Ad Hominem
Attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. In biblical scholarship, this appears when a critic's faith (or lack of it) is used to dismiss their textual findings without engaging the evidence.
Source: Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations (c. 350 BCE) – Public Domain
Also known as: Personal Attack, Abusive Ad Hominem, Attacking the Messenger
Ad hominem (Latin: 'to the person') is an informal logical fallacy that attempts to refute an argument by attacking the character, motives, or circumstances of the person making it, rather than engaging with the argument's content, evidence, or reasoning. The attack may be direct (insulting the person) or indirect (pointing to an alleged conflict of interest), but in both cases the logical error is the same: personal characteristics of the arguer are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of their argument.
The ad hominem fallacy is one of the oldest and most frequently committed errors in theological debate. It is seductive because it contains a grain of legitimate concern — a person's background, motivations, and commitments can sometimes introduce bias that affects how they handle evidence. Historians of science rightly note that Lysenko's Marxist ideology distorted his genetics research. Acknowledging that bias is possible is not the same as concluding that any particular conclusion is wrong because of who reached it.
The critical distinction is between noting that bias exists as a factor to investigate and concluding from the existence of bias that the argument is therefore false. Bart Ehrman's scholarship on textual variants, for example, cannot be dismissed simply because he is agnostic — the textual variants he documents are verifiable in the manuscript tradition regardless of his personal beliefs. Similarly, a conservative evangelical scholar's commentary cannot be dismissed simply because they hold orthodox commitments — their exegetical arguments must be evaluated on their own merits.
In theological circles, the ad hominem is especially damaging because it replaces genuine inquiry with boundary-marking. It tells students which sources they are permitted to engage rather than equipping them to evaluate sources critically. The Berean model (Acts 17:11) represents the opposite approach: receiving a message with eagerness while examining the evidence daily. This standard applies whether the messenger is Paul, a skeptical scholar, or a popular preacher with a bestselling book.
- 1Someone's argument is rejected because of their religious affiliation, lack of faith, or denominational background rather than because of flaws in the argument itself
- 2The response to a claim focuses on the claimant's motives, character, or credentials rather than the claim's evidence
- 3Phrases like 'of course he would say that, he's a liberal' or 'she lost her faith, so her conclusions are compromised' appear in place of actual counterargument
- 4A scholar's conclusions are dismissed wholesale because of one aspect of their biography rather than evaluated argument by argument
- 5The same argument, if made by someone from the 'correct' tradition, would be accepted without scrutiny
Biblical scholarship regularly produces arguments from scholars whose personal commitments span the full spectrum from conservative evangelical to secular atheist. The ad hominem fallacy is particularly tempting in this field because faith commitments feel uniquely relevant — surely, one might think, whether a scholar believes the Bible is divinely inspired affects how they read it. This is partially true as a methodological observation, but it is a fallacy when used as a substitute for engaging their specific arguments. Origen was accused of allegorizing too freely; Luther was dismissed as a renegade monk; the early higher critics were called enemies of the faith. In each case, the question that matters — are their specific textual arguments sound? — was evaded by attacking the person.
Identify whether an argument or a person is being targeted
Ask: Is this response addressing what was claimed and the evidence for it, or is it addressing who made the claim and why they might be wrong to make it?
When evaluating a biblical or theological argument, first write down the actual claim being made and the evidence offered for it. If the critique you encounter addresses only the speaker — their credentials, faith, motives, or institutional affiliation — the argument has not been engaged.
Separate the arguer's biography from the argument's validity
Ask: If a different person — one from my own tradition — made the same argument with the same evidence, would I evaluate it differently?
This question surfaces whether you are applying a consistent standard. If a conservative evangelical scholar noted the same textual variant as Ehrman, would you engage it? If yes, you are applying an ad hominem filter. The evidence does not change based on who cites it.
Acknowledge legitimate bias concerns without treating them as refutations
Ask: Is there genuine reason to think this person's commitments may have influenced how they handled the evidence — and if so, can I verify the evidence independently?
Bias is a real methodological concern, not just an ad hominem. The proper response to suspected bias is to check the primary sources independently, not to discard the argument. Compare the scholar's claims against the original texts, other scholars, and standard critical tools.
Engage the strongest form of the argument
Ask: What is the best version of this argument, and what would a charitable but rigorous response to it look like?
The Berean standard (Acts 17:11) is not 'accept everything you hear' but 'examine the evidence carefully.' Applied to scholarship, this means finding the strongest defenders of a position and engaging them, not dismissing a position by finding its weakest representative.
Evaluate the argument on its merits and state your conclusion with reasons
Ask: Having engaged the evidence, what is my conclusion, and can I state reasons for it that do not depend on the identity of the person I am disagreeing with?
A sound conclusion in biblical scholarship always rests on textual, historical, and linguistic evidence, not on the institutional affiliation of those who differ from you. 'I find this argument unpersuasive because the manuscript evidence shows X' is sound reasoning. 'I find this argument unpersuasive because the author is a skeptic' is an ad hominem.