I am sensitive to the charge that I engaged in an ad hominem against Dr. Ehrman. But which is worse, my doing that, or Dr. Ehrman’s participation in the rigging of lectures, and his smearing of the many scholars who have rejected the Qumran-Essene theory?

Frank (like Ehrman) implies that there is a “consensus” about the Dead Sea Scrolls. But this is precisely what the Jewish Museum has denied in its exhibit announcement. Lots of defenders of the Qumran-Essene theory claim that there’s a consensus which (how surprising!) favors them, but the fact of the matter is that the only real consensus in this field today is that there is no consensus.

Frank says the whole question should be whether Dr. Ehrman is qualified to speak on the subject. Well, how can someone be qualified to speak on such a difficult topic, necessarily involving a deep understanding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, if he has never published in the field and by his own admission is “not an expert” on it?

Frank is also somewhat critical of my “petty” quotation marks. These were meant to convey (1) that a rigged lecture series is really not all that distinguished; (2) that so-called Jesus scholarship is often a good deal less scientific than it ought to be; and (3) that the so-called Christian-origins documentaries that they show on television, are generally junk aimed at making a commercial profit and nothing more: see, e.g., this article.

Finally, with respect to “compelling” contrary evidence, this depends on one’s point of view. Where there is no smoking gun, the question is often which theory does the best job of construing a body of evidence that poses extremely difficult interpretive problems. But how can people judge which theory does the best job, when one side is systematically excluded by the likes of a Bart Ehrman and his colleagues, including the woman in the office next to his, who has devoted a good deal of time to viciously attacking researchers who are never invited to respond to her?

Separately, putting quotation marks around so many words, e.g. “distinguished lectures,” “Jesus,” and “documentary,” looks petty. If there is something amiss with the scholarship, address that and back it up with evidence. Of course, that evidence has to be more than a “my archaeologists are better than your archaeologists” supposition. Short of compelling contrary evidence, I think the typical response will be to stick with the consensus view with an awareness of the prevailing alternatives, and that will probably lead to the exclusion of some voices.

As for the second part of the argument, I don’t believe there is any serious scholar in DSS scholarship today who denies that one or more sectarian groups wrote a portion of the scrolls. Golb, for example, discusses such groups in his book and compares their rules with those of some of the rabbinical “brotherhood” groups described in later Talmudic writings. The question is rather how many groups, and where they lived. Golb and many other researchers now believe there were many such groups living around the Jerusalem area, and that the Essenes of the Dead Sea area, described by Pliny, were refugees from the war.

We should also bear in mind that Rachel Elior has identified a corpus of around 100 texts that were written, according to her, by Temple priests. This raises the question of what proportion of the DSS as a whole were actually sectarian.

Beyond all of this, however, the main issue here is not “who wrote the scrolls.” It is whether the so-called Qumran-sectarian “consensus” (now said not to exist by the Jewish Museum in New York, see the text of their announcement quoted in the article above) should be imposed on the public in museum exhibits, or if exhibitors should focus their efforts on helping people understand the terms of the debate, the differences of opinion, and the varying interpretations of the evidence. And the question is why a scholar who by his own admission is “not a scrolls expert” was invited to participate in a lecture series accompanying one of these exhibits, when the various researchers who disagree with the so-called (but apparently non-existent) “consensus” have been systematically excluded from participating in virtually all of the exhibit lecture series.

“I certainly am not ashamed to agree with the vast majority of scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls, concerning whether the Essenes wrote them.”

I wonder if it actually is the case, today, that the majority of scholars (let alone a “vast” majority) believe the Essenes wrote the scrolls. I’ve read that a poll taken at an open international conference several years ago showed that 60% of the participants were convinced the Copper Scroll came from Jerusalem. That poll was perceived as a threat by the DSS “establishment,” and ever since it was taken, most conferences on the scrolls have been closed to opponents of the Qumran-Essene theory.

Does Ehrman have access to some concrete information that shows his “vast majority,” or is he just reporting what he has heard from his own circle of acquaintances?

(1) Assuming that I do lack personal integrity (which I certainly do not), has Dr. Ehrman demonstrated any form of intellectual integrity? In his comment, he speaks of his “views” on the scrolls. Yet in his exchange with Mr. Cooper, he admits that he is “not a scrolls expert.” What force of conviction can such “views” have? Are we supposed to believe in them, simply because Dr. Ehrman is an expert in another field and has colleagues who have defended them? What, then, exactly, gives him the right to present these “views” as the probable truth to an audience that probably won’t even know this is not his field of expertise?

(2) Which is worse, my publication of this private exchange (which, as I said in the posting above, is clearly of public interest), or Dr. Ehrman’s participation in, and attempt to justify, a rigged lecture series, one that was apparently designed to mislead the public through the exclusion of the key historians and archaeologists who have rejected (and in the eyes of many, refuted) the Qumran-Essene theory?

This being said, if Dr. Ehrman wishes to come out with a further defense of the lecture series, or modify his statements in some manner or other, I would be happy to post anything he wishes to say. Better yet, why doesn’t he post a statement on the UNC website? I would be happy to link to it.

It is not that I stated anything in my emails that I do not believe or think (I certainly am not ashamed to agree with the vast majority of scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls, concerning whether they Essenes wrote them). It is that I think private correspondence, even electronic, should be kept private. If a public statement were wanted, I would have been happy to draft one.

Anyone who wants to know my views of the Scrolls or of any other matter is welcome to ask me. I have published my views in open forums and these views can be read there.

In any event, I hope that all readers will enjoy the display of the Scrolls in Raleigh and learn something from it, and attend the public lectures that will be given in connection with it.

– Bart Ehrman