What I’d like to see sometime in an analysis of a scholarly theory.
The only value in Smith’s proposal is that no one has ever thought of it before. He has substituted imagination for analysis, creativity for evidence. While this is likely to garner acclaim in the scholarly world, it is worthless for determining truth.
Here the latest example I’ve found that provokes such a thought.
Herod Agrippa arrested Peter because of his friendly attitude concerning Gentiles but tolerated the (allegedly) conservative James.
Here’s another one.
The Jerusalem church dismissed Peter because he was regarded as too liberal.
These theories are both cited by Schnabel in Early Christian Mission, 1:720, and though he doesn’t use the critique I suggest above, he does use words like “audacious,” “historically implausible,” and “preposterous.”
This might be a fun task for some underworked student or pastor: make a collection of the most ludicrous theories published by scholars (and I don’t mean the internet guys who believe that aliens built the pyramids).
So many statements about cause-and-effect or evidence-and-conclusion are disconnected, and little more than guesswork and speculation. Even the previous sentence should be based on convincing evidence.
You once critiqued me in a paper for making conclusions that didn’t flow from the evidence, and it’s stuck with me to this day.