Holding Skeptics Accountable For Their Theories

It's important to get skeptics, as well as those they're influencing, to think through the implications of skeptical theories. It's common for skeptics to raise possible scenarios in which Christianity is wrong, without making much of an effort to argue for the probability of those scenarios. If a skeptic is going to argue that New Testament text A might have been corrupted in one discussion, then speculate that text B might have been corrupted when some other subject comes up, then object that text C might be a corruption in another context, he should be held accountable for addressing the implications of each of those scenarios and their collective implications. If somebody comments that Clement of Rome might not have been a disciple of the apostles in one context, then makes similar comments about Papias and Polycarp in other contexts, he should be expected to address each of those scenarios and their collective implications in detail. What we're after in historical investigation is probability, not possibility. And something that seems plausible once may become increasingly unlikely the more often you propose it. Factors like the general reliability of human memory and the general honesty of the early Christians have to be taken into account. Skeptical speculations about possible scenarios have to be judged in light of such background information.