![](\"https:\/\/www.hmml.org\/research08\/opportunities\/study.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nNo one individual covers every aspect of every potentially related topic at the same level of detail. And so when we work on assembling the pieces of the puzzle in our own particular area, we must check from time to time to see whether and to what extent our work correlates with that of others. If it doesn\u2019t, then there is a problem.<\/p>\n
The importance of this was illustrated in a recent exchange with a mythicist on my blog. The question was posed as to why Paul uses the verb \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 in Romans 1:3<\/a> and Galatians 4:4<\/a> in reference to\u00a0(the birth of) Jesus, when he uses\u00a0\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c9 in other passages that refer to birth. While\u00a0I stressed\u00a0that the precise choice of\u00a0different words is not always significant, in this case, we\u00a0happen to be\u00a0dealing with two texts that are thought to represent Paul\u2019s quotation of already-existing Christian slogans or creedal statements. And so the difference of wording might also reflect the formulation not being Paul\u2019s own creation.<\/p>\n To one of the commentators who is not particularly well informed about academic New Testament study, this seemed like me simply pulling random possibilities out of nowhere to support my viewpoint. But of course, anyone who has studied Romans or Galatians will know that I was not suggesting something new or original, but referring to a viewpoint that is discussed (even if not always embraced) in every modern commentary and book on these particular passages.<\/p>\n And here we see the biggest methodological problem that confronts creationists, mythicists, and other such points of view that ignore scholarship,\u00a0choosing instead to\u00a0attempt to figure things out on their own (or with the help of some likeminded conversation partners), in conformity with their own convictions, without concern for scholarship or research, and no need for labs or excavations or knowledge of ancient languages. Whether we are talking about the question of biological evolution, or the question of whether a historical figure of Jesus existed, these are questions for which particular pieces of evidence may be important, but ultimately the decisive consideration is that large numbers of scholars working on different specific areas related to these questions independently produce results that correlate with one another and cohere with the theory<\/em>. If one piece of evidence pointed to Jesus having existed, or evolution having occurred, while many others pointed in the opposite direction, then there would not be the widespread consensus that exists among biologists and historians. <\/p>\n And that brings us back to the topic with which I started. No one scholar has done doctoral-type research on every aspect of historical Jesus studies, and no one scientist has sequenced every genome and excavated every type of fossil for themselves. It is a collaborative effort, which involves each of us doing focused research in one area, reading what others have done in a similar fashion in related areas, publishing our results and explaning how we think they correlate, and\u00a0in many other ways\u00a0collaborating to get a sense of the big picture in a way that no one of us could on our own \u2013 or could if we were a handful of untrained skeptics of mainstream scholarship having discussions on the internet, for that matter.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n