In our first lesson, we talked about steps to interpreting the Scriptures critically and honestly. When we speak of critical thinking, we're not talking about fault-finding. We're talking about thinking honestly and analytically. We're talking about avoiding biases, fallacies, and just plain lazy, gullible thinking. We learned that the first step is to start with a blank slate. It's hard to critically interpret the Scriptures if you already have your mind made up as to what they teach.
Yet, as we discussed, it's next to impossible for most of us to start with a completely blank slate. But what we can do is to recognize our biases. We can also acknowledge the fact what we have been taught about various Christian doctrines and practices. These may be wrong, at least in some areas. And then last month, we looked at four principles to follow if we're going to correctly interpret Scripture.
The first one is to read the Scriptures at face value, unless you're reading something highly figurative or apocalyptic writings. Number two was don't proof text or cherry pick scriptures. Look at what they all say. Number three was, don't take scriptures out of context. And number four, when there's a seeming conflict among Scriptures, use the majority of verses to interpret the few verses that seem to teach differently.
Now, at first glance, you might think that following those four principles would bring us to a fairly unified understanding of Scripture. Unfortunately, it doesn't. There are over 40,000 different denominations, sects, and independent churches around today, following many different interpretations of Scripture, yet most of them would claim that they are following those four principles of biblical interpretation.
So a Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Church of Christ, and a Jehovah's Witness can all read the same passage of Scripture, yet end up with differing interpretations of that passage. Yet they would all imagine they were applying these four basic principles. That's because their preconceptions color how they interpret Scripture. So is there no answer to this confusion? Yes, there is a way out of this impasse.
I'm retired from law now, but when I actively practice law, one of my principal responsibilities was to interpret various documents deeds, wills, contracts, et cetera. Now, in law, we use very strict standards in interpreting documents. Otherwise, we would have terrible confusion concerning land ownership, business responsibilities, et cetera. No one would be able to conduct business or buy and sell property without these strict standards.
In other words, we would never tolerate in the human realm what we tolerate in the spiritual realm. Yet our standards should be higher in the spiritual realm or world than they are in the human one. We should be far more objective and careful in interpreting God's Word than we are in interpreting a business contract. But the truth is that we are less careful. There are several principles of document interpretation that we can use in the legal and business world. And one of them is called the Course of Performance.
And I'll give you an example of what that is. Let's say that John Smith owned a furniture manufacturing business, and John entered into a long-term contract with Ted Johnson furniture to make them 10 dining tables every month to be ready by the first of the month. Now, under the terms of the contract, the agreement was binding on the two parties and their heirs and assigns, which is pretty typical language. Now let's further suppose that both John Smith and Ted Johnson have died.
Now, imagine that I have purchased Ted Johnson furniture from his heirs. And on the first of the month, I call up Smith furniture manufacturing and say, " Where are my 10 dining tables? " Well, the new owner of Smith Furniture Manufacturing says, " Well, they're right here sitting in our warehouse. We were wondering when you were going to come over and get them. " When I reply, " Pick them up. " " Well, you're supposed to bring them here. " " Well, no, I'm not, " the other party replies.
" You're supposed to come and pick them up at our place of manufacture. " So who's right? Well, we probably would both go back and examine the contract. And when we did, guess what? We would find that the contract doesn't say where the dining tables are to be furnished. So who prevails in a situation like this? Well, let's say we go to court to settle the issue. The court would take notice of the fact that the contract is ambiguous as to the place of delivery. It doesn't talk about it.
Well, what would the court do? Would it just throw up its hands and say, well, can't figure this one out? No, it wouldn't. One of the things it would look at is what's called the course of performance. What's that? Well, it's how the original parties interpreted the contract and lived it out. So the Court would look at all of the pertinent invoices and documents to see if over the course of years, did Ted Johnson pick up the tables at John Smith's place of manufacture, or did John Smith deliver them to Ted Johnson?
Remember, both men are dead. Well, let's say that the evidence showed that Ted Johnson always picked them up at John Smith's shop. Well, that would settle it. The original parties to the contract understood what was intended, and they lived it out. That's what we're calling the course of performance. Now, it may surprise you to know that we can apply the very same principle of course of performance to much of the New Testament.
Instead of going off in every direction and ending up with a lot of confusion, which is what has happened, we can look at the course of performance of the apostolic faith. We can ask, how did the Christians who were directly taught by the apostles, how did they understand the New Testament? What did they believe about the fundamental doctrines? How did they baptize? How often did they celebrate communion? In other words, what was the course of performance of the apostles and the New Testament churches?
Well, you may think, wow, it would be nice to know if we could find out that. Well, actually we can. Because the early Christians in the second century, they didn't merely have the written New Testament like we do. They had observed the course of performance of the apostles and the New Testament churches. I'm talking about people who lived right around the year 100. They knew the course of performance in addition to having the written New Testament. So they didn't have to guess, well, I wonder how they baptized.
I wonder how often they had communion. They knew because they had observed it firsthand of how things were done when the apostles were still alive. And they knew what Christians taught and believed about the major doctrines while the apostles were still living. They knew how Christians lived out the New Testament commandments during the age of the apostles. And the exciting thing is that we actually have writings from men who were personally taught by the apostles. These writings show the course of performance.
Some of these men were even ordained by the apostles. Furthermore, we have writings by men who fall under the principle of 2 Timothy. In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul told Timothy this. He said, " The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. " So the apostolic faith was not passed down haphazardly. No, there was a spirit ordained system in place. Timothy learned the apostolic faith directly from Paul.
Timothy then passed the faith on to men he was directly discipling. He not only taught them the faith, but he trained them to be able to teach the faith to others, and so on. When we come to the 2nd century, we have some men, like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were at the first level. That is, they were directly discipled by one or more apostles. Next, we have men who were at the second level, such as Irenaeus, who was discipled by Polycarp, who had been discipled by John.
Most of the writers of the 2nd century were at the third or fourth level. But we can compare what they taught with what men taught who were at the first and second level. And personally, I've never found any difference between these levels. For example, Justin Martyr, who was at the third or fourth level, what he writes nicely harmonizes with what Polycarp and Irenaeus wrote, who were at the first and second level.
The wonderful thing is that the Church leaders and apologists of the 2nd century held to a very conservative view of special revelation. They firmly believed that there was no new special revelation after the death of the apostles. So no one in the Second Century Church claimed to have any new revelation from the Holy Spirit. The second-century Christians saw their task as preserving the faith that had been received from the apostles.
In contrast to the Church, the heretical groups like the Gnostics and the Montanists, they claimed to have new special revelation from the Holy Spirit. Well, happily, the Church rejected their claims. And this conservative view of special revelation remained firmly in place until the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. As a result, there's not much difference between the writings of the 3rd century and those of the 2nd century. They pretty much say the same things.
So we have a very clear historical witness as to the course of performance of those who were discipled by the apostles or associates of the apostles. Of course, our ultimate authority is always Scripture. The early Christian writings should only be used as a commentary on the Bible, not as an independent source of authority in its own right. It should be used to show us what the course of performance was. The early Christians demonstrate how the writings of the apostles were understood and put into practice.
At the same time, the tremendous value of the early Christian writings should be obvious when we look at the myriad interpretations of Scripture around today. These conflicting interpretations contribute greatly to the lack of harmony today among Christians. After 2,000 years, Christians should not have to be arguing about what the apostolic faith is concerning basic doctrines like salvation, baptism, communion, the Trinity, etc. We shouldn't be arguing about these basic doctrines 2,000 years later.
The apostles handed down the truth about these matters, and it's quite easy to discover what the apostolic faith was. Now, when I first read the early Christian writings, I found that they stepped all over my theological toes and my preconceptions about the ancient New Testament world. In fact, I was on the verge of dropping them entirely. But then one day I decided I would read the New Testament again straight through to see if what the early Christians were saying was in any way reflected in the New Testament.
In my mind, it wasn't, but I thought, " Let me reread it. " Well, to my great surprise, when I reread the New Testament, which I had read hundreds of times, I realized that all the things the early Christians were saying were right there in front of me in the Bible. I had never noticed them before because I was blinded by my preconceptions. Ultimately, that is one of the things that makes the early Christian writing so valuable. They are largely self-authenticating.
And by that, I mean that you can take almost any subject. And if you look at every verse of Scripture that pertains to that subject, and if you take those verses at face value, that is literally and seriously, you will inevitably arrive at the very things the early Christians were teaching. Their writings don't draw you away from the Bible. They help to remove the theological blinders and help you to focus on what the Scriptures are clearly saying.
Without a doubt, the early Christian writings provide us with the best commentary on Scripture anywhere. As we've already said, they are a witness to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, when it was just one, two, or three generations from the apostles themselves. Many of the early Christian writers were native speakers of Koine Greek, so their insights on the meaning of various Greek words and phrases are invaluable.
They also lived in the same ancient Mediterranean culture as the New Testament writers, so they thoroughly understood that culture. I myself pretty much used the early Christian writings exclusively for my commentaries on the New Testament. Now, let's talk about how to properly do research if we're going to arrive at truth.
One of the biggest mistakes people make in doing research is to imagine that they can read several books on a given subject, and that now they know the truth about that subject because they've read several books on it. Well, it would be nice if responsible research were that easy. Today, we're going to be limiting our discussion to historical research because the Bible is a historical subject. Of course, the Bible is more than that, but the principles of historical research apply particularly to biblical research.
And the number one rule is that if you want to ferret out the truth on any historical subject, you have to use primary sources for your research. What is a primary source? Well, a primary source is a writing or artifact created by people who lived at the time of the event. It is a source that has not been modified by someone else's interpretation. In other words, when we go to a primary source, we're getting it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
So if we want to learn what Christians believed at the end of the Apostolic Age, we need to read their actual writings. Their writings are primary sources. And today, this is very easy to do, because there are English translations available for most of the extant pre-Nicene writings. Furthermore, the bulk of these English translations are widely available in PDF format for just a few dollars or sometimes for free.
So it's within the grasp of every English-speaking Christian to discover for himself or herself what the historic faith is. And for the last 35 years, that's what I've been encouraging Christians to do. Okay, now let's talk a little bit about secondary sources. A true secondary source is a work derived from one or more primary sources. For example, the books I write about the early Christians are secondary sources.
I myself have personally read virtually all the early Christian writings, and then in my books, I explain what their beliefs and practices were. I find that people find this easier than going back and reading the early Christian writings themselves. However, I encourage my readers to also go back and personally read the primary sources on their own. For one thing, all my books on the early Christians contain footnotes, enabling my readers to check out what I'm saying, to go right back into the primary sources.
But really, you should go beyond just checking out my footnotes. If you don't have time to read the entire set of Ante-Nicene Fathers, and most people don't, you should at least read firsthand some of the key works. And some writings I would recommend as a place to start are Tertullian's apology, The Letter to Diognetus, First Clement, and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Those are just four dimensions. Now, I've mentioned my books.
At the same time, there are many other secondary sources on the early Christians. I'm not the only one who writes about them. But how can you tell when you pick up a book about the early Christians, how can you tell if it's a true secondary source? Well, you can tell by checking the footnotes. Do the footnotes cite a primary source, such as one of the early Christian writings? Or do they refer you to someone else's book?
If most of the footnotes refer you to other people's books, then what you have is actually a tertiary source. The author is summarizing or building on what other authors have said in their books. In doing research, is it okay to use a true secondary source? Well, definitely. They shouldn't be used exclusively or in place of primary sources, but certainly it is fine to use secondary sources, but you need to be careful. For example, most works dealing with the early Christians tend to be academic writings.
And that may sound ideal. However, an academic work isn't considered scholarly if the author just sticks to the facts, if he just relates what's there. And so when people write academic works, for it to be considered respectable in the academic world, the author is supposed to analyze, theorize, read between the lines, and come up with politically correct ways to explain things. In other words, you're getting a lot of human interpretation in most secondary works. Now, do I personally ever read secondary sources?
Yes, I do. For one thing, I'd like to check my own conclusions against what other scholars are saying. If they're saying something different than what I'm saying, then I look at their footnotes and go to the primary sources that they're citing. I don't just read the sentence that they're quoting or the paragraph they're citing. No, I go back and I read several pages before and after their citation so that I can get the full picture. And then I weigh matters, you know, on what they're saying.
And I encourage you to do the same anytime you're reading a secondary source, whether it's my writings or somebody else's. Check the author's footnotes and use those footnotes as a way to reach back into the primary sources themselves. But let me give you a caveat that might fool you. When you're reading a book, any book, don't be fooled by the fact that there are a lot of footnotes in it, if there are. That in itself doesn't mean a lot. The question is, what are the sources the footnotes are citing?
Are they primary sources? Well, if so, follow them and see what the primary sources themselves say. Or are there footnotes just to other people's books? If most of the footnotes are to other people's books, then it tells you the author is depending upon others for what he or she is saying. Such authors typically don't have any personal knowledge on the subject they're addressing. They're totally dependent on what others are saying. In short, what you have is, like I say, a tertiary source.
In other words, it's third hand. Now to be sure, sometimes the authors of tertiary sources have done considerable research. Unfortunately, their research usually consists of reading a lot of other tertiary sources. So they're simply summarizing and synthesizing what they've read. Sometimes they add their own interpretations as well. In other words, it's hearsay on top of hearsay.
Yet modern authors typically act as though they have considerable authority, when in fact they have no real authority for the things they write. They're simply repeating hearsay from other writers and speakers. Or even worse, they're making things up. Typically, they have little or no historical authority for what they say at all. So their value is extremely limited for serious biblical research. I'm going to give you an example. I was recently glancing at a Bible reference book at a bookstore.
It's entitled Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. And it's supposed to be giving new insights on 1 Corinthians based on the author's knowledge of the Mediterranean world. The title of the book intrigued me, and I thought the author perhaps had done some extensive research from ancient primary sources. Now, anytime you're reading a secondary or tertiary source, or you're thinking of purchasing such a book, the first thing you should do, but very few people do, is to read the author's preface.
In most cases, the preface is the most important part of the book. That's because it tells you where the author is coming from. You learn how he or she did their research, and often the author reveals his biases in his preface. So in this case, with this book, I read the preface before purchasing the book. And I soon learned that the author had not studied the early Christian writings, nor any non-Christian primary sources from the 1st or 2nd centuries.
Instead, he mainly relied on the fact that he has lived most of his adult life in the Middle East, and he has a good knowledge of Semitic languages. Perusing the pages of the book, I discovered that it mainly focuses on 1 Corinthians. Well, since that epistle was written in Greek, not in a Semitic language, and it was written to Christians living in Greece, not to Muslims living in the Mid East, I couldn't figure out how the author's background was supposed to give him special insight into Paul's meaning.
Another thing that stood out is that the author doesn't make any references to the Greek Christian writers of the 2nd century, who were in the best possible position to give us genuine cultural and linguistic insights into 1 Corinthians. The author is a very educated man, but the things he shares are simply his own inventions. Having learned the methodology of the author's research, I kept reading the preface to see if it would give me any insights into his biases.
And this is what I've found, and I'm going to be reading it directly here from his preface. He says, " For more than two decades, I have had the rare privilege of the Sound Advice and wise counsel of an advisory committee, comprising members of the Presbytery of Shenango PCUSA, and more recently of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. This highly qualified group of people now includes the Reverend Dr. William Crooks, Reverend Dr. Dawson, Reverend Pamela Maloney, and Reverend Dr. Ann Patton.
To all these dear friends, I wish to express my long-term gratitude and indebtedness. Well, what does this tell us about the author's biases? It tells us that the author is coming from a liberal point of view, both theologically and socially. After all, his advisory committee is made up of liberal Presbyterians and Episcopalians. It also tells us that the author is not going to say anything that is politically incorrect.
Now, perusing the table of contents, I noticed that one of the chapters the author discusses is 1 Corinthians 14. Now in verses 34 and 35 of that chapter, Paul says this, and most of you are familiar with this passage. He says, " Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive, " as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Again, that's 1 Corinthians 14, verses 34 and 35. Now, given the author's biases, how do you think he's going to interpret that passage? Well, I knew right off that he was not going to interpret it at face value, as that would be horribly politically incorrect. After all, he had two female reverends on his advisory committee. So without even reading the book, I knew that he was basically going to say one of two things.
I mean, either he was going to say that this passage reflects the oppressive society of the first century, and is certainly not applicable to Christians today. I mean, that was one angle he could take. Or number two, he was going to find a way to explain the passage away. Well, leafing through the book, I found the author chose the second option. According to him, the women in the church in Corinth were interrupting both the male and the female teachers of the Church.
Furthermore, they were talking among themselves while these male and female leaders were teaching. Paul is simply telling them to pay attention and to quit interrupting. Now, does that interpretation come as any surprise to any of us? No, I mean, based on the author's inherent biases, this was fairly predictable. And of course, the author has had no trouble in obtaining glowing reviews of his book and its remarkable insights. So that's the problem with tertiary sources.
And as I've said, most Bible reference works are tertiary sources. They're third hand. The authors have typically read few, if any, ancient primary sources. And what they write is nearly always going to reflect their own theological and social biases. These books sell because they tell people what they want to hear. However, are we to believe that people living in the 21st century have cultural insights into the New Testament world that the early Christians knew nothing about?
I mean, going back to 1 Corinthians 14, if that was what Paul was really talking about in 1 Corinthians, how is it that Paul said nothing about it? And how is it that nobody in the second century knew anything about it? I mean, how can we be so arrogant as to imagine that we know more today about ancient Mediterranean culture than the people who lived in that very culture? That's pretty convoluted thinking.
But authors like the one we've been talking about, they get by with it because a modern explanation is almost always more appealing to today's readers than is an authentic explanation from the early centuries. A modern explanation connects with our way of thinking, and it reflects popular theology and today's social attitudes. But if you're interested in discovering truth, that's not going to get you there.
If you want to discover the truth about what the Bible is teaching, you have to be prepared to have your theological and cultural toes stepped on a bit. Well, in conclusion, we might say that the major fallacy most people commit when doing historical research is that they imagine they can read a bunch of tertiary sources, and now they know the truth about a particular subject. Now, to dig out the truth, you need to go to the primary first-hand sources, and that takes more work.
Now, in the next lesson, we're going to look at some of the logical fallacies we need to avoid if we're going to be genuine seekers of truth. Thank you.