Yesterday I talked about arguments Muslims and Christians sometimes make about their written texts – that the only way to explain the preservation of the “originals” is that it was a divine miracle, with the corollary argument that for that reason, these writings really do contain the truth. It is a very, very bad argument, for reasons I explained.
A number of religious traditions also boast of the unbelievable accuracy of the oral traditions of their religion. In this case, the claim is usually not made in order to prove that the tradition must have a divine origin, but to show that what is said in sacred texts found in writing today is exactly what was said back *before* there were any written texts, that the religion hasn’t changed an iota over all these centuries. I am always entirely skeptical of these claims. Then again, historians are always skeptical of claims and ask for evidence. If there’s good evidence, then there’s no reason to be skeptical on principle. But if historians simply accepted what “everyone says,” then you wouldn’t need historians. You could just listen to what people say!
This issue came up a few weeks ago when a scholar wrote me about the amazing Vedic traditions of India. Let me say at the outset, I am NOT a scholar of Hinduism, and have not studied the Vedic texts. But I am a historian who believes in evidence rather than accepting what everyone says just because everyone has been saying it forever. And so I have my doubts. I will stop doubting as soon as I have evidence. Good evidence, not evidence convincing only to insiders.
Here is what this person said to me in an email:
Hey, you interested in this? Why wouldn’t you be? Wanna read more? Why shouldn’t you? Know how? Join the blog! It’s cheap and pays incredible returns. And all the small fee goes to big-time charities! I don’t make a nickel off this and none of the money goes to operating expenses.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is 1 Cor. 15:3-7 the earliest oral tradition in the New Testament? As far as the resurrection appearances/visions you allow as historical; Peter, Paul, Mary, James, is this because Paul knew Peter and James first hand, and Mary is multiply attested to in the Gospels?
There’s no way to know. I assume you mean from outside of the NT? Lots of oral traditions are also contenders. I talk about it all in my book How Jesus Became God. have you read that yet?
Very interesting. I know this is a very minority position among secular Scholars but I believe a few sayings of Jesus were probably written down within a decade of his death and some would have included a few members who were eyewitness/earwitness (is that even a word ?) to the man himself
Verses like:
Why call me good? No one is good but God alone
These Proto Christian documents would have been very basic and nothing like the complex Gospels that came later. Just a collection of a few sayings and memories on whatever writing materials and with whatever level of writing talent the few members of the movement could scrounge.
So…for a tiny fraction of the Synoptics…(less than 10%) we may have a verse here and there that do go back to eyewitnesses.
I know this is speculation on my part. But I do think the early movement would have wanted to – and would have found a way to write a few thoughts down when that opportunity presented itself. I think that opportunity probably presented itself far sooner rather than later.
How far off base am I here ? Again, I know this is kinda out there…
Thanks!
I think a lot of scholars agree there are lots of traditions from teh first decade. But written down? How would we be able to establish that?
I recently came across a mention of a Gnostic sect called Carpocratians. Who were they? What do we know about them?
Ah, they were very bizarre to modern Christian ears. Maybe I’ll post on them
I have spent the last decade working with Holocaust survivors and institutions dedicated to preserving the history of the Holocaust. It is often asserted that survivors memories are extremely reliable. Different reasons are given, including that the trauma involved has “seared” these memories clear as day into these individuals.
The experience of historians of the Holocaust tends to be that this is not the case. Of course, many memories are true to what happened. However, over time, very wonderful, kind, and traumatized people have changed their stories. Sometimes on by accident – absorbing the stories of friends. Sometimes on purpose, as these stories are also a means of retaining the attention of the world around them – something that many of us crave. When historians fact check survivors – and this is a very sensitive thing to do – they discover the discrepencies. Camps they claimed to have been at that – in the face of the remainder of their story and what we know about the camps, could not really have been.
Age and time take their toll on everyone – even in a literate society with written records. If Peter really is the source for Mark, am I suppose to assume that he knows exactly where he had been, in the exact order, and the exact things people said thirty years before? Unless he was writing it down – no. He remembers certain things – and they may themselves be conflated, or changed in the remembering/retelling. And that is excluding evolving ideological needs to alter the story.
And still, as a result of committed people who are genuinely seeking the truth, we have an accurate mosaic of the Holocaust. Were not the followers of Jesus of Nazareth in the earliest years also committed people who were genuinely seeking the truth?
Professor, having read Jesus before the Gospels, and perhaps as having been an auditor by profession, I find it hard to place any credence in anything Jesus said in the Gospels. To perhaps put you on the spot though, occasionally you will use a passage as evidence to make a point. I believe last week you used a passage about 5 or 7 husbands to show Jesus as an apocalyptic would not have had a spouse or relations with Mary of Magdalena. So, I assume that passage met criteria for historicity; but, how can us lesser enlightened lay students know?
You have to look at the evidence and decide! On a case by case basis. Just like the scholars!
And of course stories are just that. Stories. And if the stories assert that X and Y took place, is there any way of knowing that those assertions are true? Especially when the stories tell us that those events took place decades ago, or much longer ago than that. For instance the stories that tell us Jesus worked certain miracles and tell us that there were eye witnesses– how can we know that these stories are anything other than stories based on hearsay and gossip? Stories of miracles but no miracles? Stories of the dead being raised but no dead were actually raised. Stories of healing but no actual healing? Stories based on someone perhaps seeing something, but getting it all wrong, and exaggerating wildly, turning the mundane into the fantastic? Inquiring minds would like to know.
“Here is what this person said to me in an email:
Hey, you interested in this? Why wouldn’t you be? Wanna read more? Why shouldn’t you? Know how? Join the blog! It’s cheap and pays incredible returns. And all the small fee goes to big-time charities! I don’t make a nickel off this and none of the money goes to operating expenses. ”
I read the first couple of lines thinking, “Now that’s a really odd email,” before realising it was the Blog ad break…
Ha!
I thought that also.
I was thinking it was some sort of scam e-mail; fully expecting the next line to ask for help in getting a newly discovered treasure of inherited money out of Nigeria.
It’s frustrating because you know that these “scholars”could easily see the problem if it occurred in another religion they didn’t like or agree with.
I so agree!
This is an unfair position, most of the scholars who adhere to the nature of the oral traditions of the Vedas are western, non-hindu and skeptical scholars including Fritz Staal, Michael Witzel, William Cenkner, Jan Houben, Johannes Bronkhurst, Hartmut Scharfe are just the ones from the top of my head. None of them are apologists or even “biased” scholars, they like Dr. Ehrman have spent decades studying these traditions, many of them went to India and studied with traditional scholars to understand the language and pedagogy. The tradition holds it takes 12 years to master and memorize one Veda (even today in traditional patshalas this occurs).
In addition, if you look at the means of memorization which not only requires deep understanding of grammar (declensions, conjugations, euphonic combination and so) but also metres or chandas (anustubh, tristubh, arya, sloka) and math used for mnemonic skills (which play out as pada, jata, krama, ghana and so on).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8102627/
The above article/study shows how memorization skills impact the human brain, now it’s not evidence of the ancient orality of these traditions but provides some data that it may be possible, hard but still in the realm of reality.
All of that is certainly true of today. But the question is whether it was true at the outset of the tradition so many centuries ago and what the actual *evidence* of that is. The evidence cannot be that “everyone says so.” I’ve asked Vedic scholars about it, and that’s pretty much their reply: the tradition says that the tradition has always been passed on accurately, and when we test it today, we see that it is indeed.” (I’ll conceded that I may well ahve been asking the wrong scholars.) For some reason it hasn’t occurred to them (the scholars I’ve talked with) that showing accurate modes of retaining tradition today is not the as showing those modes were in place, say, two years after the Vedas first appeared.
All your points are valid and good questions. As you clearly understand and I agree, the difficulty is that we have no independent means to verify it with any academic certainty. The major argument I see put forth, which isn’t proof, is the argument around linguistics, the preservation of forms, words, grammar, and morphology of Vedic Sanskrit in relation to Proto-Indo-European (which is circular in some sense because PIE was itself constructed using a lot of Vedic sanskrit and its grammar) and how different it is from Paninian classical sanskrit.
The presumed orality of the tradition is both its strength (at minimum of modern preservation) and weakness in that it is near impossible to use the methods of literary criticism and history are not currently capable in ascertaining the historic preservation.
The linguistic features could certainly be ancient without the narratives being accurate. Happens all the time, for example, in ancient Greek historians who also had to rely on oral sources.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77159988.pdf
Bronkhurst addresses Goody’s theory vis-a-vis Vedas
The nature of orality in the Indic world was of another order and kind from the rest of the world, it is what led to the grammar of Panini, the “father” of linguistics and generative grammar. The importance on fidelity to sound, accent, pitch, meter is almost unheard of anywhere else. This tradition has been studied by Indologists since the 1700s starting with William Jones father of modern Indo-European philology and now Indology.
Travelers into India including Megasthenes, Fa Xien and Al Biruni, all unequivocally indicate that the Vedas were not committed to writing and in fact the method of transmission is exclusively oral. It does seem to me the western bias around literacy still abounds when people outside the scope of Indology speak about the oral transmission of the vedas with incredulity.
Right. But what was happening in the 1300s? Or the 900s? or the 300’s? Or … keep going.
A good example of the limitations of memory and orality come from Bill James’ tracers (checking the details of stories told by old ballplayers). A latter-day example can be found here:
https://tht.fangraphs.com/ball-four-tracers/
I am ignorant of Hinduism and its texts, except that the vedas are a vast collections of writings, about 1800 pages long in English (en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hinduism/The_Vedas). I am sceptical that anyone today can memorise the entire corpus accurately, never mind verbatim, despite having the written text to practice repeatedly. That is before discussion of historical evidence, or its absence, of actual accurate transmission through millennia. In ancient time, The feat of memorizing an oral tradition of the corpus prior to its written down, must be an order of magnitude more difficult. As to transmission of Quran, it is feasible to memorize the entire text, which is about size of the NT:
Some Muslim children today from devout homes spend years learning little except memorization and recitation of Quran:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/nyregion/16koran.html
You can find teenagers today who can recite Quran almost verbatim, like Tariq Khan (12years) mentioned in the article. There are many notable people in modern and premodern times who are said to have memorized the Quran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_memorized_the_Quran
I was told that the Quran has a poetic quality, written in way amenable to mass memorization.
I am open to the possibility that the Quran was transmitted unchanged after codification by the third caliph Uthman who burnt all other variants except his version decades after death of prophet Muhammad. But the real issue is how much Uthman’s version differed from other extant versions of his time, and which of them is closer to the original (if there was ever an original). Next time your Muslim readers with an apologetics agenda, write to you about the textual criticism of the Quran, you may wish to refer them to a work by Keith E Small:
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/textual-criticism-the-new-testament-and-the-quran/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_Criticism_and_Qur%E2%80%99%C4%81n_Manuscripts
Scholar of Islam, Fred Donner, summarized the state of Quranic research:
“Qur’anic studies, as a field of academic research, appears today to be in a state of disarray. Those of us who study Islam’s origins have to admit collectively that we simply do not know some very basic things about the Qur’an – things so basic that the knowledge of them is usually taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts:How did the Qur’an originate? Where did it come from, and when did it first appear? How was it first written? In what kind of language was it written?…To put it another way, on these basic issues there is little consensus even among the well-trained scholars who work on them.”
(Gabriel Said Reynolds (ed. 2008). The Qur’an in Recent Scholarship. The Quran in its historical context. Routledge. p.29.)
Let’s put aside these trivial questions of Gods and Scriptures to get to a truly important one: were you at THE GAME Saturday night? Suffer any heart damage?
I was out of town. Thank God. Gave my son the tickets. I’ve seen complete heartbreaks in teh Dean Dome before, and am so glad I wasn’t there. I couldn’t even bring myself to read the news articles on it the next day.
You’ve probably heard this story before about two men, one Jewish, and the other a Christian, who had been lifelong friends. One day, clearly out of the blue, the Christian punched out his Jewish friend. Lying on the ground the Jewish man asked, “Why did you do that”? The Christian responded, “Because you guys killed Christ!” “But that was over 2000 years ago!” “I know” said the Christian, “but I just found out about it yesterday.”
Bart’s understanding of how human memory functions is superficial, but when speaking to a general audience, superficiality is often the best route. One thing’s for sure: the fact we know anything at all about an apocalyptic Jew who was killed 2000 years ago is itself nothing short of a miracle. And in fact we know a lot more than just a few facts.
There are billions of New Testaments in print today and tens of billions of Christians who have lived and died and who all believed roughly the same things about Jesus and his followers.
That’s interesting that you think it’s superficial. I spent two years reading nothing but scholarship on memory — psychologists, sociologists (on social memory), and neuroscientists (when they were writting for mere humans, instead of fellow neuroscientists) — in prepartion for my book on memory and the oral traditions about Jesus (didn’t read any scholarship on the NT! Seriously. For two years). When I completely my book I gave it to the head of the Department of Psychology at Harvard, who is the world’s expert on false memories, and he told me that I had reported it all correctly. So, uh, what do you think is superficial? (Serious question!)
The two most striking examples of how human memory fails are the telephone game and the eyewitness reliability studies. Each of these is a popular understanding of human memory. But there are examples of how astonishingly adept people can be in memorizing and recalling important facts. One that comes to, um, mind is Douglas Hegdahl, a Vietnam POW who memorized the names and details of 256 fellow inmates in the Hanoi Hilton prison. Hegdahl was not a genius and possessed no formalized mnemonic system, and the conditions under which he labored were beyond inhumane. It remains an impressive feat of heroism. I certainly agree it’s unlikely that the New Testament is flawless in every respect. However, the ability of humans to accurately memorize and accurately recall information is much stronger than suggested by the telephone game and the eyewitness studies.
It’s ‘superficial’ because it doesn’t match what Matt needs to believe.
I’m not sure there is a more fascinating topic than cognitive biases, and there is no better laboratory in which to observe them than modern superstition.
There’s plenty of cognitive bias to go around! And ample helpings of groupthink too.
You seem to be very impressed by numbers but numbers have nothing to do with the truth value of some statement.
Suppose I have billions of copies of a book that tells me that the value of pi is 3.0. Precisely that– not an irrational number, not a repeating decimal, not even a decimal with a small number of digits. Just precisely 3.0. Would all those copies of all those books make that assertion true? Suppose I had billions of perfect copies of a book that told us the earth is flat– would that make the earth flat? And so on. Your logic seems flawed to me.
Agree, and to me it’s a bit like claiming that 4 quintillion flies hang around dung-piles and eat manure daily, therefore we can conclude that manure tastes delicious.
If you had a billion books all saying that Jesus once made 22/7 equal 3, then you’ld an enormous amount of evidence. Would it be conclusive? No. Would it mean that 22/7 =3 today? Nope. Would an interstellar time traveler be interested to know it? Youbetcha. Of course, there aren’t a billion books all saying Jesus made 22/7 = 3. There are about 7 billion New Testaments in print that all say Jesus rose from the dead. And billions of Christians today and for the past 2000 years who have been saying Jesus rose from the dead. The New Testament is a must-read for any alien piloting a UFO through space time, and like 22/7, it’s worth knowing all about, regardless of your religion.
Ummm, I really think the New Testament tells us more about how our brains work than anything about Jesus or the
truth or accuracy of any of the stories told about him. Ideas replicate, like viruses. And some ideas are more viral or infectious than others. The many copies of the new testament, in various editions are no more miraculous than the many copies of coronavirus currently circulating. Or, if you like, just as miraculous. Or the many copies of influenza virus, or the many copies of the HIV retrovirus. Ideas are the viral agents of the noosphere– I remember reading that somewhere. It stuck with me, like an infection. But a viral idea is not necessarily valid. So, if validity and accuracy are the issues, some evidence other than many copies is required.
I remember being told this sort of thing and repeating it quite often in my youth. My denomination did have a certain obsession with manuscript age, as though copies of NT works that were dated closer to the time of their authorship not only meant that they were more accurate, but that the events they describe must have been true. This fervent desire rooted in a mistaken understanding of textual transmission seems to have a hand in creating the worldwide demand for early Christian artifacts of dubious dating and provenance. The more I read about the antiquities trade from Grenfell and Hunt all the way to the Green family today the more omnipresent that market force seems.
Based on your assertions and arguments for evidence, clearly we will never know these answers. But what about the progression of the movement (Christianity) , having grown to the size of where it is today, surpassing all other religions, even older ones, does that not account for some validity (truth) of what these people saw/heard to continue these traditions as an historic event? Or is this, maybe, the greatest story ever told, involving life/death/resurrection? On a side note, maybe relevant; I seem to understand the criteria involved in historical evidence and some things we may never know for sure. On * Belief *, when historians use the same methods/criteria to re-construct an historical event, they may agree on the discoveries from the evidence available to them. When weighing these findings against personal belief/bias, why do some choose to still believe in a religion and others not? I reference , Paula Fredriksen, she is an accomplished historian, like yourself, yet she converted to Judaism although evidence is stacked against belief. Does it come down to personal choice/preference, for scholars as well, on whether to believe ?
Hey Bart, I was expecting an answer from my genuine question(s). I hope you didn’t view it as nonsense, because I don’t have the literary skills to articulate as well as most of your bloggers. I mean no harm to you and your credible research as a professor of religious studies but sometimes I wonder if you purposely skip or miss or refuse to answer for reasons I do not know/understand why. I know your busy and sometimes time is of the essence, but I am learning how to minimize my questions more effectively. Thanks.
Ah, sorry! Sometimes I see questions and assume they are rhetorical — not being asked for an answer but in order to make a point. See what I mean? (That’s a rhetorical question! I don’t expect, actually, a “Yes”) (Or a “no”!) But the last question is certainly answerable, but maybe not in the way you would expect. I had dinner with Paula last week, as it turns out — invited her to give a couple of lectures here at UNC. I’ve never heard her talk about her “belief.” Yes, she absolutely converted to orthodox Judaism, and I suppose she does believe on some level — but I’m not absolutely sure about htat. Orthodox Judaism is far more about practice than what a person believes about God; and she does practice it (kosher home, and so on) But what she believes, I just don’t know. My sense is that different things make better sense to some people than others, and we don’t always know why….
Hi Veritas
I know these questions are for Bart but I think they are interesting, and I hope you don’t find it presumptuous for me to offer my views.
I’m a Christian but I do not think that numbers of people who are Christian means that historical claims about Christianity is true. Lots of people can be wrong about all sorts of things. Likewise if in time there are very few Christians I would not think it therefore must be false.
As far as reaching different conclusions:
Most trials involve both sides putting on evidence. We don’t have a computer program or anything close to that which will tell us what conclusions we should draw from that evidence. People will have different experiences and draw different and possibly even contradictory conclusions from the same evidence. Lets say someone testifies and they are not nervous at all. One Juror might he must be telling the truth because if he was lying he would be nervous. Another Juror might say how can he possibly be on trial for this crime and not be nervous? Me must be some sort of psychopath!
I find that evidence I used to view one way may not have the same strength as I originally thought. This can happen just as we go through life and have more life experiences. Lots of people argue the differences in the Gospel accounts hurt their credibility. John Chrysostom argued that the differences in the gospel accounts add to their credibility. Chrysostom’s is a view I tend hold and as I live and learn longer I find that view more and more compelling. Since it seems Luke and Matthew used Mark their agreement on issues often adds limited weight. John gets many things differently than the synoptic gospels so he seems not to just be repeating what they wrote. So when he lines up that becomes more compelling. And when you throw Paul in there too, well then it is pretty well attested.
Whether someone believes in God involves more than just historical evidence. How the issue is framed and what we value can effect that belief and whether the historical evidence is deemed “sufficient” or not.
And what about the argument that The Flood must have happened since cultures around the world had a similar myth?
My view is that an event with enormous geological implications needs to have geological evidence. As you know, there ain’t any. What there are are logs of ancient cultures that lived near floodable sources of water. No surprise they had flood stories.
Maybe I’m being simplistic but most, almost all, civilizations grew around rivers. Rivers all flood from time to time.
Not simplistic at all. Probably the right solution!
Jane Roberts’ “Seth”:
” [Ancient] Civilizations were often warned in advance of natural
disasters that were apparent to the [ancient alien] visitors with their greater
viewpoint.
“Such warnings were either given in the dream state of
the earth men, for the reasons given or often in some secluded
place, for often the visitors would be attacked….
Often warnings of disaster were not followed. Some warnings were
misunderstood, then, as punishment by the gods [the ancient aliens] of ‘moral
misdoing.’
(9:36) “The whole moral code idea was originally tailored
for the current scene as it was encountered, told in terms that
the natives could understand.
“The pyramids, the huge boulders etched out (I think Seth
refers here to Baalbek; I didn’t interrupt to ask. –Jane’s husband Robert Butts) All of this
was done in one way or another through the use of, a knowledge
of, both coordination points in space (described by Seth in his
own book, _Seth Speaks_) and the use of sound.
“There were instruments that released sound, and directed it in
the same way, say, that a laser beam does with light.
“Drawings of some of these exist in primitive Sumerian
cave renditions, but the drawings are misinterpreted, the
instrument is taken for another. No one knows how to use the
instruments. There are a few in existence, in your terms.
[…]
“The Olympic gods were perhaps the most amusing of
man’s attempt to deify space travelers. Mixed in here strongly
were the ideas of gods mating with earth women. (Pause.)
“In some respects the over enthusiastic use of the sound*
was responsible for the flood mentioned in the Bible, and other
literature. It was for this reason that many attempts were made
to warn against the impending disaster. The use of sound was
important at various times in irrigating dry areas, quite
literally by pulling water from a distance.
(11:22) “There were several characteristics that proved
difficult, however. Literally, the sound traveled further often
than was intended, causing consequences not planned upon. Great
finesse was important. Sound was also used after irrigation to
speed up the flowering of plants, and to facilitate
transplantation to other areas. It was also utilized for
medicinal purposes in operations, particularly in bone and brain
operations.
[…]
Rob’s Notes:
I read [this] 604th Session to ESP class on Tuesday, January 7,
1975. After I’d read some pages, George Rhodes held up a drawing
he’d made of the ankh and asked Seth — who had come through —
if the sound instrument was the ankh, or at least shaped like it.
Like a pistol if held sideways. The “barrel” would emit
the sound ray and the mechanisms and controls would be in the
short arms.
Seth told George he was quite right.
The complete session:
https://markmgiese.blogspot.com/2019/11/seth-session-604-ancient-aliens.html
Are you saying you find this convincing?
Hopefully it is merely due to inadvertence, but it looks like I don’t have a right of reply as no link for same appeared under:
Bart April 12, 2020
Are you saying you find this convincing?
So I attempt my reply here:
Yes, *I* find Jane Roberts’ “Seth” quite convincing.
I offered it as food for thought but had to trim off heading it as such because I ran into a word limit with that post.
When one is a religious fundamentalist, it could be said such a person has faith without reason.
There is an opposing fundamentalism which amounts to reason without faith, the hard science view of things.
Seth speaks in another session about this sort of clash of fundamentalisms and its significance and negative effects on humankind in general.
He recommends instead to try to combine intuition and the intellect. The trouble for science types is that that is an art form.
Jane Roberts’ Seth material was, in my view, a very successful marriage of intuition and intellect.
By the way, I am often left unimpressed by most other channeling, a less successful “marriage” it seems.
Bart, I am hoping you and/or colleagues will have a look at this; I also sent it to the Jesus Seminar:
https://markmgiese.blogspot.com/2020/04/first-century-manuscript-symbols-from_22.html
Thank you.
On the Wikipedia page about the Vedas I found this: “Some scholars such as Jack Goody state that “the Vedas are not the product of an oral society”, basing this view by comparing inconsistencies in the transmitted versions of literature from various oral societies such as the Greek, Serbia and other cultures, then noting that the Vedic literature is too consistent and vast to have been composed and transmitted orally across generations, without being written down. However, adds Goody, the Vedic texts likely involved both a written and oral tradition, calling it a “parallel products of a literate society”.”
I know this is Wikipedia but assuming it is accurately portraying Goody’s work what do you think of his view?
I haven’t read this bit of his work, but I’ve read a lot of it, and he’s the real deal and a real expert.
According to Wikipedia Jack Goody talks about this in his book The Interface between the Written and the Oral (Studies in Literacy, the Family, Culture and the State). Just FYI.
There are elderly Holocaust survivors.
At the State of the Union, a 100 year old Tuskegee airman was honored.
What are you saying about the reliability of what they can tell us about history? Second, historians should not interview them for reliable content?
Not one of your memories from 50 years ago is reliable?
I don’t think you read me correctly. I have never, ever said that 50-year old memory is necessarily unreliable.
Dr Bart erhman , this an off post question. What do you make of this verse about what happen on dooms day.
Matthew 24:29
Verse Concepts
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Isaiah 13:10
Verse Concepts
For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not
Joel 2:31
Verse Concepts
“The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood Before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.
Acts 2:20
Verse Concepts
‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME
Could this be coincidence?
No, not a coincidence. Apocalyptic Jews got a good deal of their imagery from the Hebrew Bible.
All this is true, but historians of recent events do use oral recollections, all the time. I’m reading Robert Caro’s epic LBJ biography, and he was interviewing a host of people who knew the 36th President, about events that had occurred sixty or more years ago. His advantage was that since LBJ had died at 65, most people who had known him as a young man were still around, and many were willing to talk. He learned a lot of things nobody had ever known before, many of them disturbing, but the overall picture he paints–of a man driven by unrelenting ambition–is compelling.
Obviously nobody writing the gospels would or could have been as thorough and systematic and relatively objective–and nobody thought LBJ was God (with the possible exception of LBJ). But the fact is, oral history is a valid and necessary tool for learning about the past, not that you’re saying it isn’t. Our problem is that the gospel authors were not writing as historians. But even historians shape the information they gather to a specific end–Caro wanted to learn about how certain people can gain and exert power, far greater than what they technically ought to have.
If I can get that time machine finished by the time Caro finishes Volume 5, maybe I’ll send him back in time to interview people. “The Years of Jesus of Nazareth.” Only suppose he decides he’d rather do Paul? Or Octavian? Or whoever the Robert Moses of the First Century was? Have to get that spelled out in the contract.
Yes, of course historians deal with oral traditions!
The accuracy of oral transmission of scriptures could be a topic for a doctoral student.
1. Find a few subjects who are Muslims, Jews and Christians that claim they have memorized their respective scriptures.
2. Provide them a recording studio
3. Have the subjects recite the scripture they have memorized into an electronic recording device
4. Have each recording transcribed by two or more trained transcriptionists.
5. The grad student would then be able to compare each transcript with the recording.
6. If two or more transcripts match, the grad student would then compare word for word the transcripts with a printed text of the scripture the subjects claim they have memorized. (If the student gets this far, and is not residing in a padded cell, s/he should be awarded a double doctorate and given a permanent position at the university of her/his choice, with all student loans forgiven.)
Oh, yes, this kind of thing has been done in lots of significant work, mainly by cultural anthropologists (e.g. Jack Goody), but starting with the groundbreaking work of Milman Perry and Albert Lord. If you’re interested, Albert’s Lord book The Singer of Tales, now sixty years later, is a brilliant classic.
Armchair linguist here,
I think we can know the Vedas were preserved pretty reliably because it retains the most archaic Indo-European features. Sanskrit has 8 noun cases which come in three grammatical numbers: singular, dual, and plural. They generally correspond to the case endings in the oldest attested European languages. Even the earliest European languages dropped a few of these cases. Latin dropped the instrumental case which merged with the ablative. The locative only remains on a few nouns. Verbs in Sanskrit also have a dual number ending. Greek, Slavic, and the Gothic language of the Germanic branch are the only European languages to have a dual verb ending.
Sanskrit (and its sister language, Avestan) also have to most complex, irregular pronoun system. The first person plural takes the form vayam in the nominative (cognate with English we), asma- in the oblique cases (cognate with Greek amme/hemeis depending on the dialect), and -nas when used as an enclitic (Cognate with Latin nos). European languages really only preserve one, or sometimes two of these roots.
I”m not denying that the traditions are rooted in ancient language structures with the appropriate grammar. I’m denying that we have evidence that the traditions in those languages were never changed in teh retelling.
Maybe they think that your disbelief comes from textual issues in the Bible. If they can show you that their texts are preserved, you could see that there’s a God. I’ve been in a lot of online discussions where someone will say, “If there really is a god, then we would have the original mss, no variants, contradictions, etc.” But then, when someone counters their argument with a *reliable* text from a different faith, that same person will say that an original, preserved document does not indicate it’s divinely inspired. So how can the NT’s textual issues be a good argument for there being no divine inspiration when a perfectly preserved text is no indication of a god either?
Something else I find frustrating is when someone will use critical scholarship or historical work for the New Testament to make a theological point (ex. Jesus was not divine) while at the same time refusing to accept a Christian’s argument when they use the same work to prove a theological point. They will say, “You can’t do that. That’s a matter of faith!”
Bad arguments come in many different shapes and sizes.
I couldn’t agree more. We all know how two people (eg my wife and I) remembering an event from 2 years ago invariably give two quite different accounts of what happened. I feel Vedic studies clearly needs someone of Dr Ehrman’s calibre to give it some much needed objectivity.
Somewhat loosely related to the topic oral tradition and preservation: was listening to a podcast on Paul’s letters and the host claimed 2nd Thessalonians was clearly written by Paul because the Christians in Thessalonica would have known what letters Paul had written to them and would have called 2nd Thessalonians out as a forgery if it weren’t for real.
Yeah, that sounds sensible — unless you know how forgery worked in antiquity! We have forged letters to the Loadiceans, the Corinthians (3 Corinthians!), the Alexandrians — all claiming to be written by Paul. These letters were never *SENT* to those places. They were put in circulation claiming to have gone long ago to them. So too with 2 Thess. It wasn’t sent to Thessalonica, so the argument doesn’t work (unless you want to claim that 3 Corinthians was really written by Paul! But read it, and I don’t think you’ll think so). In the modern world we would reply to this by saying “Well, wouldn’t the Thessalonians let everyone know that in fact this letter was NOT sent to them, if they never got it?” Yes, possibly in the modern world, where we have mass communication. But int he ancient world, where they didn’t, the Thessalonians may not have heard of the letter for decades, by which time the people living really wouldn’t know. And would have no way of informing the rest of Christianity. Or, in fact, maybe someone there *DID* protest. We have no way of knowing one way or the other!
“He said that he had a 92 year old neighbor who could easily tell stories about what happened when she was a child.”
As you have said, just ’cause someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
I hear multiple times per month from persons with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease something like, “I know what I ate on that ship off Korea in 1951, but I can’t recall what I ate for breakfast today.” Well, he says he recalls what was up on that boat. But was it so? How does one determine? Were YOU there? Can YOU corroborate? How ’bout YOUR memory? It’s been proven, repeatedly, that supposedly preserved consolidated (retrograde/”remote”) memories of Alzheimer patient’s….ain’t well-preserved. How does one find out? Lotsa hard work using a variety of sophisticated techniques. Same with the memory of so-called normals, as you emphasize repeatedly in ‘Jesus Before the Gospels.’ Do I know how often you (really) called your mother when you were at Moody? Duh, no, and neither do you unless you kept a reliable, written, personal record, or unless you have access to the phone company’s (hopefully un-doctored) records. Some of your readers appear to have missed your big point: one needs evidence, a warrant, a RELIABLE warrant, to back up one’s claims. No evidence? Didn’t happen. As Jack Palance says repeatedly in “Shane”: “prove it.”
Toejam’s off-topic random question no. 298725:
This evening I have been doing a bit of reading on what Justin Martyr potentially had in front of him when he referred to the “memoirs of the apostles”. While searching through the Dialogue with Trypho, I came across Justin’s description of the Gethsemane scene:
“For on the day on which [Jesus] was to be crucified, having taken three of his disciples to the hill called Olivet, situated opposite to the temple in Jerusalem, he prayed in these words: ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’ And again he prayed: ‘Yet not what I want but what you want’, showing by this that he had become truly a suffering man. But lest any one should say that he did not know that he had to suffer, he added immediately in the Psalm: ‘And not for lack of my understanding’. Just as there was no ignorance on God’s part when he asked Adam where he was [Gen 3:9], or when he asked Cain where Abel was [Gen 4:9], it was done to convince each what kind of man he was, and in order that through the record [of Scripture] we might have a knowledge of all. So likewise Christ declared that ignorance was not on his side, but on theirs – those who thought he was not the Christ, and fancied they would put him to death, and that he, like some common mortal, would remain in Hades.” (Dial. 99)
Justin seems to say that Jesus quoted a Psalm immediately after the infamous “Yet not what I want but what you want” line. This obviously does not occur in Matthew, Mark or Luke’s description of the scene. After scouring through P. W. Comfort’s “A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the NT”, which purports to catalog the most prominent textual variants, I could not find any reference to this having survived in any manuscript tradition.
Some questions: 1) What Psalm is the “And not for lack of my understanding” line from? and 2) Are you aware of any other text that describes Jesus quoting this (to me) mystery Psalm? (either in another account of the Gethsemane scene or elsewhere) (e.g. in a textual variant, or non-canonical gospel, or another Church Father?)
Justin isn’t referring to words of Jesus in teh Gospel (matthew) but to Psalm 22, which he takes to be spoken in reference to Jesus; he is indicating that the Psalm shows that even though he asks the question of why he has been foresaken (Psalm 22:1) the rest of the Psalm shows that it s not from a lack of understanding.
Dr Ehrman
Some argue that oral traditions coupled with memory are more authentic and safer than written traditions. Written traditions can be altered or lost altogether, while oral traditions coupled with memorization can withstand human alterations and disappearance of text. ( you can strip one of all they have, but you cant take away their knowledge- [memory] )
Oral traditions give understanding of certain events in history and can be proven true. It exists today in parts of Africa where it is integral to their societies. It is oral traditions and oral evidence that shaped it. Oral traditions transcend generally from generation to generation by older folks-scholars enriched with knowledge and wisdom. It was not accepted otherwise. Communal knowledge unlike individual knowledge is agreed upon and have consensus, then preserved before handed down to the next generation orally. Hence, oral evidence.
Though it is common for one to hear or read about a certain event, the lay man may not know if it is a tale, a myth or if it is truth. Historians have knowledge and experience that can get to the root of oral traditions and eliminate tales and myths in order to get to the truth authenticating an event or discrediting it ( base on language, culture, tradition, common sense ect .. ). Today, We have the means. Right? ( technology, science, archaeology, language…)
Dr Ehrman, with a sound and solid disciplinary, cross checking approach in safeguarding and preserving oral traditions, unwritten traditions and / or old written tradition ( rocks, leather, bone ect ..), can we accept that as reliable and true free of myths and tales?
It is humanly *possible* to preserve traditions intact orally. But it virtually never happens, EXCEPT in cultures that are themselves high literary, and with texts that are already written down. That’s because the very concept of “verbatim repetition” never occurs in oral cultures. It derived from written cultures, when people realized they could check to see if two statements were word for word the same. I’ts so hard to do in oral cultures that it never occurred to most people most of the time even to try. Oral traditions were known to be *best* if molded to the constantly new situations in whcih they were repeated. There’s a log of scholarship on this. I’d suggest the books by Albert Lord, Jan Vansina, Jack Goody, and Walter Ong.
Dr Ehrman,
I looked up Albert Lord’s book – Perspectives on Recent Work on the Oral Traditional Formula and Jack Goody’s book -The Interface Between the Written and the Oral. Then stumbled on his work on the stolen history or history stolen. Led me to a David Samuel Margoliouth, a critique, scholar, linguist, translator and editor. He made a statement in Feb 1929 at the University of Culcutta about Arabic Historians:
“But though the theory of the Isnad ( the chain of authorities attesting to the historical authenticity of a narration ) has occasioned endless trouble, owing to the inquiries which have to be made into the trustworthiness of each transmitter, and the fabrication of the traditions was a familiar and at times easily tolerated practice,its value in making for accuracy cannot be questioned, and the Muslims are justified in taking pride in their science of tradition.”
Among other languages, he mastered Arabic, its literature, poetry, culture … He goes on to write “The relation of this Qur’anic style to the verse and rhymed prose of classical Arabic is an enigma which cannot at present be solved.”
I personally do not believe everything I hear nor read, but this is pretty strong from a critic.
Dr Lord had doubts in denying that Islamic traditions were untrue. He seems to lean toward its more to the truth than not but could not come up with a verdict. At least it leaves one to ponder at the evidence. Words of wisdom, what are you thoughts?
You should read Lord’s book Singer of Tales. But if you want a simple view of how oral transmission works, see my book Jesus before the Gospels, and especially check out the massively important studies (on which I base my analysis) by Jan Vansina, Jack Goody, Walter Ong, and so on.
Thanks. I will.
I now appreciate and comprehend the value of classroom study and research. It took me 45 days ( alone ) to derive something that was baseless or convinced me of something that wasn’t there. Thankful though. It wasn’t centuries. ( try changing your mind then ) LOL.
Dr. Ehrman, is there anything in the New Testament that would indicate to you that any authors were concerned about preserving the oral traditions or, at least, some historical facts?
Sure — the entire NT is meant to convey what its authors understood to be factually true.
How can an author claiming to be somebody he’s not (forgery), be trusted to be telling the truth about anything else?
That doesn’t prove that he’s lying about anything else, but it does prove that he’s not only interested in conveying factual truths.
I’d say few people are….
I agree, which is why I am questioning your claim that the NT writers (‘entirely’) thought that what they writing was factually true.
My sense is that if you think someone is lying, you have to have some reason to think it — e.g. some evidence that they know what they are saying is false and are saying it anyway. The fact that there may have been a motive is not itself evidence, it would be an explanation for the result of the finding, which itself would be based on evidence.
“Fear and self interest-these are the levers that move men”.
-Napolean-
“The Gospels can’t be considered reliable; and men have every interest to lie about Jesus to other men”.
-anonymous-
“My sense is that if you think someone is lying, you have to have some reason to think it — e.g. some evidence that they know what they are saying is false and are saying it anyway.”
So far we have about two occurrences in the NT that are widely accepted as fact. And, they have their reasons. But, only two? Errors, discrepancies, and the like, far outweigh the factual. How about more evidence to know if someone is telling the truth? Don’t you think we could be missing something here?
That wasn’t a clear question. What I meant was, more evidence that proves someone is telling the truth.
My sense is that if you think someone isn’t telling the truth, that the burden of proof would be on you to show it, since the default position is to say things are true rather than to lie. To prove someone isn’t lying would be attempting to prove a negative.
We’re missing lots! But we don’t know what, without evidence….
Dr. Ehrman,
Last question on this. We don’t know what we’re missing without evidence? What kind of ancient evidence, realistically speaking, would it take to show that someone isn’t telling the truth? Could there be any such evidence in the NT? Could there be any such evidence period, ancient or otherwise?
There are indeed ancient writers that we know aren’t speaking the truth, knowingly. For example, whoever write 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. He certainly wasn’t. So he was lying. But in most instances, no, there is no way to know. So unless you have reason to think someone is lying, then, well, you have no reason to think so!
What’s with the bias with the apostle Peter in the Gospels?
In regards to the oral traditions I want to know why Peter was betrayed negatively in our Gospels. I think you even called him a complicated character in you book “Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene”. What was being said after Jesus death and up to the time the Gospels are being written. Peter as you know, Is the leader and Jesus successor. So what happened to Peter? Why is he treated so poorly the Gospels? Did other christian communities haver something against him or did he stray away from the christian movement overtime? Or did something completely different happen to him?
It’s really hard to know. He is treated as the most important character and as highly fallible. Maybe it’s too be a lesson for very fallible readers? Some conmunities were opposed to him, but not the ones behind the Gospels. You maybe be interested in teh six chapters I devote to him in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.
Compared to Xnity, the gap between the events and the earliest written accounts for Buddhism is even worse:
…The Tipitaka that was transmitted to Sri Lanka during the reign of King Asoka were initially preserved orally and were later written down during the Fourth Buddhist Council in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāli_Canon
Pre-sectarian Buddhism,[1] also called early Buddhism,[2][3] the earliest Buddhism,[4][5] and original Buddhism,[6] is Buddhism as theorized to have existed before the various subsects of Buddhism came into being.[web 1]
The contents and teachings of this pre-sectarian Buddhism must be deduced or re-constructed from the earliest Buddhist texts, which by themselves are already sectarian….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism
–Mark
Racine, WI, US(A)
Professor,
I was expecting you’d say a bit more about Quran as well. u mainly talked about veda and gospels but very little about quran(simply added it with them). When it comes to the accuracy of the oral tradition, do u know about the term “huffas”(quran memorizers)? There r millions of them out there who can recite the whole book word for word. As u see it’s important in the islamic tradition. Because this practice is still alive and going in full swing even today when there’s no need for memorizers in terms of preserving the textual authenticity of the scripture. Also it’s odd that a large number of these memorizers cant speak Arabic or know the meaning of the arabic texts. They can only read and write and still they successfully memrorize the whole book! I mean they have exams and what not to get their memorizer title. Also there are people who do it without pursuing it academically. I think it shouldn’t be overlooked when you’re comparing the oral tradition in Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. I mean think about how many people have accurately memorized gospels and vedas compared to the quran. Isn’t that a big difference?
I have talked about it a bit. Oral traditino is a very, very different phenomenon when it is *rooted* in a text. People memorize texts, adn their memories can be tested against the texts (to see if they are right or not) even if they pass along their memorized texts orally. That is very, very different from oral traditions that are and always have been oral, when there is no text to compare them to in order to see if they are accuraet. So the Qur’an is not like the oral traditions that I deal with in respect to, say, the historical Jesus.
I’m old enough to remember a few significant historical events happening. The JFK assassination, the first moon landing, the MLK assassination, Woodstock, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks to name some
Did I witness any of them? No. I have memories based on the how the media chose to report it. It’s also clear people’s memories have changed ( not MINE of course!) as time passes to better correlate to people’s changing world view.
To avoid the extremely inflammatory topic of politics, I’ll stick to Woodstock. Many have very romanticized utopian perceptions of it, while others describe it as a mud pit full of sewage. Which reality is right? We’re only talking 50ish years ago, and there’s already disagreement. People living 2000 years ago, relying mostly on oral history, would be no better at presenting historical events.
Hello, Dr. Ehrman! What do you think about Birger Gerhardsson’s conclusions on the similarity between rabbinic judaism oral transmission and early christianity oral transmission?
I deal with it in my book Jesus Before the Gospels, and show why it has been shown to be problematic. I”m not sure anyone subscribes to it anymore, but who knows!
I’m a big fan of Lynne Kelly’s research into indigenous memory systems, as originally detailed in her academic publication “Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies” (2015) and expanded upon in trade books since. What it boils down to is that oral societies can keep information extremely accurate when they need to, and have elaborate techniques for doing so, but the flip side is that if keeping information accurate were easy, they wouldn’t need all those elaborate techniques! And they don’t use them indiscriminately! One of the main techniques is to keep the most important information secret and reserve it for elites. No oral society can keep information accurate and public at the same time! (BTW, “accurate” should not be conflated with “verbatim”. The information is the thing, and it is largely encoded in non-verbal forms such as dance.)
INteresting. I haven’t read it. I should take a look, though, since this view runs counter to almost all the anthropological (and literary) work done in the later 20th century — and well before, starting with Milman Parry and going through Albert Lord, but also into serious anthropologists such as Jack Goody and Jan Vansina, etc. All of these showed quite convincingly how fluid and unstable “oral tradiiton” is in “oral societies,” which had no concern for precisely the accurate recollection that we associate with modern western societies.
Well, here is her bibliography https://www.lynnekelly.com.au/?page_id=1458 I see that the names Lord, Goody and Vansina are all included, but not Parry.
Dear Prof. Ehrman, I am sure you are aware of the fact that some churches, like the Catholic and the Orthodox have oral Tradition in addition to Scripture.
If a Church claims that something constitutes “Tradition”, which means that it was believed and taught by the apostles, do you think that there is any way for a historian to check if such claim would be at least plausible?
Back then Irenaeus and Tertullian argued that if is something is believed in the entire Church all around the world, the reason therefore is most likely that it was taught by the apostles. Because back then, the “communication network” simply was not able to make sure that something someone would come up with could be introduced and adopted to the entire Church all over the world.
What is your view on this argument?
Many thanks in advance and best regards from Berlin, Germany
Yes, historians look into this matter all the time. The reality is that leaders of lots and lots of different groups claimed that their views had been passed down to them by the apostles (often the very same apostles — e.g., Peter, or John) and yet their views are diametrically opposed to one another. These kinds of claims can often be shown to be legendary or wishful thinking. Some of the most compelling research was done on your home turf. Arguably the most important study was Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum. I consider it the most important book written on earliest Christianity in the 20th century.
Thank you very much for your reply, Prof. Ehrman.
I´m just curious what you think of this idea by Irenaeus and Tertullian, which is basically: “If something is believed everywhere (and for a long period of time), then the most plausible explanation for this is that it was taught by the apostles?”
Their argument is: in those days, if bishops all over the world would be inventing (new) ideas, it is highly unlikely that they would invent exactly the same ideas. It would be much more likely that the ideas would be different. Therefore, the better explanation for such “uniformity” would be the apostolic origin.
Would you agree with such reasoning (from a perspective of a scholar) or would you rather say that it´s not convincing?
I’d say it’s a good argument when it can be demonstrated. The problem is that even at they time these authors were writing, there was *not* a consensus about what to believe. Their books are directed against large groups who believed very different things! That was the problem. But even more than that, they are writing a century and a half or more after Jesus’ death. What everyone believes about an event 150 years ago is not hte same as what everyone believed at the time. Take the Civil War. What does “everyone” say it was all about. When I moved from New Jersey to North Carolina I was completely shocked at what “everyone” said about it.
Thank you very much, Prof. Ehrman – I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the opportunity to ask the most distinguished scholar in this field and you taking your precious time to answer those questions!
Although I´m an orthodox Christian, I deeply appreciate and enjoy your books and find them very informative and important! God bless you and your family!
Hello, Bart! Do you know of any case on which someone added oral traditions to a written text? What I mean can be either of the next two explanations, I’ll explain it by steps:
1) There were oral traditions about a person
2) Some of the oral traditions (not all of them) were written down
3) Someone added the oral traditions, that weren’t written down the first time, to the already written text
Or:
1) There were oral traditions about a person
2) All of them were written down at some point
3) But later, people made up more stories (oral traditions) about that person
4)The stories made up, after the first written text was finished, were added to the already written text
Yes, both cases happen all the time — in teh modern world and the ancient. The Gospels were certainly part of that sequence (both of them)
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you recommend good books on oral culture, storytelling, and how growing legend worked? And why oral culture is not reliable?
I deal with it at length in my book Jesus before the Gospels and I discuss numerous anthropologists and their studies (which I cite) that deal with these issues explicitly (starting with Albert Lord and including Jack Goody and Jan Vansina, etc.).
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve heard people argue from the Dead Seas Scrolls that this “proves” oral traditions were preserved faithfully. For example, archaeologist Stephen E. Nash (who is NOT religious), wrote:
“some of the stories relayed in the Dead Sea Scrolls are about 3,000 years old, dating to the time of King David. During that period, Hebrew was not yet a written language. So far as we know, Hebrew was first written down in about 600 B.C. I remember being shocked when I realized that many of the stories recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls therefore existed for centuries as oral history!”
I was wondering if you’ve ever heard anybody use the Dead Sea Scrolls as proof that oral history can be reliable? If so, what are your thoughts?
Good grief. Really? I don’t know who he is but he really needs to study up a bit on ancient Israelite history.
Dr. Ehrman,
In piggybacking on my last comment, he also said:
“Oral history is kept by specialists. If you are the keeper of history in a society that does not have a written language, your job is to preserve the story verbatim. You have to apprentice and train for many years, and you have to go through tests and approval processes before you are deemed qualified to serve as keeper.”
Is there any evidence of this?
No, he’s just makin’ stuff up. Read my book Jesus Before the Gospels where I discuss these issues at length, not based on hearsay and opinion but hardcore scholarship (done by hardcore scholars of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and history, all of them cited).