Scholars

[nPeace]

How do Biblical scholars today measure up to Biblical scholars of the past?

Paul

he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references. . . Acts 17:2, 3​

Jesus

starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures. . . Luke 24:27​

Of course we cannot exclude the fact that we have information from one of the greatest historians.
Luke

"Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." - Luke 1:1-4​

Is there any good reason why one should accept the opinions of Biblical scholars today, over the Biblical scholars of the past. (That list being quite long)?

 

[Rival]

Is there any good reason one cannot listen to both?

 

[Altfish]

Is there any good reason one cannot listen to both?

...or neither.

 

[Rival]

...or neither.

Why neither? Are you aware that many Biblical scholars are not Christians?

 

[nPeace]

Is there any good reason one cannot listen to both?

Yes. The reason is one is at the other spectrum to the other - like North is to South.
To accept both is like saying opposites are the same.
That does not work in reality.

Edit @Rival, I should say, the majority - consensus, since some are in agreement with past scholars, but that's the minority.

 

[Rival]

Yes. The reason is one is at the other spectrum to the other - like North is to South.
To accept both is like saying opposites are the same.
That does not work in reality.

Edit @Rival, I should say, the majority - consensus, since some are in agreement with past scholars, but that's the minority.

What do you mean when you say scholars here and what kind of work do you refer to? Biblical scholarship as a secular, academic discipline has only existed for about 400 years.

 

[Altfish]

Why neither? Are you aware that many Biblical scholars are not Christians?

It is another option; I'm covering all bases.
Since OT scholars can't be Christians, it is fairly obvious that many were not Christians.

 

[Rival]

It is another option; I'm covering all bases.
Since OT scholars can't be Christians, it is fairly obvious that many were not Christians.

Well, Tanakh ('OT') scholars can be Christians, I see no reason why not.

But Biblical scholarship means anything from the dating of Biblical manuscripts, to understanding the culture in Biblical times, to legal codes, hymns and songs, comparison with other religions, historical studies of Kingdoms, Temple cults etc, to language study and more, so I'm not sure what the issue would be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, Tanakh ('OT') scholars can be Christians, I see no reason why not.

But Biblical scholarship means anything from the dating of Biblical manuscripts, to understanding the culture in Biblical times, to language study and more, so I'm not sure what the issue would be.

Right - Bart Ehrman and Robert Price both come to mind.

 

[pearl]

Is there any good reason why one should accept the opinions of Biblical scholars today, over the Biblical scholars of the past. (That list being quite long)?

I think we need to look at it as continued interpretation, not one over the other.

Luke’s consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Lk 23:33; Mk 15:22; Lk 18:41; Mk 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mk 7:1–23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Lk 2:30–32; 3:6, 38; 4:16–30; 13:28–30; 14:15–24; 17:11–19; 24:47–48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.

The sacred authors, for the benefit of the churches, took this earliest body of instruction, which had been handed on orally at first and then in writing— for many soon set their hands to "drawing up a narrative"21 of matters concerning the Lord Jesus—and set it down in the four Gospels. In doing this each of them followed a method suitable to the special purpose which he had in view. They selected certain things out of the many which had been handed on; some they synthesized, some they explained with an eye to the situation of the churches. painstakingly using every means of bringing home to their readers the solid truth of the things in which they had been instructed.22 For, out of the material which they had received, the sacred authors selected especially those items which were adapted to the varied circumstances of the faithful as well as to the end which they themselves wished to attain; these they recounted in a manner consonant with those circumstances and with that end. And since the meaning of a statement depends, amongst other things, on the place which it has in a given sequence, the Evangelists, in handing on the words or the deeds of our Saviour, explained them for the advantage of their readers by respectively setting them, one Evangelist in one context, another in another. For this reason the exegete must ask himself what the Evangelist intended by recounting a saying or a fact in a certain way, or by placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the narrative is not affected in the slightest by the fact that the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order,23 and that they use different words to express what He said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense

excerpt 'Historical Truth of the Gospels'

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is there any good reason why one should accept the opinions of Biblical scholars today, over the Biblical scholars of the past?

None whatsoever, nPeace. Happy? Evidence be damned.

 

[pearl]

(That list being quite long)?

Yes, it was quite long, and many names were familiar, having read one or two, and many more referenced by authors I have read. One Bible course I took included a reference listing name of scholars with their various opinions at the conclusion of each chapter. What critical scholarship
offers are hypotheses by deconstruction and offers what it deems to be the most probable, it's never definitive.

 

[Valjean]

How do Biblical scholars today measure up to Biblical scholars of the past?

Paul

he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references. . . Acts 17:2, 3​

Jesus

starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures. . . Luke 24:27​

Of course we cannot exclude the fact that we have information from one of the greatest historians.
Luke

"Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." - Luke 1:1-4​

Is there any good reason why one should accept the opinions of Biblical scholars today, over the Biblical scholars of the past. (That list being quite long)?

Better access to more information. Better analytical and dating techniques.

Q: What do the Biblical quotations have to do with Biblical scholarship?

 

[metis]

How do Biblical scholars today measure up to Biblical scholars of the past?

Paul

he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references. . . Acts 17:2, 3​

Jesus

starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures. . . Luke 24:27​

Of course we cannot exclude the fact that we have information from one of the greatest historians.
Luke

"Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." - Luke 1:1-4​

Is there any good reason why one should accept the opinions of Biblical scholars today, over the Biblical scholars of the past. (That list being quite long)?

I would not label Paul nor Jesus as being Biblical scholars, plus today's scholars have so much more information that can be utilized.

 

[nPeace]

What do you mean when you say scholars here and what kind of work do you refer to? Biblical scholarship as a secular, academic discipline has only existed for about 400 years.

I'm thinking of the use of the term.
What Is A Biblical Scholar?
Thus there were scholars beyond 400 years.

 

[nPeace]

I think we need to look at it as continued interpretation, not one over the other.

Why do you say so, and what exactly do you mean?

Luke’s consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Lk 23:33; Mk 15:22; Lk 18:41; Mk 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mk 7:1–23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Lk 2:30–32; 3:6, 38; 4:16–30; 13:28–30; 14:15–24; 17:11–19; 24:47–48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.

Interesting.
I understand Luke was quite accurate in his historical and geographical knowledge.
Can you point out exactly where you found his knowledge to be "incomplete"?

The sacred authors, for the benefit of the churches, took this earliest body of instruction, which had been handed on orally at first and then in writing— for many soon set their hands to "drawing up a narrative"21 of matters concerning the Lord Jesus—and set it down in the four Gospels. In doing this each of them followed a method suitable to the special purpose which he had in view. They selected certain things out of the many which had been handed on; some they synthesized, some they explained with an eye to the situation of the churches. painstakingly using every means of bringing home to their readers the solid truth of the things in which they had been instructed.22 For, out of the material which they had received, the sacred authors selected especially those items which were adapted to the varied circumstances of the faithful as well as to the end which they themselves wished to attain; these they recounted in a manner consonant with those circumstances and with that end. And since the meaning of a statement depends, amongst other things, on the place which it has in a given sequence, the Evangelists, in handing on the words or the deeds of our Saviour, explained them for the advantage of their readers by respectively setting them, one Evangelist in one context, another in another. For this reason the exegete must ask himself what the Evangelist intended by recounting a saying or a fact in a certain way, or by placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the narrative is not affected in the slightest by the fact that the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order,23 and that they use different words to express what He said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense

excerpt 'Historical Truth of the Gospels'

Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.​

Luke 1:1-4

 

[nPeace]

Yes, it was quite long, and many names were familiar, having read one or two, and many more referenced by authors I have read. One Bible course I took included a reference listing name of scholars with their various opinions at the conclusion of each chapter. What critical scholarship
offers are hypotheses by deconstruction and offers what it deems to be the most probable, it's never definitive.

When I read Paul's credentials, and scholarly works, they never appear opinionated, but rather, quite definitive.

 

[nPeace]

@Valjean, see here.
@metis, so you disagree with this? What is a Biblical scholar to you?

 

[pearl]

Why do you say so, and what exactly do you mean?

Every generation needs to understand, interpret for what Scriptures mean for them in life now.

I understand Luke was quite accurate in his historical and geographical knowledge.
Can you point out exactly where you found his knowledge to be "incomplete"?

Historical accuracy was not the priority and often included embellishment. There is the 'confession' of faith, God resurrected Jesus from death to life, Jesus is the Messiah, through whom is salvation etc.
But there is also added 'narrative', story. Compare Paul's account of his so-called conversion, and Luke's account in Acts and you will see the embellishment.

Luke 1:1-4
The Gospel according to Luke is the only one of the synoptic gospels to begin with a literary prologue. Making use of a formal, literary construction and vocabulary, the author writes the prologue in imitation of Hellenistic Greek writers and, in so doing, relates his story about Jesus to contemporaneous Greek and Roman literature. Luke is not only interested in the words and deeds of Jesus, but also in the larger context of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises of God in the Old Testament. As a second- or third-generation Christian, Luke acknowledges his debt to earlier eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, but claims that his contribution to this developing tradition is a complete and accurate account, told in an orderly manner, and intended to provide Theophilus (“friend of God,” literally) and other readers with certainty about earlier teachings they have received.

Like the Gospel according to Matthew, this gospel opens with an infancy narrative, a collection of stories about the birth and childhood of Jesus. The narrative uses early Christian traditions about the birth of Jesus, traditions about the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist, and canticles such as the Magnificat and Benedictus composed of phrases drawn from the Greek Old Testament. It is largely, however, the composition of Luke who writes in imitation of Old Testament birth stories, combining historical and legendary details, literary ornamentation and interpretation of scripture, to answer in advance the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

 

[Sheldon]

Of course we cannot exclude the fact that we have information from one of the greatest historians.
Luke

No you don't, not if your referring to the gospels, as they were anonymous, and the name Luke is a fictitious addition by early Christians, added centuries later to lend it some gravitas and credence, like the other gospels.