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?

[marco]

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?

I am impressed that the "Res gestae divi Augusti" features. Josephus tells of a census around 6AD when Quirinius was governor of Syria. To argue for another census when Quirinius may also have been governor is not clearing up any doubt. If there were in fact two similar events under two different periods for Quirinius as governor, then the phrase "when Quirinius was governor" is next to useless. Pick one!


My point was that there should be no need for such speculation and argument if the life recorded is such an important one. You have not removed the doubt: simply offered perfectly plausible possibilities. Not good enough. Historians would identify the year of a consul or the year in the reign of Tiberius but if they said "Tiberio imperatore", (when Tiberius was Emperor), it is too vague. So too with Quirinius.
As for Christ's death, we have disputes there too. Didn't the historian evangelists do well!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

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.

On some of these issues you would be correct, and I have spoken out against some of these very same things myself here on this site, and elsewhere. However, the main point here is, all one has to do to demonstrate Christianity would not be responsible for such things, is to quote one little verse from Paul which says, "what do I have to do with judging outsiders"?

All you are really demonstrating, is one who sees these sort of things occurring, and instead of attempting to determine if Christianity actually teaches such things, you simply attempt to find a way in which to put the blame where it does not belong, because you seem to be under the impression that it helps the position you prefer.

and of course we wonder whether a man called "God lover" actually existed

Well of course there are going to be folks who become desperate enough to question such things in the face of the overwhelming evidence, because it is all they have left. This is no surprise.

[marco]

However, the main point here is, all one has to do to demonstrate Christianity would not be responsible for such things, is to quote one little verse from Paul which says, "what do I have to do with judging outsiders"?

Paul is a commentator, like ourselves, on Christianity. In answer to his question: "Quite a lot!" He makes frequent judgments on others, telling women, for example, to shut their mouths in church. Nice man.

All you are really demonstrating, is one who sees these sort of things occurring, and instead of attempting to determine if Christianity actually teaches such things, you simply attempt to find a way in which to put the blame where it does not belong, because you seem to be under the impression that it helps the position you prefer.

Christianity is what is practised not what is hoped for. Jesus said he came deliberately to set father against son, and to an extent he succeeded, as many Christian branches do cause enmity between family members. Christianity saw the burning of Christians by other Christians. This arose from taking some interpretation of some passage. If we restricted ourselves here to "love thy neighbour Christianity" we would be talking theory all the time.

and of course we wonder whether a man called "God lover" actually existed

Well of course there are going to be folks who become desperate enough to question such things in the face of the overwhelming evidence, because it is all they have left. This is no surprise.

If he lived he is a nonentity. If he is fictional, it at least gives us something to discuss.
I have learned here how people think, how they see things, how they can take some old, translated text and read rainbows into it. In fact they can take a rainbow and think God put it in the sky to mark a covenant between him and bipeds. When we introduce Matthew, we blush. Introduce Revelation, and we feel sick. Struggling for breath in this mud is Jesus who has been traduced by Paul, killer turned saint. If billions believe in Christianity and other billions think Jesus was the second last great prophet, it pays us to keep in touch if for no other reason than to determine what shifts the minds of our neighbours. Apparently for you. Theophilus does the trick. Well at least we can say he loved God.

[JehovahsWitness]

Josephus tells of a census around 6AD when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Are you suggesting this puts Luke's narrative in doubt? If as Luke indictaes, and the facts seem to suport, that there was more than one census, would not be be Josephus, rather than Luke we should criticise for his (Josephus) lack of precision?


JW




RELATED POSTS

Did Luke correctly date Quirinius census?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 557#987557

Was Nazareth a fictional town?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 741#377741

Was Bethlehem-Ephrathah a location or a reference to the decendace the son of Caleb's second wife Ephrah?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#931930

Was Mary a Levite?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 040#943040

Why are there apparent discrepencies in the geneology of Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 376#832376

Did Matthew mistranslate the Hebrew ALMA (virgin) when speaking about Mary the mother of Christ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 618#763618

Why did Matthew say there was a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (Mat 2:23)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 986#781986

[JehovahsWitness]

Historians would identify the year of a consul or the year in the reign of Tiberius but if they said "Tiberio imperatore", (when Tiberius was Emperor), it is too vague.

We know that until releatively recently calendars were counted in terms of the number of years of the reign of the monarch. So a year would be identified as being, for example, the 5th regnal year of Tiberius. Luke goes much further, giving us more detail than even the most stringent of historians listing no less than seven verifiable references to specifically identify the year in question*

LUKE 3: 1-2

In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, [1] when Pontius Pilate[2] was governor of Ju-dea, Herod [3]was district ruler of Gali-lee, Philip [4]his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trach-o-nitis, and Ly-sani-as [5]was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas [6]and of Caia-phas[7]

* since Jesus is specifically spoken of as being precisely 30 years old at the moment under discussion anyone that can count into double figures can easily and precisely identify the year of Jesus birth.

Luke outdoes himself in this respect and for someone to imply that the year of Jesus birth and period of his ministry is presented in vague terms grossly misrepresenting the facts.




JW

[marco]

Josephus tells of a census around 6AD when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Are you suggesting this puts Luke's narrative in doubt? If as Luke indicates, and the facts seem to suport, that there was more than one census, would not be be Josephus, rather than Luke we should criticise for his (Josephus) lack of precision?

I am saying there is doubt in Luke's narrative. Josephus is an acknowledged historian and Luke wrote:

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,


the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."


Do you seriously want to compare the man who authored this rubbish with Josephus? And do you think that this fictional writer would have details of a census?

Thank you for your copious supply of biblical information. I think the above passage says all we need to know.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the above passage says all we need to know.

I think that would be very convenient for you if that were true, however, you yourself raised a point as to the dating of historcal events in relation to rulers to which I have responded.

Would you like to challenge me on anything I have said in this regard?

JW

[marco]

I think the above passage says all we need to know.

I think that would be very convenient for you if that were true, however, you yourself raised a point as to the dating of historcal events in relation to rulers to which I have responded.

Would you like to challenge me on anything I have said in this regard?

JW

It would be a very foolish Marco who claimed to know the dates of the different Roman governors, though I have studied the period of Roman history a fair bit. No, you are concentrating on a snowball and ignoring the avalanche. There are no exact dates. You have been arguing for the possibility that Luke is right, but my point was that if he set out to give details of Christ, he owed it to his readers to offer some exactness. The "census when Quirinius was governor" but he was governor twice and, oops, there were, seemingly, two censuses. Of course we can puzzle and come up with possibilities - that does not remove the doubt that I am highlighting.

I think we have said enough to show the evangelists were not historians, though some of what they wrote might be useful to real historians. They were more like psalmists and at times fiction writers. See Matthew once more.

Thanks for your contribution.

[marco]

since Jesus is specifically spoken of as being precisely 30 years old at the moment under discussion anyone that can count into double figures can easily and precisely identify the year of Jesus birth.

Here's what is written: " Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

In which dictionary is "about" synonymous with "precisely"?

And in which universe is certainty deduced from the parenthetical "so it was thought". Is even THAT piece of information unclear?

Let us talk no more of certainties when all is clouded in doubt and fiction. The best we can say is that sometimes the evangelists almost reached the standard of Charles Dickens though we know a thousand times more about David Copperfield than we do of Christ. Odd isn't it when Christ said he was the Truth.

[Tcg]

Here's what is written: " Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

In which dictionary is "about" synonymous with "precisely"?

Indeed. That sounds more like a description given to police at the scene of a crime rather than the words of someone who knew precisely the intimate details of their savior. About thirty could conceivably range from twenty-five to thirty-five.

Certainly Mary would remember the date of his birth and would have testified of his age if she were asked. She may have left her boy in Jerusalem at some point, but she wouldn't have forgotten his age.


Tcg