!
Conservative evangelical preachers, wilfully or by self-righteous ignorance, are hypocrites: they preach about love and compassion, yet are often very intolerant. They preach about truth and urge their audience to evaluate Christian truths with an open mind, yet often promote disinformation and are closed-minded to evaluating arguments and evidence incompatible with their dogma. The same sort of thing happens in politics nowadays: the noisiest critics of fake news are the most prolific propagators of fake news.
I wouldn’t say they all are. Most are honest decent people. But there are some real scoundrels out there.
People who claim expertise in order to buy expensive religious artifacts for rich people who have deeply held, fundamentalist religious beliefs have a strong financial incentive to maintain the chasm that separates scholarship from the views of their clients, and it becomes especially easy where’s there’s a readymade bogieman to point at. Lying about scholars like you is lucrative. I really believe it’s as straightforward as that.
“Truth” always wins in the end.
Thanks, Bart, for supporting it.
Have you ever encountered anyone so bold to take it a step further and claim to have found the original? Other than those who think the Bible in the motel room is identical the original?
To ask a more technical question, suppose someone did claim to have found the original. Or perhaps a certified copy of sorts (I suppose Mark himself made copies or his grandson could attest he compared a copy to the original). I get that you can show something isn’t original, such as by dating it to two hundred years later. But is there anything you can do to show it is likely original?
See your question on today’s post! Thanks,
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that Dan Wallace was simply the unfortunate “choice” to serve as liaison between this manuscript and the scholarly community or was he part of the scandal (by that I mean he was trying to communicate a message that he knew to be false)? I know Dr. Wallace is a respectable text scholar and works to digitize ancient manuscripts. If he is innocent and was truly a pawn in a larger scandal then do you think he would make a good addition to the panel at the SBL?
Thanks, Jay
Yes, I think he was used by others, and he has apologized for his involvement. It is always tempting to go public with the explosive new developments before they have been verified, but in this case I do not think he should have done so. His culpability was not in perpetuating a known deceit but in using sensationalist and undocumented claims in order to win a debate. And yes, he would have been a good addition to the panel; I don’t know if he was asked or not.
I’ve always liked the saying “it isn’t a lie if you believe it.” I’m amazed at how selective listening, reading and understanding can be when someone is invested in believing something. I don’t think that intelligence, education or even integrity necessarily prevent it. There is a strong tendency to see what one believes. I think you are right that many people outright lie or are careless. Often though, I think it is unconscious. Not that the third option is any less frustrating. Hence rants.
“There is a strong tendency to see what one believes.”
Yes, confirmation bias is a natural tendency.
But there are VAST differences in how strong it starts out in the first place, and in what people do against it.
Which is why I disagree slightly with this way of putting it:
“I don’t think that intelligence, education or even integrity necessarily prevent it.”
The impossibility of a GUARANTEE to PREVENT confirmation bias altogether is beside the point;
and integrity, intelligence, and education, in that order (I would argue), are precisely what is needed to fight it:
– Integrity is the starting point: Instead of being “invested in believing something”, a firm commitment to finding WHATEVER is, IN FACT, true.
– Intelligence is a necessary basic requirement for doing this fact-finding.
– And one needs education, in the form of knowledge both about the subject matter and about the possible obstacles along the fact-finding way, including the ones sitting between one’s own ears: education about the limits to one’s intelligence and about the temptations to abandon one’s integrity. It can be quite a struggle.
That struggle is part of the reason why doing science can be so difficult. But it obviously isn’t impossible: We’re still increasing humankind’s knowledge all the time.
The religious mindset is the exact opposite: Committed belief in a pre-determined “truth” without evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary – the very reason for “faith”.
Scientists (as well as good criminal investigators, judges, journalists, and all other people who need to find actual truth) have no need for that word: They carefully use “know” only when warranted; and in all other situations, instead of ‘simply’ holding on to a pet belief nevertheless, we see them speaking of hypotheses, probabilities, margins of error, and, most strikingly, ACTIVELY SEARCHING for evidence that would DISPROVE their hunches.
That last point is the one with which we can also approach the “it isn’t a lie if you believe it” thing, I think.
I agree, of course, that we shouldn’t call someone who is merely honestly mistaken a liar.
But whatever his/her motivation for telling a falsehood is, it doesn’t change the fact that it IS a falsehood, and THAT’s what matters in the end, right?
So I think it’s useful to press people on the “honestly” part: TRUE intellectual honesty requires active efforts to check whether one IS, in fact, mistaken, and to generally adjust the strength with which one makes statements to the level of deserved confidence one can have in their being true.
Truth? They can’t handle the Truth. End of story.
They have a specific story in their mind and anything that contradicts even one iota creates such cognitive dissonance that they will lie, cheat or steal to resolve it. Pity them. It’s all we can do….and keep speaking the real truth, Bart. They are their own worst enemies and the youth leaving in droves is the evidence.
Good rant, by the way!
so sad so many don’t walk the walk. I have certainly appreciated learning so much from your writings and my study this past year, but as you well know the attempt to spread Christianity by any means possible with so LITTLE evidence is not exactly a new endeavor. i’m just happy they don’t burn us heretics at the stake any longer
Scott Carroll, by saying the things he does and by spreading lies and misinformation, is doing more to discredit his own Christian faith than to bolster it. Also, he is doing a terrible disservice to those he is preaching to. Often Christians will accept at face value what a minister or evangelist says without questioning or investigating to see if it is really true.
“Willful ignorance” never thought of it that way but you are completely correct, along with the entire opening statement. I know this is off topic but this whole blog just reminds me of a major story in Australia right now regarding an millionaire elite rugby player who is a conservative christian fighting for his right to preach “truth” regardless if hes breaching the legal terms on his 5 million dollar contract. Just a perfect example of willful ignorance across the board. Why is it so traumatic for these guys to consider an alternative point of view or that they may even be incorrect (shock horror).
Hello Bart!
I would like to share my own perspective. See as an Australia ex-Christian from the Evangelical wing of the Anglican church (i.e. aligned with “Sydney Anglicans”/Moore Theological College). I always found that it seemed to be American evangelical-aligned apologists who were the ones spreading intentional lies (we certainly believed lying to be wrong), and I can give specific examples of these that really bugged me. But actually it was also my own priest that bugged me the most – because he would use very questionable claims despite their shaky ground. One of those claims regarded the Egyptians enslaving the Jews and making them do forced labour – this is just not true. I was taught in primary school that the pyramids were built by slaves, but historians have since discovered that was wrong. And not only did paid workers build the pyramids, but indeed the way that Egyptians made people to harsh physical labour was by conscripting peasants and forcibly sending them to do it – they remained “free” and were paid. I once challenged the priest on this exact point that he shouldn’t be saying the Egyptians practised a worse kind of slavery to what the Jews practised – and his response to this was that since history had recently been revised by historians he had no doubt it would be revise again in the future. It’s quite safe to say he didn’t show historians much credence.
I too am very interested in getting to the bottom of the lies regarding P137. In particular I’m very interested to know who is the one who came up with the lie that it came from a mummy mask which Craig Evans said on two different occasions in early 2014 and 2015. Evans also said it had been Carbon-14 dated. So I’d like to know if he is the one who lied, or was he mislead and if so by whom? Please get to the bottom of this at the SBL panel session on the matter. If it wasn’t Evans we can clear his name so-to-speak. Also why did Gary Habermas in Feb 2018 say it had “just been dated to 80-110AD”??!
Many thanks!
Daniel
Sources:
https://youtu.be/8kPgACbtRRs
https://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html
https://www.facebook.com/DrCraigAEvans/posts/794228917293308/
https://youtu.be/KeMBH5b-3PA?t=1334
I don’t know where Craig Evans got his information from — and I would very much love to know! As to Habermas, he’s just makin’ stuff up. I wish they wouldn’t do that.
“Why are people like that so afraid of simply being honest…?”
It is no different than the charlatans over at Answers In Genesis. If they stopped quote mining Dawkins, Gould or outright lying and had honest discussions they would damage their revenue stream. “Theocratic warfare” is the term used by one sect (JWs) to misrepresent the truth to protect their faith from “attackers”. They also quote mine.
not only Dan Wallace used “the first century Mark” to hit you, I remember that also James White brought that charade in your debate with him. They are apologists, haven’t they apologized with you? hehe
Ah, I’d forgotten that. (Did he?)
well, not exactly I revisited the debate and instead he used the phrase that there existed 12 manuscripts within the fisrt 100 years after the gospels. Maybe he was thinking in Dan wallace and his 1 censtury manuscript in those 12. But about that, I know only p52 is from that period, The others exist?
Not that many; and some are being redated, esp. P52 (by Blogger Brent Nongbri, e.g.)
A lot of these type of things come from jealousy and a sense of insecurity. Be it from a mythicist or an Evangelical. They pretend to know things with certainty they do not –
Knowing how little you know fits a man well. Something lost on many who resort to this childish behavior.
Keep up the great work Bart !
I’m sure you recognize this is a question that goes far beyond the study of early Christianity. 😐
There was a time when fundamentalist Christianity largely ignored serious scholarship in this area, because it was inconvenient to their beliefs (look what it did to yours). There were exceptions, but not many. Much more fun to build museums where cavemen ride dinosaurs.
I think they’ve recognized it as a real threat now–the popularity of your books alone is raising eyebrows. They have to find some way to change the conversation–take control of the texts themselves. Take possession of them–physical possession, in this case. In their minds, owning the earliest copy of Mark was like owning Mark. Yes, it’s stupid. But it’s how they think.
As you would be the first to say, serious Christians can be superlative biblical scholars. But fundamentalists can’t, because their job is not to understand the text, but to control it. Fundamentalism is about owning, not understanding. Understanding is the enemy, and must be destroyed.
And easiest to destroy the enemy from within, no?
I have never seen so many mean and hateful comments toward Christians than what I’m witnessing right here. I just added my cousin to this blog yesterday. The first person in my family to show an interest, and this is what she’s going to see. This post is over the top and I haven’t seen any ire toward the very person who started this whole mess—Dirk Obbink. Write a denigrating post about him.
I”m not sure if you’re reading the same comments I am. So far I’ve seen only one comment (out of about 60) targeting Christians per se. They’ve all been about one particular kind of evangelical apologists. That ain’t the same thing. Attacking right wing conservative Republicans or democratic socialists is not the same as attacking “Americans.”
I sincerely apologize to both you and your cousin if my flippant comment on this thread contributed to your disappointment.
I appreciate you saying that. ????
Toward the end of your post above, you answered your own question–“it serves his purposes.” I think the “blue lies” comment by AstaKask is also relevant. But nowadays, I often suspect that people make claims for the sheer purposes of benefiting themselves or their “group” short-term, and they just *don’t care* what the truth is. It is very easy for Carroll in this case to saddle you with a claim that is held by no one (Mark is composed around 200) and suffer no consequences for it because the community he is making it to will never bother check for themselves anyway. To some of us, the ideal of “truth” is worth pursuing and pursuing with diligence and courage, even if it often forces us to change ourselves. To others, “truth” is just a punchline. I know this kind of thing is deeply irritating. But just keep doing exactly what you are doing. The rest of us appreciate it.
I’m familiar with a fairly influential local church that regularly exaggerates the evidence for Christianity, quite a bit of it concerning the book of Daniel… Using false dates, claiming that critical scholars are godless and date Daniel late only because of presuppositions, claiming that scholars universally agree on certain positions, when in fact these are often minority positions. I’m frustrated, because quite a few people change their entire lives based on this church’s apologetic arguments, which are not remotely as good as they make them to be. I want to get this message out so that at least people will know they’re being given some false information – but I’m not sure out to go about it and get an actual audience. If you were a ‘nobody’ – how would you attempt to get this information out to the public?
It’s very hard because most people simply don’t want to hear it. But all you can do is talk to family, friends, and acquaintances and introduce them to a world they don’t konw about, possibly by suggesting books to read by experts, and maybe a blog or two….
This would be a nice slander case despite your public person status. Maybe the university would take it up since he’s slandering it too.
Dishonesty is part of the core of authoritarianism, because it cannot support its dogma with the honest truth.
Carroll said in a 2015 video that “critics” date Mark late. I know his behavior has been less than stellar, but I don’t think this is a purposeful lie. I think he’s either misunderstood (the earliest *copy* is 200 CE, not *written* in 200 CE) or someone misled him, and he’s believed it this whole time. He’s said it at least twice and maybe more than that which makes me think he completely believes it.
I actually reached out to Carroll yesterday and was told that my message would be forwarded to him. I don’t know if he’ll respond, but I sure hope so! If not me, then somebody needs to get a hold of him, so he doesn’t keep repeating this error to people.
I’m sure it’s frustrating when people misrepresent your views. At the same time, I’m really disappointed in some of the responses I’ve seen both here and on Facebook. Encouraging you to sue Carroll for slander and libel? It’s nonsense. I absolutely believe it’s important to set the record straight, but litigation is extreme. Carrier has said worse things than Carroll ever thought about saying. No one’s not pushing you to sue him. Why not? Because he’s not an evangelical so that makes it ok? Bias goes both ways. N.T. Wright has misrepresented your views—how many people have you corrected through the years? You’ve probably lost count. I have my own issues with evangelicals, especially concerning the social implications caused by their belief system, but we’re not going to get anywhere by calling them hypocrites and liars.
But getting back to Obbink—this disaster starts with him.
No one is pushing you to sue him (Carrier) I meant to say.
Actually, some people *have* suggested I sue others. 🙂 But I think you’re missing the point. I’m not complaining about Carroll saying in 2015 that some “critics” date Mark to 200 — although frankly, I have no idea who he’s talking about; of the many hundreds of biblical scholars I personally know and the thousands I know about, I can’t think of a single one who says this. So it too is misinformation. I”m complaining that he calls me out *by name* saying this is what I teach, that Mark was the “last” Gospel written, and it was produced in 200 CE or so. That’s either a bald lie or a self-serving bit or willful ignorance. What alternative is there. (And see my other comment about the anti-Christian comments on the blog: I’ve seen only one to my recollectoin)
And Ms. Pattycake1974,
May I just add, suing someone is expensive! In my personal opinion I think it would need to be a greater “event” of something. Like divorce, it’s not something that one can jump to overnight or decide to do overnight (although some people do), it’s something that needs thought ~ and in suing someone, I think one has to really think about it, and it’s consequences … and really weigh is it worth it or not. Would it really be worth it suing this Carroll guy?? In my opinion, no. Save all that money for something you’ll really need it for.
More information about Carroll:
Scott T. Carroll, PhD
Legacy Professor
Education:
Miami University, PhD
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, MA
Tennessee Temple University, BA
Studies at Hebrew Union College
Teaching Career:
Professor of Ancient History, Cornerstone University (2000-2010), specializing in ancient and classical studies, archaeology, and codicology
Professor in Ancient and Early Church History, Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1988-1994)
Professor in Comparative Religion, Grand Valley State University
Instructor or teaching fellow at various schools while completing his PhD work, including Miami University, St. Joseph College, and Xavier University
Lectured and presented material at Azusa Pacific University, Cedarville College, and Salem State University
Led students at both Gordon-Conwell and Cornerstone University on trips to the Mediterranean world
Other Career Highlights:
Founder and director of Scriptorium Center for Christian Antiquities, a joint project with Hampton Court Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Master of numerous languages including Akkadian, Aramaic, Classical Egyptian, Coptic, Ge’ez, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac
Director of archaeological excavations in Egypt
Consultant for national media outlets
Regular speaker at churches
Publications:
Author of numerous articles, book reviews, and chapters for several books and scholarly journals
Among his published periodicals are Christian Scholars Review, The American Journal of Philology, and the Journal of Hellenic Studies
Extensive contributor to the Anchor Bible Dictionary
Coauthor of Customs and Manners in Bible Times
Courses Taught
Augustine and Medieval Theology
https://christianuniversity.org/professors/dr-scott-t-carroll/
Interesting.
You would think he was able to read. In this example specifically, calling out Dr Ehrman by name with false Information when he could easily determine the accusations are false. Do you think he has Internet and could at least google some things? When he makes claims about people that are easily proven false it demonstrates his true skills and all the credentials don’t mean much. Certainly everyone makes mistakes and if he is the honest person you believe and sincere, I’m sure we will see a public apology from him concerning Dr Ehrman very soon. Let us know when he makes it! (Serious if he does)
“You would think he was able to read. In this example specifically, calling out Dr Ehrman by name with false Information when he could easily determine the accusations are false. Do you think he has Internet and could at least google some things? When he makes claims about people that are easily proven false it demonstrates his true skills and all the credentials don’t mean much. Certainly everyone makes mistakes and if he is the honest person you believe and sincere, I’m sure we will see a public apology from him concerning Dr Ehrman very soon. Let us know when he makes it! (Serious if he does)”
In this case, I think he made a mistake and kept repeating it. I could be wrong, but I think he got Bart’s dating of the earliest copy of Mark (200 CE) mixed up with when it was written. Maybe he read something by Bart incorrectly, who knows really. N.T. Wright is a very well respected scholar, and even he has misrepresented Bart’s views. Anybody can make a mistake. I’m not saying he’s an honest or dishonest person, but I think it’s kind of crazy to lie about something that can be so easily disproven. I also don’t think it’s the same as how he says he never told Dan Wallace to announce 1Mark. That would have been a private conversation, so it would be hard to prove/disprove either way.
I don’t blame Bart for correcting him on his error though. I would too.
SC’s apology on the ETC website—
“Scott Carroll6/29/2019 10:59 pm
Bart, I owe you my most sincere apology for inadvertently misrepresenting your position on Mark.”
“Bart Ehrman6/30/2019 4:08 am
Thanks Scott. I appreciate the apology.”
Well I have been in online debates with people that have done public debates and had a big following on the internet apparently. They specifically cited Dr Ehrman and others as supporting their veiw and with quotes to back them. I had Dr ehrmans books or got them to show he was being totally quoted out of context (before I was on blog to ask). I directly contacted some of the other scholars and had their emails to show my position was more true and the site was totally misquoting and misrepresenting them. I posted a very long detailed list of the back and forth showing the proof for all their faithful to see and read the extensive discussion. What was their response? The site “crashed” and when it came back a while later it was all gone! Ironically one of the participants was on this blog briefly. When I mentioned him misrepresenting Ehrman in the past he said he didn’t know what I was talking about or any of the prior discussion even though it had lasted for months. So I do believe in assuming good intentions and people just make mistakes. But there are also plenty of people that maintain their agenda and “evidence” no matter what they have “learned”.
I’m curious to know who you’re talking about!
Thank you, Pattycake1974, for posting SC’s apology to Dr Ehrman from ETC. Those (few, many?) of us who weren’t aware of ETC’s existence would not have known about it – nor about Dr Ehrman’s justified directly confronting him on this score and the related scandal.
SC’s apology is at least somewhat of an acknowledgement that he had repeatedly pushed the 200 CE slop in error, and that he is capable of admitting it in a (limited) public forum. Perhaps it’s damning with faint praise, but in our current world where doubling down on falsity seems the dominant path, even a modicum of contrition is refreshing. Clearly it doesn’t undo the infraction (not does it go far enough to tell his prior audiences of his folly), but maybe it will help to slightly rebalance the universe in some small way…
FWIW, good on you not abiding SC’s silence wrt Dr Ehrman’s questions posed around the FCM debacle. ????. Sadly it seems it’s still crickets…
Dr. Ehrman,
I agree 100% with you: “They do a world of good, as do Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…”
If we were to go to the original messages of Moses, Jesus, Mohamed and Buddha, we find that they share many noble principals.
The Jewish rabbis were not satisfied with Torah so they added the Talmoud. Those waho claim to be followers of Jesus misquioted him and re-engineered him. The muslims were not satisfied with the Quran so their mullas followed the example of the christians by compiling his sayings 150 years after his death and made them equal to the Quran. The Buddhist monks became holly and interpreted the teachings of Buddha as they see fit. With the passing of time the original messages get deluded by those who were entrusted with their propagation in order to gain new converts or for political gains or to score point on the competition. The story of Jesus and the adalterous woman is an example. A mulla liked the story so he coposed a new vergin of it and attributed to Mohamed: A woman came to Mohamed claiming she commited adultry, Mohamed said maybe you are immagining, and told her to go on her way. but the woman said look at my tommy. so Mohamed said deliver the baby then come back. Once the woman delivered her baby she came back to Mohamed and said remember me? and she jogged his memory. Mohamed told her to go and nurse the baby for two years then come back. After two years the woman returned to mohamed and said remember me? Mohamed feigned ignorance, so she jogged his memory, He said: nothing has been revealed to me about adultry yet so off you go. But one of his companion said: according to the Torah the woman must be stoned to death, so Mohamed cried and ordered her stoning. This story is totally made up. according to the Quran Mohamed is not to issue an edict outside the revelations. the Quranic punishment for adultry is 100 lashes, not stoning. Based on this story many women in Saudi Arabia have been stoned to death.
I ran into this back in the days when I taught at a college affiliated with the “conservative evangelical” denomination I grew up in. All of the science faculty acknowledged that evolution was the best theory of life, including humans. Most were “theistic evolutionists”; i.e., they (me too, although I am far from there now!) accepted the ancient age of the earth, and that life had evolved from single-celled organisms to more complex forms including humans, but guided by the hand of God. There were those, however, mostly in the administration, who disagreed and made a point of inviting creationists to speak on campus. What amazed me about these folks, at least one of whom had a PhD in biochemistry, was the far-fetched arguments they made to defend their position. And of course, the creationists and “intelligent design” proponents since then have included many with advanced degrees in science. I’m still left wondering what is going on with these folks: are they deliberately ignoring the facts or in fact lying about them?
Another comment re evangelical gullibility: Back in the 1970s this thing went around that NASA had run models of the Solar System backward in time and showed that the world began ~6000 years ago. The claim is patent nonsense to anyone trained in physics, but was reprinted in many Sunday School magazines (for adults), and many (most?) evangelicals believed it. Some more skeptical evangelicals pursued the issue and found that it went back to one person who “couldn’t remember” where he got the info. The will to believe and confirmation bias are potent forces!!
Dr. Ehrman, question…how do Evangelicals reconcile Jesus’ comments on being the “truth” and stating he was not changing one iota of the Hebrew Torah/Law, and yet disregard the 600? laws in the OT they don’t seem to now use? Saved by “grace” and not OT law they say. Another example of twisting interpretation to fit their belief? John Lennon said it well…”just give me some truth, all I want is the truth”. Thanks as always!
For them the “truth” is that the law was a *temporary* measure until the coming of the messiah.
Your question about Evangelicals and truth has haunted me for a long time and reached a peak in my mind with the advent of “alternative facts” and “fake news.” I don’t think most of these people lie, but, even worse, they have not bothered to educate themselves, even in beginning knowledge about the Bible, even at Christian universities, which seems quite odd for a group who believe so strongly in the Bible. I have studied confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance reduction, the backfire effect, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and the illusion of truth effect, but still remain puzzled and frustrated by your question. When, and if, you find the answer please let me know. I think It probably has to do with people being scared that if the first domino falls, then the whole Christian edifice falls. Whatever it is, isn’t it the same thing that keeps 40% of Americans supporting President Trump and lots of Americans crusading against immunizations of children and so on and so forth? Humans are nuts! Science and reason are out there somewhere, but ….
Dr. Ehrman,
In regards to people who follow the Evangelical faith, I personally think it’s fear. I think they are afraid to embrace or learn or believe anything other than what they have been taught. My mom’s side being southern Baptist, my dads side being A.M.E and me being private Catholic schooled, I know a lot about that blind faith, don’t ask questions, just believe – kind of thinking from when I was a child. When one has been trained and groomed to think and believe one way only, it’s scary to try and change that belief system.
In regards to Mr. Carroll, I don’t know who he is, nor have I ever heard of him, but based on what you have said here, in my opinion, it sounds like jealousy to me. In my opinion Dr. Ehrman, you may not be able to find out that much more about his career because there probably isn’t any more information to find. And, that may bother him. Clearly you have spent your life doing what you do. Clearly you have a CV that stretches from your home to California. This Mr. Carroll may not have that. Being in the entertainment industry, I know a lot about jealousy. It makes people say things and become unpleasant people (for lack of a better phrase). Dr. Ehrman you have an amazing support system world wide, and I personally think he probably knows that, and that too probably bothers him. Keep educating the way you are Dr. Ehrman. Don’t let this guy ruffle your feathers.
To me, Bart, the answer to the question lies in a self serving/self affirmation bias: some folks hold a “doctrine” (i.e. the infallibility of scriptures) and then seek evidence, however flimsy, to confirm the bias. When I ask my ethics students what the opposite of “belief” is, the normal answer is “unbelief.” I ask them why knowledge wouldn’t be the opposite of “belief.” If you have knowledge then you have no reason for “belief.” It’s in attempting to keep the unknown as unknown that light weight intellectuals can hold power. Deus ex machina is always an easier explanation of situations than “here’s what what know so far.”
Wow! I don’t know ANYONE who asserts Mark was the LAST gospel written! Unless Carroll quickly retracted with an “oops…my bad” , there is little excuse for his ignorance (“willful ignorance” sounds a little oxymoronic). Rather than embarrassing you, he simply damaged his credibility.
The desire for many inherently insecure people to align themselves with a higher power — or more precisely, the higher power they think will be victorious — seems to either justify or rob them of prudence in their actions. I find that plugging in vanity for what they call faith works in too many cases for this type of person.
Bart,
I asked about 10 friends on Facebook if they had read any of your books. All but one said no. These are all very educated people. This is a FBMessenger discussion with one woman who was top-of-her class. (Her father is a professor at a well-known conservative seminary).
(ME) Have you read any of Bart Ehrman’s books?
(ANONYMIZED FRIEND) No, I have much more enjoyable things to do with my time, like unclogging septic lines and doing surgery on diseased toenails
(ME) Sounds fun!
(ANONYMIZED FRIEND) Did you get BINGO on “my favorite apostates” or something?
(ME) Did I?
(ANONYMIZED FRIEND) Oh yeah, he’s going straight to hell (obviously read that with significant sarcasm; I do not know the heart of Jesus vis a vis Ehrman) But is he anywhere approaching orthodox? No
(ME) Just wondering if you have read his books….I would be interested to hear your thoughts if so.
(ANONYMIZED FRIEND) I’ve read enough to know that he’s sort of a shallow-thinking skeptic who parrots every tired gimmick, but I have to admit that I’ve never wanted to finish a book. They’re all just “spring out of a box” crap scholarship. “You thought you knew something, but SPRING OUT OF THE BOX! I’M GONNA TELL YOU DIFFERENT!”
(ME) That’s an answer!
(ANONYMIZED FRIEND) There are a couple of different answers to the question of scribal errors in the Bible. There’s “Oh, yeah, people made copying mistakes, so our goal is to carefully compare the different versions and go back as early as we possibly can in order to find the most accurate text” and there’s “People made copying mistakes and that shows a grand conspiracy on the order of the Da Vinci Code to obscure the true origins of the Church, which I am guessing means the true origins are quite juicy and sexy.”
Ehrman is the latter
And he treats scribal errors as something that he somehow uncovered and discovered and now he’s going to reveal to the world, instead of a phenomenon that has been known and discussed and addressed in biblical scholarship since (literally) before Christ. And certainly in every translation since Christ.
So his work is biblical scholarship in basically the same way The 4-Hour Workweek is entrepreneurial scholarship.
(ME) LOL.
Chat Conversation End
Bart, I didn’t defend you – your body of work is more than enough. But I think it is worthwhile defending yourself against baseless claims not only because you are wronged, but because many others are misled.
Good god. It’s unbelievable. The willful shallowness of it all…. I wonder if someone like that would be willing at least to look at something serious I’ve done, like Orthodox Corruption of Scripture ,and then comment about my brainless approach to recounting vapid liberal attacks long refuted….
I think I’ve found the answer. Its The God Drug. It seems to be an addiction problem. The same pleasure centers are stimulated as with heroin giving the subject a euphoric high that they feel compelled to repeat with peers present. “The best definition of addiction that I’ve ever heard,” he says, “is anything that provides a mood-altering experience but has adjoining negative consequences, and yet the behavior is continued anyways.” https://psmag.com/news/the-god-drug-when-religion-becomes-an-addiction One US molecular geneticist claims to have identified a gene, VMAT2, which makes some people more susceptible to spiritual experiences. The gene also has a part to play in drug addiction. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mormons-experience-religion-like-drug-takers-feel-highs-neuroscientists-say
Wow. I can’t believe this! This is major! I LOVE that that toad is now being made to eat his words and shown up for the fraud he now is! I’ll be showing this to my dad (who I’ve gotten into your work). I have half a mind to write the Dallas Observer to try to persuade them into this.
Why are were surprised; it’s the Christian way? As I understand it, Jews made every effort to carefully preserve their scriptures, and historical evidence, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, I think, verify their general success. In contrast, Christians never made an effort at authenticity; they edited, forged, and fabricated from the onset. So much for Christian integrity. No document from any, early Christian author can be consider as anything other than a fabrication. Even so, it does seem a bit extreme for someone to make up such and egregious lie about Ehrman’s position with regard to the Gospel of Mark, but, then, Scott Carroll’s primary audience isn’t likely known for fact-checking, especially regarding allegations that fit their beliefs, evidence notwithstanding.
I am afraid all this is only going to get worse. The Quran manuscripts that have been found and radiocarbon dated to very early times have put pressure on evangelicals: they, of course, have no manuscripts anything like as early, and so their claims to being uniquely favoured by God are starting to look very flimsy indeed.
I don’t see what having early manuscripts has to do with the truth of what is written in the manuscripts. Are you saying that only manuscripts with no scribal mistakes can contain divine truth? So that when my last book was published with 20,000 copies that have no differences among them, it must be divinely inspired? (Granted, I would like to think so….)
What on Earth is a ‘liberal scholar’?
When a person labels another person ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ it immediately sets a condition in which constructive communication is nearly impossible.
Yeah, maybe so. What’s odd is that for some these are four-letter words and for others they are badges of honor! Same words…
I offer a bit of speculation.
The emergence of the “post-truth” age seems essentially driven by a fear-stoked survival response. This response has emerged in various segments of the population that perceive themselves to be threatened by the “other” – however they define it. As a defense they engage in the wholesale adoption and glorification of presuppositional solipsism.
The same mental gymnastics used by evangelicals in decades past to deny evolution, the age of the earth, and the infallibility of scripture have been refined, supercharged, and diffused within the larger culture. It it seems that the adoption of what I will call a “Presuppositional Belief Matrix” in multiple subject areas has become the all the rage.
This adoption of presuppositional solipsism provides an array of distinct benefits for the “true believer”. Within any presuppositional framework, anything that the “true believer” does not want to hear can be easily ignored. Any action that is either supported by, or that is used to preserve or bolster, the underlying presupposition is considered de-facto moral or even noble. (Perhaps this is a new twist on the old Beatles lyric “Got a good reason for taking the easy way out.”)
Thus, misreading, misquoting, ignoring experts, establishing false equivalences, strategic equivocation, the blatant use of circular reasoning, outright lying, conspiracy theory generation, and engaging in ad-hominem attacks (and I fear ultimately violence) are all fully justified within this matrix because the “real truth” is already “known”. The single duty of the “true believer” is simply to vanquish the enemies of that “truth” – by whatever means necessary!
By definition, if I already know “THE truth”, then anything that contradicts that truth or hinders that “truth” is necessarily false or evil. Within this matrix, “anything” includes the any objective approach to factual investigation, respect for others, and general human decency.
Yes, this is cynical. But I am finding it harder and harder to find any other explanation of this type of behavior.
However, I am left wondering why such great levels of fear exist in so many places. This is a mystery to me.
Oh I can tell you why! Evangelicals are afraid they are going to hell..that simple! That fear is so strong that I left all organized religion, as they pushed me and my own studies out the door, surrendered my clergy credentials, and I no longer suffer chest pains:)
Yogananda said it best: “Bless their little hearts.” They need it!
Bart – Not sure if this is the right place to put this question, but here it is. I apologize if it is unrelated to your post. I’m not sure if you have a spot on the blog for member questions?
I subscribe the the Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR) and found an ad for a book Jesus and After – The First 80 Years, author Ernest Bruce Brooks. It appears to be an outline of what early Christians may have believed and might provide some insight into the historical Jesus. I am considering purchasing this book. Is anyone else familiar with this particular book? How well does it coincide and/or compare and contrast with your views and theories, Dr. Ehrman? Do you have an opinion of Brooks’ work? Could you maybe address Brooks’ work in a blog post?
I hadn’t heard of the book or of the author (although he apparently is in his 80s); but a quick look online doesn’t suggest that htere’s anything particularly crazy about it. He seems to be a real scholar, though I don’t see any credentials in early Christianity per se. If you read it, let us know what you think.