Direct Answer
Christians should not accept a familiar explanation merely because it is common; they should test it against primary sources. In Bercot’s example, an explanation without historical evidence should be treated as conjecture rather than established truth.
Support from Transcript
- Bercot says one popular explanation of 1 Corinthians 11 is that “this was simply a first-century cultural problem.” - He summarizes the claim: Paul addressed head coverings because “prostitutes didn’t wear head coverings.” - He says he has “heard that explanation dozens of times.” - Yet he insists it “is not based on any historical evidence whatsoever from the writings of the early church.” - He calls it “someone’s sheer conjecture.” - He says it is “more readily believed than is the actual light that the primary sources shed on this subject.”
Discussion Follow-ups
The transcript does not provide the primary-source evidence on head coverings here; it only says modern claims should be checked against it. The larger principle is to prefer evidence over repeated assumptions.