The claim that Christianity has hidden historical information, labeled as “forbidden knowledge” by Billy Carson, is not only false but deeply ironic. Carson alleges that the Church and its leaders have suppressed knowledge that supposedly undermines the truth and historical viability of the Christian faith. However, this claim falls apart under even a basic examination of the rigorous methodologies employed by biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers in training.
The historical and cultural influences on the biblical text are not hidden—they are openly studied and discussed in seminaries, Bible colleges, and scholarly works across the world. Far from being suppressed, these influences are considered essential for accurate biblical interpretation. Understanding the historical and cultural contexts of the Old and New Testament worlds is foundational for interpreting Scripture. This is why ministers and scholars are required to study ancient languages such as Hebrew and Greek, as well as other ancient languages like Akkadian and Ugaritic, to better understand the world of the Bible.
As a student in both Bible college and seminary, I was immersed in the study of these historical and cultural factors. Required reading included foundational works like Victor Matthews’ Old Testament Parallels, John Bright’s A History of Biblical Israel, John Oswalt’s The Bible Among the Myths, Harrison’s Introduction to the Old Testament, and Emmanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. These works, alongside many others, provided a clear and thorough understanding of the history and culture that shaped the biblical authors and their audiences. Additionally, resources like Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus are pivotal in confronting misrepresentations and fabrications about Jesus and the New Testament. This book offers not only a defense of the historical reliability of the canonical Gospels but also a clear explanation of why later texts, such as the Gnostic Gospel of Mary and other apocryphal writings, were excluded from the Christian canon. Evans’ work addresses textual criticism, historical context, and the theological coherence of the Bible, further underscoring the transparency and rigor of biblical scholarship.
The irony is that while Billy Carson accuses the Church of withholding information, he is, in fact, guilty of the very thing he claims to expose. By asserting that this knowledge is hidden and unavailable to the public, Carson misleads his followers. He promotes a narrative that suggests the Church fears the implications of historical and cultural studies when, in reality, the Church has long embraced these fields as tools for deepening our understanding of Scripture. Carson’s claims are not only unsubstantiated but also deceptive, as they ignore the transparent and robust engagement of biblical scholars with the very material he alleges to be suppressed.
Adding to this irony is the work of Stephen Meyer, who demonstrates in his writings that the Judeo-Christian worldview was the necessary philosophical and theological foundation for the rise of the scientific revolution. Meyer makes an airtight case that modern concepts such as the scientific method and historical inquiry would not exist without the unique contributions of a biblical worldview. The belief in a rational, ordered universe—created by a consistent, rational God—provided the framework for early scientists to study nature systematically. Figures such as Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler, deeply influenced by their Christian faith, pursued scientific discovery because they believed that the universe operated according to discoverable laws established by God. Meyer’s work dismantles the notion that Christianity is anti-intellectual or anti-scientific. Instead, it shows that the faith’s intellectual traditions laid the groundwork for advancements in both science and historical analysis. This reality further highlights the irony in Carson’s messaging, as the very tools he relies on to critique Christianity are rooted in a worldview shaped by Christian thought.
The truth is that the historical texts Carson references, such as the Enuma Elish, the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Atrahasis Story, are not obscure or avoided within Christian scholarship. These works are frequently discussed in academic and pastoral training settings. They are studied not to undermine faith but to provide a fuller understanding of the ancient Near Eastern context in which the Old Testament was written. Christian scholars engage with these texts to demonstrate how the Bible both interacts with and stands apart from the surrounding cultures of its time.
Billy Carson’s narrative depends on creating a false dichotomy: that faith and historical study are incompatible. Yet, this claim collapses under scrutiny. Christianity does not shy away from rigorous examination of the Bible’s origins, transmission, and interpretation. Instead, it embraces the tools of historical and cultural analysis to better understand the Word of God. The real deception lies in Carson’s misrepresentation of both Christianity and the tools of biblical scholarship. While he accuses the Church of hiding knowledge, he perpetuates a narrative that distorts the truth and keeps his followers from engaging with the depth and richness of biblical study.
In the end, the claim of “forbidden knowledge” is not only untrue but a distraction from the robust and open engagement that has always been a hallmark of serious Christian scholarship. The Church is not hiding knowledge; it is Carson’s own narrative that obscures the truth.
