As a community, we Christadelphians fancy ourselves a cut above most others in the scholarship department. In many ways, that’s true. We emphasize paying attention to context, comparing scripture with scripture, the usage of original Hebrew and Greek words, poetic structure and figures of speech. And above all we look for the truth, the real meaning, instead of something to make us feel good.
We do fairly well, but there are probably some areas where we can -and should — do better. Too often one hears from the platform and sees in print these symptoms of poor scholarship:
Misusing the Hebrew and Greek
Using the Hebrew or Greek words beyond legitimate bounds is a mistake. One hears etymological roots or cognates applied as though they are interchangeable in the text. To illustrate, the following words are cognates in English, but they are not interchangeable: speculate, spectator, spectacles, inspect, skeptic, scope, scoop.1 Cognates are not synonyms. By definition, they are words that have diverged from a common source.
Failure to check sources
We hear some of the same things so often we assume they are true. This is particularly true of historical events, scientific evidence alleged to refute evolution, and sometimes news items cited as evidence we are in the last days. Seldom is an author or source cited. The problem can occur when a speaker or writer repeats something he heard someone else say. There is no intention to mislead, but just like the children’s game of telephone, after a few retelling’s you can’t recognize the original. Even if accurately quoted, was the original source credible? Who can tell?
Misquotation of scripture
This is one to really be ashamed of. How often have you heard, “Be ye in the world but not of the world”? It’s not a direct Bible quotation. The basic idea is there in John 17, but not the exact words. You would not know that from the way Christadelphians often use the phrase.
And how many times have you heard, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” And the following thought (part of the same sentence in many translations) is omitted: “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit,” which completely reverses the point often made from the passage. With Bibles and concordances so commonly available, there’s no excuse for misquotations.
Proof that is not proof
Often, supporting passages do not support the point made. Sometimes phrases are quoted out of context, but most of the time it’s a case of the support passage needing to be interpreted according to the presenter’s viewpoint in order to support the point. This is called circular reasoning, or begging the question, and is poor scholarship. .Many readers don’t look up references, and a presenter can appear to have a stronger case than he really does by putting together a string of passages after making a point. Similarly, a speaker can claim there are dozens of passages that demonstrate his interpretation. As listeners and readers, we should follow up on the evidence.
Use of questionable techniques
Another pitfall is selectively adopting the tools of the higher critics. Many brethren are absolutely convinced that Paul wrote Hebrews, based on “similarity of style” which is a favorite phrase of Bible critics. But the writer of the letter says, “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:3). Paul was at pains to point out he received the word of salvation directly from the Lord (Gal. 2:16), not from others. Outside of the closing, all the writer’s pronouns are “we,” not “I.” Was it a collaborative effort? The fact is we don’t know. The problem isn’t with the authorship of Hebrews, it’s letting the specious techniques of the higher critics in the door. Once this is done, how can we gainsay the same lines of reasoning that “prove” the prophecies were written after the events foretold, or that the rabbis continuously edited and changed the Old Testament, or that Christianity was the invention of Paul?
Improper labeling of an opinion
Too often we submit opinion as conclusion. There is a place for the speaker or writer’s opinion, but it ought to come clearly labeled. Sentences that begin, “Obviously….,” should state something actually obvious, not act as a cloak for an opinion. Speculation can enrich a passage by filling in details that aren’t recorded, but there should be clear lines drawn to separate opinion, speculation and fact.
Scholarship demands effort
There may be other examples one could add to this list.
To repeat, we feel most of our exposition is well done, but we shouldn’t assume we’ll automatically continue to have good exposition. Good scholarship is time-consuming. Speakers and writers (including this one) are just as prone to laziness as anyone. Cutting corners is very tempting, but poor scholarship is the crack through which apostasy slips in. Truth is not threatened by bringing up and discussing new ideas. Bad ideas will be exposed by good scholarship — and that applies whether the ideas are new or old. Truth is threatened when an idea is accepted without sufficient support. This is why tradition is an inadequate bulwark against error. If the tradition was based on an unsupported idea, it doesn’t matter how long it’s been accepted — it’s still a bad idea.
Appeal for carefulness
We all need to be cautious in this matter — writers and readers, speakers and listeners. We may need to make a trip to the library; double-check the context; identify the source of what seems like a great quote. We must check references, quote accurately and learn to recognize assumptions and speculations in contrast to empirical evidence. The truth need never fear this kind of interrogation; in fact it thrives on it. We have been and must continue to be a people of the book.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One