How to fix bad Bible notes

Before we get started, be sure to check out my latest on Locals; The book that Christians need to know to deal with Islam, and, you will recall, that I wrote a book, and you can find more about that, here and here.

Last time, I wrote about problematic Bible notes, and I would like an addendum to that. Well, how do we fix that problem?
Well, we make sure the notes aren't something based on bad (or outdated) scholarship.
I mean, the assumption shouldn't be “Jesus didn't say this”, or “This is a later interpolation”.
There's these idea that anything with high Christology must have been added later.
This is bizarre, given that one of the earliest Christian documents that we know of (which I've written about, God on the cross), seems to quote a hymn that explicitly calls Jesus, “God”.
Very few people dispute Philippians being written by Paul.
I think the problem is 19th century “scholarship”, that assumes that things like the divinity of Christ were added later, because those pushing the ironically named higher criticism, were reading their own beliefs into the text.
This is how you get things like Markan priority (check, there is NO Patristic evidence that Mark was written first). Or give a super late to the Gospel of John, or source Q (which doesn't exist).
Or the idea that the gospels were anonymous (they weren't; Were the Gospels Really Anonymous?).
So, does this mean we shouldn't have hypercritical notes?
Actually, no!
Before I forget, as for my own dating of the Gospels, and what order they were written in, I'd say I hold to a modified Griesbach hypothesis (note the academic bias in the article, “formerly accepted”, by whom? Revival Griesbach Hypothes).
But, I don't have a problem so much with the hypercritical notes. What I tend more of an issue with, is that they go unchallenged.
Anytime a Bible note makes an assertion in favor of one Markan priority (which, by the way, they do, because they mistakenly think Mark doesn't portray Jesus as divine), there needs to be a mention of the Griesbach hypothesis or the Augustinian formulation.
And treating things like Matthean priority as a minority (which was by FAR the most common formulation during antiquity), as a minority, there needs to be a challenge to that claim.
Anytime a note asserts the gospels were anonymous, there need to be notes saying there are ZERO anonymous manuscripts (as of the time of the note's writing), of anonymous gospels.
I''m not against critical scholarship. What I AM against, is unchallenged assertions.
We need to have more respect for scripture, and we can't just dismiss traditions with 19th century scholarship.
After, as the Bible says,
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (1 Timothy 3:16-17).
And, if we believe that, not only should we get the Bible right, we should get the history right.
Oh, and for Bibles for with cross references, that use the term “Catholic edition”, but don't cross reference to and from the Deuterocanon, bishops (and this is just my opinion) should refuse to put an imprimatur.

And, to end this on a note from Scipture (and to remind you that "Word of God" is not always referring to Scripture, although it most certainly IS the Word of God) 

"In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:16-17)

*All verses from ESV Catholic Edition with Deuterocanonical Books, Copyright 2017 by Crossway.

Adam Charless Hovey is the founder of the Catholicism, News, and whatever community on Locals.  If you'd like to help him out, go here; Help with medical bills