It might arguably be *more* important to seek for bias when examining the work of scholars, because they are more likely than laypeople to be radical, and are better versed in hiding their bias from easy detection
This is an astute observation. Looking back on the way that I treat sources, I realize that I do seek first for how they are presenting their arguments, then what the arguments are, but I had not really consicously noticed the degree to which I was doing it.
This presents a danger that has to be considered -- whether this fact alone is enough to completely discredit their work.
I don't think it discredits. When looking at the Peschitta, I think we should simply apply the same examination of bias. The New Testament contains history, but it also largely apologetics. A group translating such a work would also produce an apologetic, somewhat unifying the varying apologetic viewpoints into one. This can be *very* clearly seen in the other translations we have of scripture, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the KJV, the NIV, even the Scholars Version found in The Complete Gospels, which I am so enamored of, contains apologetic. Then of course, we are looking at another translation of that, so another layer of bias to examine.
I personally find the internal consistency and spiritual resonance of Lamsa's and Douglas-Klotz's work to be compelling enough to overcome this. A theory that is off-base, it seems to me, would demonstrate a fundamental lack of internal consistency, or would lack spiritual resonance.
With the above in mind, the unified, consistant character of the examination could be (partly) the result of that process of translation. In reality, considering the varied source nature of the material, I find an overly consistant representation to be a mark of an off-base, more biased approach, and overly neat explanations and theories suspect. Rather, one that reveals the seams and occasional fractures in perpsective and interpretation between books and even within books - whether canonical or extra-canonical - demonstrates a more accurate picture in my mind.
However, the spiritual resonance is another matter. This is perhaps more than I had intended to get into, but a interesting thought. The early Christians were typically not scribes, not scholars, not apologists, not exegesists. The experience of the ancient church is just that, experience and the works left by the scholars, by the scribes, by the apologists, by the exegesists, only give us a partial picture. Religion was more than just an exercise of the mind and beliefs, more than just and intellectual exercise, it was a way of life, as much, if not more, practice as praxis. I think this is in large part why we are able to see different theological positions co-existing as they did - why Nestorius was not considered a heretic, even though the Nestorians were. They all resonated with the same truth, but circumstances had shaped the sound differently. Different perspecitves of the same view, all inspired by that view, even Inspired by it, but in their finite nature unable to fully express such an infinite. The resonance will occur when the ideas, the praxis, find their places in our own experience, the practice.
Re: bias
This is an astute observation. Looking back on the way that I treat sources, I realize that I do seek first for how they are presenting their arguments, then what the arguments are, but I had not really consicously noticed the degree to which I was doing it.
This presents a danger that has to be considered -- whether this fact alone is enough to completely discredit their work.
I don't think it discredits. When looking at the Peschitta, I think we should simply apply the same examination of bias. The New Testament contains history, but it also largely apologetics. A group translating such a work would also produce an apologetic, somewhat unifying the varying apologetic viewpoints into one. This can be *very* clearly seen in the other translations we have of scripture, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the KJV, the NIV, even the Scholars Version found in The Complete Gospels, which I am so enamored of, contains apologetic. Then of course, we are looking at another translation of that, so another layer of bias to examine.
I personally find the internal consistency and spiritual resonance of Lamsa's and Douglas-Klotz's work to be compelling enough to overcome this. A theory that is off-base, it seems to me, would demonstrate a fundamental lack of internal consistency, or would lack spiritual resonance.
With the above in mind, the unified, consistant character of the examination could be (partly) the result of that process of translation. In reality, considering the varied source nature of the material, I find an overly consistant representation to be a mark of an off-base, more biased approach, and overly neat explanations and theories suspect. Rather, one that reveals the seams and occasional fractures in perpsective and interpretation between books and even within books - whether canonical or extra-canonical - demonstrates a more accurate picture in my mind.
However, the spiritual resonance is another matter. This is perhaps more than I had intended to get into, but a interesting thought. The early Christians were typically not scribes, not scholars, not apologists, not exegesists. The experience of the ancient church is just that, experience and the works left by the scholars, by the scribes, by the apologists, by the exegesists, only give us a partial picture. Religion was more than just an exercise of the mind and beliefs, more than just and intellectual exercise, it was a way of life, as much, if not more, practice as praxis. I think this is in large part why we are able to see different theological positions co-existing as they did - why Nestorius was not considered a heretic, even though the Nestorians were. They all resonated with the same truth, but circumstances had shaped the sound differently. Different perspecitves of the same view, all inspired by that view, even Inspired by it, but in their finite nature unable to fully express such an infinite. The resonance will occur when the ideas, the praxis, find their places in our own experience, the practice.