This is a continuation of our investigation into Roger Viklund's discovery of methodological problems with Stephen Carlson's central proof in the Gospel Hoax. I received a courageous email from Birger Pearson acknowledging that questions did exist with Carlson's methodology. And have now received a flood of emails from people who want to keep their comments private (for fear of backlash from the greater academic community for daring to challenge the circle associated with Carlson - i.e. Ehrman, Criddle et al). One prominent scholar sent me the following email. I have kept his identity anonymous because he already thinks I am half crazy (my two year old son locked me out of my house while I was talking to him on my cellphone from my porch and I had to call a locksmith to let me back into - it did not make for a good first impression!).
As my purpose in calling out Carlson's shoddy methodology is to breakdown the fence which separates the 'hoaxers' from those who accept the Mar Saba document as genuine I will publish his post. I know this man has the greatest respect for Pearson as do I. We just have to get a dialogue going again and that means getting ideas out in the open rather than whispered among 'factions' in academia. Here then are the comments:
Birger was thoroughly convinced by Carlson’s book, but did not bother to analyze the answers to Carlson’s “proof.” I suspect that when (and if) the manuscript is discovered and the ink is analyzed there will be arguments that Smith also concocted 18th century ink in order to complete his hoax!
Let it be said that I asked Pearson if I could publish his email and did not do so until he said it was okay. I responded to the person who sent me these comments with the following comments:
Well, we should give Pearson credit for ACTUALLY LOOKING AT the evidence, acknowledging the methodological difficulties and allowing me to post his comments. This is how scholarship SHOULD proceed. It's not about holding fast to absolute positions but allowing the best explanation to win the day. I doubt very much that Bart Ehrman for instance would be as forthcoming with such an acknowledgment.
Indeed that will be the next step in my efforts to evangelize Viklund's findings - i.e. take them right to the "darkest depths of Mordor." I will email a letter to Ehrman and see how he responds - or does not respond to the evidence.
I already sent this story - one of the most important in all of 2009 - to Jim West and was unable to pry him from his 'loyalty' to Carlson. West thanked me for the story but did not publish it at his blog.
Isn't scholarship supposed to be about loyalty to the truth?
