Originally Posted by py3ak

I hope Mr. McFadden or someone else with similar expertise will correct me if I'm wrong, but my general impression is that in the unbelieving scholarly world become popular and then classic more because their devoted readers, by and large, have no solid foundation from which to discern nonsense. Hence there is no defense against Schweitzer, or Davies or Sanders. So the prevailing winds in Pauline scholarship have blown first this way, then that, then the other way again. The scholars have no solid foundation. Now what sets one apart from another or makes him suddenly pre-eminent, when they're all spouting nonsense? Of course a lot of it is is simply the ability to seem profound and to speak or write with an air that is impressive to those in your time and place. But in addition to that, I wonder if it isn't a function of the silent conspiracy to give one another importance. A lot of people will give importance to some scholar by citing them approvingly or at least respectfully; then you'll have someone come along who really has no more wisdom or learning than the other man, but who does have the guts to disagree vigorously and in an engaging fashion. Now they give one another importance through controversy, and the winner becomes the new standard: until another young buck comes along to dethrone him. I think you see the same principles holding true in other fields of academic endeavour --philosophy, linguistics, psychology, etc. There can be real progress only when there is a real foundation (and when that foundation is not despised, but appreciated and built upon).