Scholars

[metis]

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

Just one who spends much time studying theology, but I'm not that fond of such labels.

 

[KWED]

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

They are usually a bit taller.

 

[Sheldon]

nPeace said: ↑
How do Biblical scholars today measure up to Biblical scholars of the past?

They are usually a bit taller.

And often far more computer literate.

 

[nPeace]

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



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?”

Sound like a very strong opinion, but that's all it is, right?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 find it very alarming that it is so common among this generation to disregard what scholars and experts say. They are called scholars because they have put the time and energy into becoming experts. And when the experts are in consensus, the logical thing is to go with what they say. I just find it very arrogant for someone who is less educated and knowledgeable to think they know more.

 

[nPeace]

I find it very alarming that it is so common among this generation to disregard what scholars and experts say. They are called scholars because they have put the time and energy into becoming experts. And when the experts are in consensus, the logical thing is to go with what they say. I just find it very arrogant for someone who is less educated and knowledgeable to think they know more.

You said it.

 

[nPeace]

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

Even if, or when they are wrong? That's sad.
What's the purpose of scripture then, in your view?

If the interpretation is already given, why does one think they need to reinterpret it? Why do you think that?

 

[pearl]

Even if, or when they are wrong? That's sad.

There is no suggestion they are wrong.

What's the purpose of scripture then, in your view?

Its where Judaism, Christianity and Islam and others find their roots, faith heritage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Of course we can.

 

[nPeace]

Of course we can.

True. "We can" indeed ignore facts.

 

[nPeace]

There is no suggestion they are wrong.

Says Pearl.

Its where Judaism, Christianity and Islam and others find their roots, faith heritage.

I'm not sure that addresses the question.
The purpose of scripture... in other words, scriptures were written for Judaism, Christianity and Islam and others to find their roots, faith heritage?

Judaism, Christianity Islam and others are centuries later than scripture. So I don't get that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True. "We can" indeed ignore facts.

As you've demonstrated. In fact, there is little or no consensus about Luke as historian.

Wikipedia: Luke the Evangelist - As a historian offers a reasonably balanced overview. Your "one of the greatest historians" rating is little more than an example of a rather embarrassing apologetic bias, particularly given that you've offered no reason to believe you to be qualified to judge and rank historians.

 

[nPeace]

As you've demonstrated. In fact, there is little or no consensus about Luke as historian.

Wikipedia: Luke the Evangelist - As a historian offers a reasonably balanced overview. Your "one of the greatest historians" rating is little more than an example of a rather embarrassing apologetic bias, particularly given that you've offered no reason to believe you to be qualified to judge and rank historians.

Wow Jajhawker you never cease to amaze me. Both you and indigo You always leave me

As a historian
Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke–Acts) in the tradition of Greek historiography. Luke 1:1-4, drawing on historical investigation, identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history. There is disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.

Continue to believe what you will, and accept the apologetics you refer to as true scholars.
We know better

 

[Sheldon]

I find it very alarming that it is so common among this generation to disregard what scholars and experts say. They are called scholars because they have put the time and energy into becoming experts. And when the experts are in consensus, the logical thing is to go with what they say. I just find it very arrogant for someone who is less educated and knowledgeable to think they know more.

You mean like experts on evolution, or global warming, and various scientific disciplines that refute categorically archaic religious creation myths, or the irrefutable geological evidence that proves no global flood has ever occurred, or the expert archaeologists who have demonstrate through decades of research, and their EXPERTISE, that Exodus is a myth? Only I get the uneasy feeling this accusation is being levelled in the wrong direction?

If someone is an expert on Harry Potter, I wouldn't dream of contradicting them, unless they make claims that wizards and magic are real, then I am going to need more than just bare claims and unevidenced appeals to authority. There is a stark difference between a scholarly or expert opinion, and the subjective unevidenced opinion of an expert or scholar.

 

[Sheldon]

Even if, or when they are wrong? That's sad.
What's the purpose of scripture then, in your view?

If the interpretation is already given, why does one think they need to reinterpret it? Why do you think that?

Probably because it contains what we now know to be errant nonsense, and taking it literally requires a level of denial of EXPERT scientific opinion that some people can't justify, or even fathom.

 

[Sheldon]

True. "We can" indeed ignore facts.

Well your posts suggest you can, with aplomb.

 

[pearl]

Judaism, Christianity Islam and others are centuries later than scripture. So I don't get that.

That makes no sense as they existed prior to the written word.

 

[nPeace]

That makes no sense as they existed prior to the written word.

"Judaism, Christianity Islam and others existed prior to the written word"?
What written word are you referring to?

 

[pearl]

What written word are you referring to?

Thought it was Scripture, or is it something else you had in mind?

 

[metis]

I find it very alarming that it is so common among this generation to disregard what scholars and experts say. They are called scholars because they have put the time and energy into becoming experts. And when the experts are in consensus, the logical thing is to go with what they say. I just find it very arrogant for someone who is less educated and knowledgeable to think they know more.

Generally speaking, I agree, but often even the best of scholars interject their opinions, which can be quite variable, and this is also found in Judaism that gets reflected in the commentary system. Not everything is cut & dry.