Nothing is settled in Biblical scholarship. If you want certainty, you better stick with mathematics.
You seem to accept St. Luke as the author of Luke and Acts. If he was, why would he wait until after 70 when his memory of the events would have faded, and many of his sources died? Keep in mind, also, that his notes would have been written on papyrus. That was more perishable than paper.
One thing that’s settled is a post-70 dating for the Gospels.
Not at all. The author is unknown and the tradition of “Luke” as a physician and travelling companion of Paul is basically 2nd century folklore (though he might have really been named Luke). Calling the authors of the Gospels by the traditional names is just a convention of convenience.
I don’t subscribe to the premise that Luke was a companion of Paul. The “we” passages of Acts notwithstanding (Luke probably just found a way to incorporate preexisting material as he did with his Gospel. Even the “Saul/Paul” divsion in Acts suggests that was using other sources). Acts contradicts Paul’s letters too much for that tradition to merit strong support, and the late dating even more so.
So the only way to rationalize early dates would be if a miracle happened. That doesn’t seem to work in favor of that explanation.
I’m sure that From Here to Eternity could have been written before 1941, if a miracle happened. It’s just those darned secular historians who are pre-committed to the idea that there can be no miracles, who date FHtE to later dates.
I’m Episcopalian, so you are correct that the clergy (and, for that matter, the laity) of my denomination tend to be better educated than some others on average. Several years of seminary is required for ordination, and Episcopal seminaries are not generally known as hotbeds of fundamentalism to say the least.
The church doesn’t shy away from discussing the historicity of the texts, but does not make a point of it either, so I’d venture that you’re guess is right and most of the people in the pews are not terribly familiar with the scholarly consensus on where the books came from.
My feeling is that unless you’re someone who’s really interested in that type of thing, it doesn’t really matter one way or another to the average believer. The books of the Bible are not authorative because they were written by Matthew or Paul or whomever; they are authorative because they’re in the Bible. When the early church agreed upon the biblical canon and which books to include or exclude, they were clearly wrong about where some of the books came from. Yet it was their collective discernment that these books reflected the Christian faith that had been handed down to them from the Apostles, and I believe that this process of selecting the canon was guided by the Holy Spirit. So while knowing that Paul wrote Galations in the 50’s but someone else wrote I Timothy in the 80’s is interesting and can help us deconstruct, analyze and interpret the text, it doesn’t make I Timothy somehow less scriptural than Galations or less important. So in that sense, the average Christian can be excused for not caring.
Of curiousity, and it’s relevant to me primarily because this is the thing that gets me the most #2 answers–what’s your position on the authenticity of translation over history? The typical believer I run into hears the scholarly debates on how particular sections of the New Testament translate (in particular, I’m most familiar with Paul’s discussions of what might be homosexuality or might be temple prostitution) and insists that the King James Version (or whatever their demoniation’s/pastor’s personal choice of Bible is) was ALSO divinely inspired, and supposed new translations are attempts to lead them astray (this is most heavily embodied in the Conservative Bible Project).
No, I believe (and I think I am in the majority of Christian thought here) that the scriptures were divinely inspired in the original languages. Translations can and have been flawed, and just as importantly, modern language is constantly evolving. Even if you had a “perfect” translation (if such a thing were possible) it would become obsolete within a few hundred years at most. The KJV is beautifully written, and very good for the resources that were available at the time, but it’s foolish IMO not to use a translation that takes the last 500 years of Biblical scholarship into account and does not use vernacular that has also become obsolete.
I’d love to see some hard data on that attitude being in the majority because (while it’d commendable), in my anecdotal experience it’s VERY uncommon.
It depends on the denomination.
It might help to note that most of the Christians I interact with are rural Pennsylvanians, most of whom seem to have a fundamentalist bent regardless of denomination. (heck, I had to go out of my way to prove to my dad that the Catholic church (of which he’s a member) doesn’t endorse the whole intelligent design thing).
What the Bible is full of lies?
Who would have thought?
I’m very glad this thread wasn’t closed when I asked that it be closed. I say that even though I haven’t participated in the thread simply because I soon learned that I haven’t the education to participate.
I had the misfortune of being born and raised in a small town in Texas during the 1940s and 1950s. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I was taught and believed that the King James version of the bible was the one and only true version and that the people who translated it worked under the supervision of God. In other words, I was taught that the bible was the divinely inspired word of god and that even the slightest questioning of it was a major sin; one that would send me straight to hell. It never occurred to me that the books of the bible might not have been written by the people to whom they were ascribed, even when I grew older and developed some doubts about religion as a whole. My teachers in our public school were as blinded as I; even in college----if a teacher at any level openly expressed doubts about the bible or religion, they might well have been stoned at the village gates. They would have almost certainly lost their jobs. If any of the several preachers I was exposed to had expressed anything to the contrary they might well have faced the same fate. In short, I never knew that any kind of alternate education was even available and if I had heard of the same, I might well have cast the first stone myself.
I came to the Straight Dope late in life and as I’ve said in the past, I’m awed by the education and intelligence of members here especially in fields that I was taught never to doubt.
My thanks and gratitude go out to those who are able to discourse on these subjects, as inadequate as this sentence is.
If I seem maudlin, blame it on a migraine and medication.
For a start, American Roman Catholics use the New American Bible translation (cite). That same cite also lists a bunch of other translations acceptable for Catholics which includes most modern English translations including the RSV/NRSV, New Jerusalem, NIV, and Revised English versions.
For lectionary readings, my congregation uses the NIV or RSV, but there is no specific version that is proscribed by the Episcopal church. My understanding is that other mainline denominations (Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc) are the same.
Most of the Evangelical churches I grew up in (including Baptist) used the NIV. I did attend a church once that used the New King James but I asked the pastor and he said other translations were acceptable, NKJ was just his preference.
In my experience I’ve actually never come across a real KJV-only group, although I know they exist. But they do tend to be fundamentalist fringe groups, akin to snake handlers. I had thought that Seventh Day Adventists maybe used KJV only, but in researching this post I found that even they accept modern translations.
Hey me too, except I was a little later (born in 1961). In the woods of East Texas, southeast of Tyler.
Yep, me too. Everyone I knew was Southern Baptist. About the KJV, I recall when I was maybe 12, the preacher preaching about translations. He related a story about when he was a boy, his teacher wrote his name on the chalkboard in pretty cursive, and he was instructed to copy it again and again below her writing. The first attempt was not too bad, because he was writing right next to hers and using it as a model. But the next time he tried, beneath that, it was even worse than his first, because he was writing below his first attempt and using that as a model. As he went farther and farther down, the successive attempts were farther away from her model.
Therefore, the KJV is better than newer translations.
Looking back, this could have been one of the first cracks in my faith. Even at that tender age, I thought that he was a dumbass for making this pathetic analogy.
Yeah, that analogy would only hold if all translations were based on earlier translations. In reality, the more recent translations use better and older sources than the KJV did.
Doing some more reading, I found this statement:
This jibes with my (admittedly limited) experience, especially regarding the exclusive use of the KJV being relatively uncommon. Source of quote: http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm