Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Christian Citizenship  /  How to Be a Radical Christian  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 10
Bercot urges research from primary sources (New Testament first; then limited archaeology, Josephus, Tacitus; and especially early Christian writings) and warns that commentaries often become tertiary echo chambers—what would change in your personal study habits and in your church’s teaching culture if you treated “footnotes to primary sources” as a non-negotiable standard for accepting confident historical or theological claims?
Another way to ask: If you only accepted strong claims after checking primary sources (like the New Testament and early Christian writings), how would that change your study habits and your church’s teaching?

Direct Answer Bercot would say it would slow down our certainty, reduce the spread of misinformation, and force teachers and students to verify claims from original evidence rather than repeating commentary opinions. It would also expose how often popular “background” claims are simply invented because they “fit what people want to hear.”

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the average Christian “has no idea” how to research and often just consults a “favorite commentary or Bible encyclopedia” and “uncritically” accepts it.
  • He warns this often yields “unsubstantiated opinion” reflecting the writer’s “presuppositions… biases… theological beliefs.”
  • He presents the alternative: use “primary sources… whenever possible,” defined as “the original piece of evidence” (e.g., Tertullian’s own writings).
  • He says as a writer he would “never settle for anything less” than primary sources and can’t imagine passing on information not from the “original source.”
  • For NT beliefs and practice, he says “generally… only one primary source… the New Testament,” and many behind-the-scenes claims are “simply making something up.”
  • He criticizes commentaries for claims without “footnotes, nothing to verify,” and uses the head-covering/prostitute story as a widely accepted, “completely made-up” example.
Discussion Follow-ups What would it look like for sermons or small-group lessons to distinguish clearly between text, interpretation, and extra-biblical claims? How could your church train people to ask, “What is the primary source for that?” before repeating it?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10
Back Questions Done