Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic or consideration to distract from the original question. In theological debate, this often surfaces as changing the subject to avoid engaging a difficult exegetical or historical challenge.
Source: William Cobbett (1807 coinage) – Public Domain
Also known as: Ignoratio Elenchi, Diversion, Misdirection
A red herring is any argument or topic introduced into a discussion that is irrelevant to the conclusion being drawn, and whose introduction serves to distract attention from the real issue. The name comes from the use of a pungent smoked fish to distract hunting dogs from a trail. In argumentation, the red herring leads a discussion off the relevant track by introducing something vivid, emotionally engaging, or superficially related that does not actually bear on the question at hand.
The red herring is one of the broadest categories in informal logic because so many other fallacies can function as red herrings — ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, irrelevant authority, and straw man constructions can all serve the function of distracting from the real argument. What defines them all as red herrings in this specific sense is not the form of the distraction but its function: moving the conversation away from the relevant evidence and toward something easier, more emotionally compelling, or more rhetorically advantageous.
In theological debate, red herrings typically emerge when a question is posed that is genuinely difficult to answer. A question about a textual variant, a historical discrepancy, or a difficult doctrinal tension may be met with a pivot to the life-change testimonies of Christians, the complexity of the alternative, or the questioner's motivations — none of which address the actual question raised. The red herring move is recognizable when the response would be irrelevant to the question even if it were entirely true.
Jesus' opponents frequently deployed red herrings against him — introducing irrelevant precedents, changing the subject to Roman taxation, or questioning his authority to avoid engaging his teaching directly. Jesus consistently identified the real question and redirected the conversation toward it, often using the Socratic method to expose the deflection. Recognizing red herrings in the Gospel controversy dialogues greatly enriches the reader's understanding of the dynamics at play.
- 1A difficult question is met with a pivot to a different, easier topic rather than a response to the question asked
- 2The response would be equally valid regardless of how the original question were answered — suggesting it is not actually addressing the question
- 3Emotionally engaging material (testimonies, horror stories, vivid examples) is introduced when the question calls for logical or textual engagement
- 4The subject changes to the questioner's motives or identity rather than to the content of the question
- 5After the digression, the original question is never returned to — and often seems to have been forgotten
Jesus' opponents were skilled red herring practitioners. When he taught in the temple after his triumphal entry, the chief priests and elders confronted him: 'By what authority are you doing these things?' (Matthew 21:23). This was a genuine challenge that deserved engagement. Jesus responded with a counter-question about John's baptism — but notably, his counter-question was not a red herring. It was strategically relevant: it forced his opponents to reveal why they could not acknowledge obvious divine endorsement of one prophet, which illuminated why they refused to acknowledge the same in Jesus. His opponents' final answer — 'We don't know' — was itself a red herring: they knew exactly what they thought but refused to say it because either answer would cost them politically. Recognizing this dynamic is part of reading the passage.
Identify the original question and hold it clearly in mind
Ask: What exactly was the question or claim that this response is supposed to be addressing?
Before evaluating a response to a biblical or theological challenge, write down the original question in a single sentence. This anchors the conversation and makes it possible to identify when the response has departed from the question. Many theological discussions drift because no one keeps the original question clearly in view.
Evaluate whether the response is logically relevant to the original question
Ask: Would this response address the question if it were entirely true? Does it engage the evidence or reasoning that the question raised?
The test of relevance: if the response is true, does it change the epistemic status of the original question? If a textual critic raises a manuscript variant, the testimony of Christian conversion does not make the variant disappear. Both things can be true simultaneously — the variant exists and people's lives are transformed — but the life transformation does not answer the textual question.
Name the distraction and return to the original question
Ask: What topic or consideration has been introduced that is irrelevant to the original question, and can the conversation be redirected?
In a study group or one-on-one conversation, gentle redirection is possible: 'That's an interesting point, but I don't think it addresses the question I was asking. Can we come back to [original question]?' In a written argument, note the irrelevance and proceed to answer the original question directly. The Berean model (Acts 17:11) involves examining the Scriptures on the specific point, not on adjacent topics.
Consider whether the red herring reflects a genuine concern worth addressing separately
Ask: Is the distraction topic actually relevant to a related question that also deserves attention?
Some red herrings are not deliberate deflections but reflect genuine confusion about which question is being asked. When someone pivots from a textual question to a life-change testimony, they may genuinely believe the testimony addresses the question. Clarifying which question is under discussion can be more productive than accusing them of deflection.
Answer the original question directly
Ask: What is the actual answer to the question that was asked, supported by relevant evidence?
The final step is always to provide the answer that the question deserves. If someone asks about a textual variant, address the variant: what manuscripts attest it, what the scholarly consensus is, and what the interpretive implications are. If someone asks about a historical discrepancy, address the discrepancy: what the evidence says, what the range of scholarly responses to it is, and what the most defensible conclusion is.