Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 2
The transcript claims the modern “prostitution in Corinth” explanation is traceable to Adam Clarke and is “completely fabricated” because it cannot be found before him; what standards should Christians use to decide when a widely repeated interpretation is actually tradition-as-rumor, and how should that affect our trust in popular study tools?
Another way to ask: If the “Corinth prostitution” idea can’t be found before Adam Clarke, how should Christians decide whether a popular explanation is real or just a rumor? How should that change how much we trust common study Bibles and commentaries?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests Christians should test popular interpretations by tracing them to primary sources and historical evidence, rather than trusting repetition. That should make us cautious with commentaries and modern clips—especially when an idea can’t be found before a certain writer and then suddenly spreads everywhere.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the claim “only prostitutes went around public without a veil in Corinth” is Adam Clarke’s “final claim,” and: “If you go throughout history before him, you can’t find it anywhere. It’s completely fabricated. And after him, it’s everywhere.”
  • He calls this “insane how much this comes up,” including that “people say this in China too.”
  • He frames it as a “disservice to Christianity,” implying moral seriousness in handling sources.
  • He criticizes a modern clip that piles fabrications on top of fabrications and concludes: “If you want to be fooled… there’s plenty of professionals to fool you.”
  • His positive standard: “find the primary sources, go to the beginning, see where it was lost, why it was lost.”
Discussion Follow-ups How could a church train people to verify sources instead of just quoting them? What would it look like to treat commentaries as helpful but not final?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Back Questions Next