"Progress is the victory of a new thought over old superstitions." Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
In recent years I have defended a couple of classic views concerning New Testament scholarship. What's interesting is that I'm espousing positions the church held to for centuries. You might say I'm resurrecting positions that many students are completely unaware of today. I've concluded that Stanton's quote might well have it backwards. Maybe we could restate it as following:
"Progress is the victory of an old view over new superstitions."
An example from the American Civil War might help. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, a deeply religious Presbyterian, refused to fight on Sunday to honor God's day of rest.
Quite a fable.
- Jackson stood firm on Kearny Hill in the first major battle of the Civil War.
- 8 months later he fought the battle of Kernstown.
- 2 months later Jackson defended the rolling hills at the battle of Cross Keys.
- During the Maryland Campaign, Jackson's gunners pounded the hapless Federals for 4 hours at Harper's Ferry.
As you can probably guess, each of these battles took place on a Sunday.
Groupthink is a human temptation. Everyone does it. No one avoids it. We engage in promoting our "new" theories that overturn those old "fuddy duddy" views of our forefathers.
Historians must be alert for this omnipresent characteristic of scholarship. When conducting our research -- the detective work of a New Testament scholar -- we must be cognizant of groupthink and be careful not to accept something as true simply because "most scholars" say it is so. We must challenge our sources, question our facts, and be sage with our skepticism. Discernment is our defence.
How can any self-respecting scholar hold to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews today?
The charge is often leveled. In my view, to sustain the doctrine of indecision about authorship you need to chose to ignore obvious evidence. It's the oldest game in human history: "Just trust me." Henry Ward Beecher is famous for his pithy quotes. One of my favorites is: "Whatever is almost true is quite false, and among the most dangerous of errors, because being so near truth it is more likely to lead astray." In my mind, there is solid evidence to support the conclusion that the apostle Paul was the author of Hebrews. What better way to start than with a reconsideration of the evidence pro et contra? I acknowledge my own prejudice against the guild on this issue. I have boisterously bashed evangelical groupthink for decades. Of course, that doesn't make me right. But it's also no excuse for ignoring the evidence. "You know nothing until you know all; which is the reason we never know anything" (Herman Melville).
My book on the authorship of Hebrews challenges those who love history, and encourages those who have run from it. For those on the run, I hope I can slay the tormentor that's been chasing you.