Loading...It’s amazing how much fraud goes on in the study of ancient manuscripts, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars, often, these days, oddly, in highly religious circles. Here’s the final part of my discussion of fraud connected with New Testament fragments from about five and a half years ago (May, 2020).
******************************
An article appeared in The Atlantic this past week that exposes academic fraud at the highest levels, involving millions of dollars, unscrupulous scholars, and evangelical Christians so intent on proving the truth of the Bible that they were willing, even eager, to engage in unethical and fraudulent activities to do so. It seems weird, but the case involves Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
The article was written by one of the country’s best investigative journalists, Ariel Sabar, who earlier had exposed for once and all the modern forgery known as “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” in another article in the Atlantic (I’ve blogged on this forgery a number of times as the story unfolded; just search for “Jesus’ wife” on the blog and you’ll see the posts). Sabar has a forthcoming book on the topic, Veritas: A Harvard Professor, A Con Man, and the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife, due out in August. I have read it in manuscript, and it is damning indeed.
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!
Amen. Why indeed?
Thanks for the post, Bart. To get to your second question first, my experience is that many “true believers,” whether in politics, business or religion, have no compunction using lies and deceit in the service of their higher cause. Secondly, as to your first question, most of the Evangelicals I’ve met have little interest in – and frequently little knowledge of – Jesus’s commands to care for the needy. They seem to take more pleasure in the simple, and undemanding, act of stating Jesus is Lord. Go figure.
truer words have never been spoken…did someone say that before?
I suppose they did. And if you’re view is right, then necessarily their view is now wrong.
As I stated in a previous post, I’ve read Sabar’s book, and it is damning (as Bart says). What is enlightening in the book is how much fraud there is in world of biblical academia. I also felt bad for someone like Professor King who had spent years building a academic reputation just to see it all evaporate when she put her trust in a fraudster. I guess, it just shows how much sometimes we want something to be true we passionately believe in that sets ourselves up to taken by a con artist.
Well, this certainly is a remakable story with many twists, but perhaps not so sensational after all, considering what greed and desire for fame and blind faith can do to people.
I could read the article in the Atlantic without paying: it seems that one can read a number articles for free, before one has to pay.
Still, there are some points I don’t understand (and probably nobody understands everything is this long and convoluted story):
So, the Mark fragment didn’t come from a mummy mask, but from the Oxyrhyncus dump. Yet, Craig Evans (who is not mentioned in the article) said in a lecture “and it was from one of these masks that we recovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that is dated to the 80s”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPgACbtRRs
This is untrue: he said “we”, indicating his personal involvement in the recovering that never happened, and he can’t blame journalists for misunderstanding what he said. I suppose that “we” here means the Green Scholars Initiative people, who he cooperated with, as I understand it. But his role is very unclear to me. In any case, he shouldn’t have expressed himself the way he did.
Anyone who wants to read the article but get around the paywall:
1. Go to 12ft.io or type “12 foot ladder paywall” and you’ll find it.
2. Paste in this link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/why-scientists-and-scholars-cant-get-their-facts-straight/404254/
I am not interested in stealing intellectual property even if I could.
Joel Baden and Candida Moss are both authors I have supported with book purchases in the past. I think you are capable and I really doubt they’d mind.
Thanks! You’re doing the Lord’s work:)
Hah!
I think the answer to the last quandary (Why would Evangelical Christians knowingly engage in unethical, clearly fraudulent behavior to achieve their end?) rests in human nature. The need to be proven right at all costs, to be on the “winning” side of life and its key arguments, rooted as it is in the deeply-rooted scarcity orientation of our species (dating to agricultural revolution?) , jumps out far ahead of true spiritual transformation, which is costly. If one thinks about it (and I have firsthand experience with this mindset in my younger years), the threat that those who don’t agree with your group’s views on God and Jesus will live in eternal torture actually (given how Dr. Ehrman and many others have expertly dealt with the origins of “hell” in Christian theology) comes from the same place in my mind. The need to come out on top at all costs, religiously, politically, and so on.
So…Tribalism.
Bart, have you written any articles comparing truth with ideology?
No, I haven’t gone there before. Of course, every ideology insists it does represent the truth. And like it or not, we all hav ideologies.
It is a meta level issue which doesn’t get enough coverage by academia. Socrates was good at exposing the foundations of the ideology. Plato was the counter to Socrates on this issue. I got a hint of what is involved with this in John Ralston Saul “Unconscious Civilization”.
The answer to your final question is simple. Just as truth is the first casualty of politics, truth is also the first casualty of religion.
My question is about the split kingdoms of Israel and Judah. With Judah comprising of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the other tribes in the northern kingdom. Were members of tribes allowed or known to dwell in opposite kingdoms or was the segregation strictly adhered to?
They could go back and forht, kinda like the United States, but rarely did so since society was not as a rule particularly mobile.
Is the Christian belief in heaven and hell based almost entirely on claims that God somehow revealed these truths to human beings, eg, in the Bible? Without that revelation is there any way that humans could know these things, eg, through reason or general human experience-according to the mainstream of Christianity?
So, if a person does not find claims of divine revelation to be credible, claims about heaven and hell should not be credible either? “Natural” knowledge of them is not possible?
I never thought about heaven and hell in quite that way before. It seems like it could greatly reduce anxiety about Hell.
My snese is that most Christians believe in heaven and hell because that’s how they were raised, and just assume they are in the BIble and read biblical passages tha tdon’t actually mention them as if they do mention them simply because that’s what makes sense to them. But heaven and hell exist or do not exist independently of what the Bible or anyone says about them.
But what would most Christian theologians say is the “evidence” —outside the divine revelation in the Bible — for heaven and hell? Are there “good reasons” for those beliefs—other than or in addition to the Bible? Can human beings have knowledge of them primarily through reason and/or experience of the natural world?
Maybe fundamentalists/evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Roman Catholic theologians would answer these questions somewhat differently. But my sense is that, for practically all Christian theologians, divine revelation is indispensable. Belief is based fundamentally on faith rather than reason.
Since first asking this question I reread your “Heaven and Hell.” You point out that the ideas of heaven and hell originated in Greek philosophy. I suppose that could be considered as originating in reason. But I suspect the reasoning of Plato and others in this regard falls far short of the standards of modern philosophy and science.
If the whole notion of divine revelation is rationally implausible, that would necessarily include the implausibility of heaven and Hell. It would not be irrational – or due to willful blindness – to reject those beliefs. It’s more likely to be irrational believe to believe in them.
I’d say most people believe in heaven and hell because it’s what they’ve been taught and simply seems common sense that human life is not something that ends permanently. Serious critical theologicans will argue that there can’t be “evidence” of it; it’s not a matter of science but of theological reasoning, based on theological premises. Lots of things are “true” that can’t be scientifically proven. (You can’t “prove” that I’m a bad poet, scientifically, though on literary grounds most everyone would agree it’s true….)
The last I heard, Obbink had managed to avoid criminal charges. Any news about what he’s been up to lately? Does he have any remaining scholarly reputation, or has it been completely shredded?
His scholarly abilities remain intact, but his reputation is shot. I don’t know what is happeneing just now with him, but I don’t think there’s any way he will be exonerated.
The Green family have become the 21st century equivalent of the 20th century’s Billy Graham and Abraham Vereide.
I have pondered the same questions for years and have come to the conclusion Protestant Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are Christian heretics, having abandoned the teachings of Jesus Christ in favor of wealth, power, and influence.
Are these two questions really related only to religious people?!!
Many well-known atheists and liberals actively promote and advocate for honesty, fairness, human rights, etc. However, in certain situations, they can be very biased, dishonest, and display significant double standards.
This behavior is not related to religion or religious individuals. It is a human phenomenon, often linked to inflated ego. People with inflated egos tend to lie to justify themselves or the side they are aligned with.
So, if a person’s ego takes precedence over the morality they claim to uphold (regardless whether it is originated from a religion or philosophy), they can easily lie (without regret) to support their aligned side.
This issue is not related to religion or religious people. It is primarily rooted in an inflated ego.
I don’t believe I said that htese questions are only related to religious people, did I??
No you didn’t, but I think, this is implied:
There is a human tendency, often linked to an inflated ego, that can drive individuals (whether religious or not) to lie in support of their side. Then the question came: why do some religious people do this act! But this act is not related particularly to religion or religious people!
It may have been inferred, but it definitely was not implied!! It’s not what I think at all.
In Revelation 21:2 the holy city is named “New Jerusalem,” then shortly thereafter in 21:10, the holy city is referred to as just “Jerusalem.” Why would the same place have two different names?
Same place. The New Jerusalem comes in place of the Old Jerusalem, but the name of the Old Jerusalem was not Old Jerusalem. So too the New Jerusalem is named Jerusalem.
Would we still considered humans at this point (rev 21:3) post judgement, in the new heaven and new earth? I don’t see you addressing this part, in your book Armageddon. And why do you think a tabernacle would be necessary when they are physically with God face to face, on His throne?
Tabernacle: I don’t know. I guess God will still be worshiped in heaven. Humans: I suppose so. We will be living on earth and need light and will accept gifts and will rule other nations etc.
Are you saying God will be somewhere else when His bond-servants are on the new earth? I always understood His bond-servants would be with God face to face serving Him Rev 22:3-4? The Tabernacle part throws me off, I don’t see why something like that would be necessary being that it is the same place, being face to face with Him on His throne rev 22:3-4?
Whenever “we are changed” according to Paul in 1 cor 15 it doesn’t seem to state anywhere a new title of who they are (still bond-servants of course). It seems to me almost derogatory every-time an author refers to a “human” in the NT “human hands” “human measurements” seems beneath them or an imperfect way, when they speak of it, maybe not something that would live on in the new world? Do you get that when you’re reading these parts of it?
I’m not sure how to reconcile the “on earth” and “in heaven” parts (any more than I can reconcile teh fact that everyone on earth who is not allowed into the New Jerusalem will be thrown into the Lake of Fire to be destroyed, and then that all the other nations on earth will bring their goods into the New Jerusalem. What nations?) These are not bond-servants, by the way; the Greek word is “slave”
disabledupes{b62c85cb46e8230fcc137738f220fbcb}disabledupes
I’m not sure how to reconcile the “on earth” and “in heaven” parts (any more than I can reconcile teh fact that everyone on earth who is not allowed into the New Jerusalem will be thrown into the Lake of Fire to be destroyed, and then that all the other nations on earth will bring their goods into the New Jerusalem. What nations?)
Have you ever considered the new heaven and new earth as more of a renewal, instead of a total destruction of our planet? “New Jerusalem” as an “earthly” component of God’s kingdom “the nations” kings, people on earth that have been bringing their good’s into “Jerusalem” as being something, somewhere else, a destination for the dead from earth. Things like the healing leaves on the tree for the nations that have been coming into it, since its inception. The Slave’s of God being let in the gates, and the others who are not allowed through, are “outside” (rev 22:15) and not burning in some fiery lake? I have hired some “experts” before to disprove this view, and none have yet, as it doesn’t “technically” contradict anything (NT), only that they don’t see it this way. You wouldn’t happen to know of anyone that would be interested in reviewing eschatological views? A poor professor perhaps for-hire, someone open to dis-prove theory, exegetically? Thank you.
I guess the problem is that the New Jerusalem is not constructed out of the remains of earth but it descends full blown from heaven.
Is the New Jerusalem physical thought? Earlier, the first heaven and earth “just flees away,” Then replaced with the new ones. Nothing describing the entire planet being burned up. (you would figure that there would be at least some mention of the entire planet being destroyed) Other than the author seeing the dressed-up city come down from heaven, he gives no detail of it. Then God declaring “I am making all things new,” and “it is done,” and then announcing His invitation to salvation and adoption into His family for the people on earth, as He promised. Then there is a break in writing, and an angel comes and takes him away. Why do you think someone would need a tabernacle when you have the throne of God, why settle for a spring of the water of life when there is an entire river, why bother dwelling in a tent, when you can be face to face with Him, and the lamb?
More mysteries about the book of Revelation!
You might as well ask why did monks alter the texts they were transcribing. They would have argued that “it should have been this way” then “it must have been this way” and finally “it was this way, so we’re just putting it back the way it was.” After all, “all things are lawful for me.”