Are the 4 Evangelists historians?

[marco]

We occasionally get comments about the historical treatment of the gospels. Some people take exception to them not being considered as "real history."

Would you consider Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as historians?

Are there any differences between the gospel writers and say, Livy, Tacitus or Josephus or indeed any known historian?

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to post 16 by Realworldjack]

Whether or not letters were intended for only one person does NOT establish truth and accuracy.

A letter promoting religion is -- a letter promoting religion (no matter by whom written for for whom intended). A letter promoting religion is not not required to present events as they actually occurred.

Why in the world would you say such things, when this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making? In other words, I was not in any way making these points in order to, "establish truth and accuracy".

Let us recall that it was you, who was giving us your opinion of what the gospels may have been. I was simply pointing out that it would be better to stick to the facts, we can know, and one of the facts we can know is, the two letters addressed to Theophilus, would have been just that. In other words, letters addressed to a particular individual. How would this have a thing in the world to do with, claiming the accuracy of the content?

What it does in fact do, is to demonstrate that this author was not appealing to a wider audience, which means he cannot be accused of attempting to, "sway the masses" with this information.

This is the exact reason there are critics who want to challenge as to whether this letter would have been addressed to one individual, by going to the extent of going with the meaning of the name Theophilus, and they have very good reasons to make such a desperate attempt, because they understand the consequences if this was indeed a letter to one particular individual. Otherwise, there would be no reason to attempt to challenge the way in which these letters were naturally written.

So then, my bringing these points up, had nothing to do with "establishing accuracy" but rather to "establish" that the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT would have been addressed to individual audiences at the time, with the overwhelming majority, and maybe even all of the audiences, already being believers, which would mean they were not intended to evangelize the world, (promote a religion).

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 19 by marco]

Ive been listening to David Irving lecyures on the manipulation of history (in this case recent history) and if nothing else it illustrates what a fickle "science" history really is. Given the purpose and content of the gospels, I think the writers did very well indeed.

JW

[marco]

So then, my bringing these points up, had nothing to do with "establishing accuracy" but rather to "establish" that the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT would have been addressed to individual audiences at the time, with the overwhelming majority, and maybe even all of the audiences, already being believers, which would mean they were not intended to evangelize the world, (promote a religion).

That is good. We do not regard the letters as evangelizing attempts, but simple communications by simple men of a simple way of life. It is a mistake to draw conclusions about Jesus or his family or his birth and death from these letters that deal with local matters.

So given they are useless for instructing us on the elaborate claims about Christ, why bring them up here? When these letter writers suggest opinions about things they did not see, we can also ignore them.

[marco]

[Replying to post 19 by marco]

Ive been listening to David Irving lecyures on the manipulation of history (in this case recent history) and if nothing else it illustrates what a fickle "science" history really is. Given the purpose and content of the gospels, I think the writers did very well indeed.

I suppose in the sense that "scientia" is knowledge or study, history qualifies. If historians are fickle, and you are keen to argue that the evangelists were writing history, then we must conclude the famous four were fickle. Or do we draw a conclusion about historians, then make exceptions when it comes to our preferred area? In fact what you say applies, a fortiori, to the gospel writers. Again and again we see them intrusively offering exaggerations in order to further the case for their hero. It is hardly history, even in its fickle form.

[Overcomer]

I think the problem is that people today think that the gospels should be like modern histories and biographies. However, I think it's an unfair comparison. While contemporary authors concern themselves with detached objectivity, ancient biographers were concerned with revealing the characteristics of the subject about which they wrote. It would be more appropriate to compare the gospels with ancient biographies such as Plutarch's Lives. In fact, that has been done by Michael Licona and Craig Evans in a book entitled Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?

A synopsis and review of the book are here:

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org ... -biography

A lecture based on the book is here:



Ancient rhetoric offered rules for the writing of history, biography, etc., rules that Plutarch followed as did the gospel writers. For example, there is their use of chreia which is defined as "a brief saying or action making a point, attributed to some specified person or something corresponding to a person." (Why Are Their Differences in the Gospels, Kobo ebook, p. 61.) Chreia could be altered in a number of ways -- they could be restated in a way that was true to the meaning but involved a different format. For example, the information could be restated in a question and answer format. Events could be compressed or expanded. They could be presented and then either confirmed or refuted. This could involved paraphrasing rather than presenting direct quotations. It can even include changes in the number of people involved (number of women at the tomb for example).

In fact, in writing narrative, ancient biography allowed for a great deal of flexibility. It even involved reconstructing speeches that the writer had heard. The rule was this: Narrative had to be credible and suitable to the speaker, audience members, and occasion (Why Are There Differences, p. 64). But the writer was free to present the content as he chose.

Theon authored a textbook in rhetoric. He restated the words of Thucydides as more than a factual statement. He posed them as a question, as a command, and as a dialogue between people for students to study so that they could learn how to present information in a variety of ways.

And then there were the many compositional devices ancient biographers used -- devices such as displacement whereby an author knowingly uprooted an event from its original context and transplanted it in another or presented an event as having occurred earlier or more recently than it actually had. They also conflated information, meaning that an author combined elements from two or more events and narrated them as one or they spotlighted one character over another. Sometimes they left out details that would unnecessarily complicate a narrative if they weren't pertinent.

You can see all of these and more in the writings of Plutarch. He wrote biographies of Sertorius, Cicero, Pompey, Crasus, Caesar -- men who lived at the same time and knew each other and were involved in the same events. Therefore, there is some overlapping in each of Plutarch's writing about them. However, the accounts are not identical because Plutarch chose to use different devices to highlight different aspects of their lives. The same is true of the gospel writers.

The guide for Plutarch and other ancient writers is summed up in the Law of Biographic Relevance. The story is told in a manner that is most relevant to the main character (Why Are There Differences, p. 91). That could mean changing from one persons' perspective to another in the retelling of a story or providing details of an event involving a person which are omitted in another biography of that same person. It depended on the point the author was trying to make.

But here's the thing: In all of this, they remained true to the core of story. They didn't present falsehoods.

Bottom line: I don't think it's fair to judge the gospels on the basis of modern history and biography. The gospel writers wrote according to the rules of their time. Why should we expect them to write like modern historians using modern rules of historiography? The rules they followed may have been different, but that doesn't mean what they wrote isn't true.

For more, see these:

http://www.craigkeener.com/gospels-as-a ... es-part-1/

https://ehrmanblog.org/gospels-biographies-members/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 10.00188.x

[marco]

Bottom line: I don't think it's fair to judge the gospels on the basis of modern history and biography. The gospel writers wrote according to the rules of their time. Why should we expect them to write like modern historians using modern rules of historiography? The rules they followed may have been different, but that doesn't mean what they wrote isn't true.

Nobody's judging the gospels on the basis of modern history. Tacitus and Livy were mentioned. Plutarch's lives, according to Plutarch, are not history. They are comparisons of the lives of his subjects, with an emphasis on the moral character and what these famous men had in common.

It is accepted that ancient historians took liberties: Tacitus, for all his splendid sources, being the son-in-law of Agricola and having, from his post, access to Roman annals, still invented verbatim speeches; Livy goes into what are obviously mythological details, particularly of early Rome; Suetonius delights in gossip, true or false. But they get on with the details of historical events, naming, dating, concluding.

The gospels seek to illuminate Christ as someone ethereal; of course they invent, but with them it is hard to see what constitutes history and what is just eulogy. Christ is not tied down to calendar details: we don't know when he was born, or when he died or what he did for 90% of his life. I agree this would not disqualify the rest from being history if there was some eventual pinning down of Christ with the surrounding times. We have Pilate mentioned and we gather, from Tacitus, that Christ supposedly was sentenced to death under him. The gospels, unfortunately, concentrate on mystical men from the east, a vague wedding between nobodies where Christ is introduced on the scene with the splash of a miracle, sundry nobodies entering ill and leaving cured and one notable nobody entering dead and leaving alive, with no further information. Finally we have moving corpses and angels waiting in a tomb before the subject of the stories rises physically, supposedly into heaven.

And this is history?

[Realworldjack]

So then, my bringing these points up, had nothing to do with "establishing accuracy" but rather to "establish" that the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT would have been addressed to individual audiences at the time, with the overwhelming majority, and maybe even all of the audiences, already being believers, which would mean they were not intended to evangelize the world, (promote a religion).

That is good. We do not regard the letters as evangelizing attempts, but simple communications by simple men of a simple way of life. It is a mistake to draw conclusions about Jesus or his family or his birth and death from these letters that deal with local matters.

So given they are useless for instructing us on the elaborate claims about Christ, why bring them up here? When these letter writers suggest opinions about things they did not see, we can also ignore them.

It is a mistake to draw conclusions about Jesus or his family or his birth and death from these letters that deal with local matters.

I really do not know how one can come to such conclusions, since there are many, including the critics who are under the impression there are certain things we can know, concerning the things you mention.

One thing we do know is, something very extraordinary occurred at that time, which has the world continuing to talk about whatever it may have been, some 2000 years later, and this would include you, my friend. In other words, it was so extraordinary that, many folks are not under the impression we can simply dismiss these things, as you seem to suggest, and many also seem to take these things very seriously, whether they believe the accounts, or are opposed.

So given they are useless for instructing us on the elaborate claims about Christ, why bring them up here?

That's just the thing, I did not bring them up. Rather, they were brought up by one who seems to be insisting these letters would have been "promotional literature", and I am simply demonstrating that this does not seem to be the case.

So then, while you seem to think we can simply dismiss the claims, there are others who are opposed, who seem to understand that it would not be as simple as you would like it to be, and therefore they are at least attempting to give some sort of answers, even if these reasons they give, would be unfounded.

When these letter writers suggest opinions about things they did not see, we can also ignore them.

The thing is here, you are completely free to ignore them. However, the fact of the matter seems to be, that you do not, and have not ignored them, because these letters you claim we can simply dismiss, seems to be consuming your life, on a daily basis. Seems sort of strange for one who seems so confident these writings should be ignored, don't you think?

As an example, there are many things I do not think is worth my time to talk about, and debate, and with this being the case, you will not find me continuing to talk about such things at all, and you certainly will not find me day, after day, on a web site, debating things that I would be under the impression that we can simply dismiss. Rather, the only things you will find most people spending time debating, is those things for which they understand there would be a reason to be opposed to the position they hold.

Therefore, every time you post on this site, you demonstrate that you are well aware of the fact that, there is far more to these things, then you would like to admit.

[marco]

Therefore, every time you post on this site, you demonstrate that you are well aware of the fact that, there is far more to these things, then you would like to admit.

We are discussing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John . but et me explain:

In discussing them we touch on other problems: suicide bombers, man's inhumanity, global subservience, the power of persuasion, gullibility, the danger of believing in a biblical God, the dangers of travelling on planes . we also discuss why girls would be stoned to death, and still are; why men who liked men were executed; why old ladies with prominent noses were murdered... and of course we wonder whether a man called "God lover" actually existed. Remember "Christopher" or "Christ carrier" was a much loved saint who bore the weight of Jesus on his pious shoulders. But was he real?

In discussing Christ or even the obnoxious Paul we betray our own attitudes and prejudices but in return we hope to learn something new or have some misconception corrected. It is fascinating how some people who appear to be mightily challenged by the rules of English grammar, feel no such burden when pondering the mysteries of the deity, even offering recondite information on what God thinks, and why, if you please. I imagine if God has something to say about the 4 evangelists he will whisper it to someone here in unmistakeably divine terms. Is that not worth waiting for?

[JehovahsWitness]

Christ is not tied down to calendar details: we don't know when he was born, or when he died ...

Did you read my posts on dating Christs birth, death and ministry? If so are there any facts therin you you would like to challenge?

Do the gospels provide enough detail for us to pinpoint exactly when Jesus of Nazareth lived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 505#987505


JW

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

How can they be taken as even historians? They are names invented by the church in which to title the gospels.

No one knows who wrote them.

So when people say 'Mathew said' or 'Luke said' they arent being truthful. 'The book titled Mathew reads' or similar is truthful way to say it. If I said the gospels of Bob, Tom, Larry and Victor Id be called out on it. Christians would accuse me of misrepresenting their gospels. If truth is what Christians want to speak then they should demand the book titles not be named. Not only did the church invent the names. Oh no. That wasnt enough. They added saint to their names. There is no Saint Mathew. Or Saints Mark, Luke or John.

Demand the truth. You deserve it. You dont deserve to be lied to. Nor perpetuate the lie