I enjoy listening to podcasts in different subjects. I am currently listening to a classics podcast on Greek history from an Ivy League university and a New Testament podcast from a liberal/secular perspective. There is something interesting that I have noticed. In the area of biblical studies there is an extreme skepticism. There has to be at least multiple attestation for an event or saying to be even considered a candidate for being historical. We are reminded over and over that because of the nature of our sources, we really can know almost nothing about Jesus. When we switch to the area of classics, the methodology is much different. While classical scholars hope for multiple attestation, they do not reject something that appears only once. They readily use sources that are just as biased, if not more, than the Gospels. They will put together history with what they can piece together, often reading between the lines. There seems to be much less skepticism. The classical scholar I have been listening to speaks of having a “higher naivete” by which he means unless something is contradicted by other sources or archaeology, he assumes a text recording history is innocent until proven guilty. If only, biblical scholars could learn from the openness of classical scholars.