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?

[JehovahsWitness]

.

There is no contradictoon between Matthew and Lukes accounts. Is that what you are suggesting?

No contradiction between 4 BCE and 6 CE?

Neither dates appear on in tthe bible. Are you suggesting there is a scripture with either of those two figures written in it?

[Zzyzx]

.

There is no contradictoon between Matthew and Lukes accounts. Is that what you are suggesting?

No contradiction between 4 BCE and 6 CE?

Neither dates appear on in tthe bible. Are you suggesting there is a scripture with either of those two figures written in it?

If an account says that a person was born during the Nixon presidency and another account says that the same person was born before the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, could you recognize a contradiction between the two accounts even if no years were mentioned?

If ‘Luke’ says a person was born during Census of Quirinius (which has been determined to have been during CE 6 – 7) and ‘Matthew’ says he was born during the reign of Herod (who has been determined to have died in BCE 4), can you recognize a contradiction between the two accounts even if no years were mentioned?

[bjs]

[Replying to marco]

This seems to equivocate the idea of a historian.

If by historian we just mean, as JW pointed out, “a student or writer of history,� or “a writer or compiler of a chronicle,� then yes the Gospel writers were historians.

However, Mark (for instance) would be more accurately described as a gospel writer. He recorded history, but he was not like Tacitus because Mark saw theological and symbolic significance in the actions of Jesus of Nazareth. And neither Mark nor Tacitus were like Josephus, who saw theological significance in historical events but in a different way than Mark did. None of those three were like Christopher Hill, who was a modern historian. Hill, like most modern historians, started from a different set of premises than ancient historians worked from.

So I guess my answer is: Sort of, but it’s not that simple.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

DID LUKE CORRECTLY DATE QUIRINIUS' CENSUS?


"In the year 1764 an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus was found in Rome, which, though not giving the name, contains information that most scholars acknowledge could apply only to Quirinius. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887, Vol. 14, p. 397, No. 3613) [The Inscription] contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for a "the second time" On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius' name, many historians acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the B.C.E. period.

The Lapis Tiburtinus


Many scholars, in view of the evidence of an earlier governorship by Quirinius, suggest the years 3-2 B.C.E. for his governorship. While these dates would harmonize satisfactorily with the Biblical record, the basis on which these scholars select them is in error. That is, they list Quirinius as governor during those years because they place his rule after that of Varus and hence after the death of Herod the Great, for which they use the popular but erroneous date of 4 B.C.E. For the same reason, that is, their use of the unproved date 4 B.C.E. for Herod's death, they give Varus’ governorship as from 6 to 4 B.C.E.; the length of his rule, however, is conjectural, for Josephus does not specify the date of its beginning or of its end.

The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98 ) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria. -- The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360 .

It is noteworthy that it is generally accepted that there are doubts as to who was the Governor during the very period in question (see chart below). Luke's information as to the identity of the governor during this period, is as good if not better than "some" that speculate as to alternatives. [1] If there were solid evidence that Lucius Calpurnius Piso was Governor during this period (as opposed to speculation) it would not be listed as "unknown".

wikipedia

CONCLUSION: We do not know which period Luke's reference to This first registration" refers to, but available evidence indicates it may well reference a governship EARLIER than 6 CE especially as it seems Quirinius could have served as the emperor’s legate in Syria during TWO distinct periods.

Adapted from : Insight on the Scriptures Vol II p. 721
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003607#h=6



RELATED POSTS

Can the gospel writers be considered "historians"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p987495

Do historians always reocrd without bias?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 59#p795559

Is there any archaeolgical evidence that supports biblical detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 76#p823576

Is the bible a history book?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p800473

Why is there no mention of Jesus by numerous contemporary historians (by goose) ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 90#p945590

Do the gospels provide enough detail for us to pinpoint exactly when Jesus of Nazareth lived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 05#p987505

Does historical method require that the document be written either by eyeswitness?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p356498

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]

Is that about the same time as the Massacre of the Innocents?

[Realworldjack]

.

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

I consider the writers of said gospels (whoever they may have been) to be religion promoters with vested interest in furthering the splinter group religion -- not recording events that actually happened in the real world -- perhaps comparable to Joseph Smith (another non-historian).

I would like to point out here that, what you, "consider the gospels to be" is simply an opinion, but I think it would be best to stick to the facts, we can know to be true.

With this being the case, we can know, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, was intending to write letters, which were addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus. However, in his first letter he tells Theophilus that he is "writing an orderly account of the things accomplished among us, so that you may be certain of the things you have been taught".

With this being the case, we should read these letters just as they were written, which would be to read them as if they were letters written to Theophilus, with no intention that anyone else would be reading this letter other than, Theophilus.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the material contained in the NT, would be letters addressed to different audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what was being recorded would be read by anyone other than the original intended audience, and the authors certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT are addressed to those who would have already been believers, which would include the two letters to Theophilus.

This leaves us with just a handful of material contained in the NT, and it is very well possible that this material as well, could have been intended for an audience at the time, who would have already been believers.

However, one of the main points involved here is the fact that, these authors would have had no idea about the Bible, and were not intending to evangelize the world with the material they were writing, and this can be easily demonstrated with the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT.

What this means is, the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT, were addressed to different audiences, which were addressing different concerns at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by those, thousands of years later.

Now, as we compare this to the witnesses of the "golden plates" as you seem to want to do, we can clearly see right from the beginning of the statement which was signed by the witnesses,

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come:

Okay, so who is being addressed here? Now let us make a comparison,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Not quite the same now, is it? One seems to address a wider audience, while the other certainly seems to be addressing one particular individual, seemingly emphasizing the word "you" when he says thing such as, "to write it out for YOU", and then goes on to actually mention this individual by name, and then ends by saying, "so that YOU may know the exact truth about the things YOU have been taught".

So then, what we can see, by comparing what is contained in the NT, to Joseph Smith, as you seem to want to do is, one certainly seems to be addressing the entire world, as we see at the end of the statement signed by the witnesses,

And we give our names unto the WORLD

As opposed to the other, which is addressing one individual at that time, with no concern of any sort of wider audience.

In the end I would like to say, I do not think it wise to compare these sort of things, since one would have no bearing whatsoever on the other. However, when there are those who seem to want to make such comparisons, (for whatever reasons) I am more than happy to do so.

[polonius]

From Wikipedia

"Opposed to Pauline authenticity[edit]

Titus, along with the two other pastoral epistles (1 Timothy and 2 Timothy), is regarded by the large majority of scholars as being pseudepigraphical.[3] On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, these scholars reject that they were written by Paul and believe that they were written by an anonymous forger after his death.

Critics claim the vocabulary and style of the Pauline letters could not have been written by Paul according to available biographical information and reflect the views of the emerging Church rather than the apostle's. These scholars date the epistle from the 80s AD up to the end of the 2nd century.[4] The Church of England's Common Worship Lectionary Scripture Commentary concurs with this view: "the proportioning of the theological and practical themes is one factor that leads us to think of these writings as coming from the post-Pauline church world of the late first or early second century".[5]


Titus has a very close affinity with 1 Timothy, sharing similar phrases and expressions and similar subject matter.[6][7] This has led many scholars to believe that it was written by the same forger who wrote 1 and 2 Timothy— this author is sometimes referred to as "the Pastor."[8]

[Zzyzx]

.
[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.

[marco]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

See edit above. The gospels taken as a whole provide more than enough detail for us to pinpoint exactly where and when Jesus lived, his progress through the "particular time period" of his ministry and when, where and how he died.

One can piece together a case for the gospels being "history". The point I am making is that generally we have vagueness and we are unable to relate what is reported to actual years. When we have some reference, it is conveniently shrouded in "doubt". History is in the hands of the victors, in this case the Roman Church that preserved and altered information.


The gospels as I said are little more than prayers, eulogies, passages of adoration. But of course we can extract historical information from them because of their useful antiquity. In this way they serve historians as would the graffiti on the walls of Pompeii or a shopping list found at Vindolanda. For those who think Jesus was a god, the gospels are useful for framing prayers to him.

[Realworldjack]

From Wikipedia

"Opposed to Pauline authenticity[edit]

Titus, along with the two other pastoral epistles (1 Timothy and 2 Timothy), is regarded by the large majority of scholars as being pseudepigraphical.[3] On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, these scholars reject that they were written by Paul and believe that they were written by an anonymous forger after his death.

Critics claim the vocabulary and style of the Pauline letters could not have been written by Paul according to available biographical information and reflect the views of the emerging Church rather than the apostle's. These scholars date the epistle from the 80s AD up to the end of the 2nd century.[4] The Church of England's Common Worship Lectionary Scripture Commentary concurs with this view: "the proportioning of the theological and practical themes is one factor that leads us to think of these writings as coming from the post-Pauline church world of the late first or early second century".[5]


Titus has a very close affinity with 1 Timothy, sharing similar phrases and expressions and similar subject matter.[6][7] This has led many scholars to believe that it was written by the same forger who wrote 1 and 2 Timothy— this author is sometimes referred to as "the Pastor."[8]

This is really quite, comical. Did you happen to notice when it says, "is REGARDED", not demonstrated, nor proven?

Have you ever really thought about why these critics may want to cast doubt upon who the author of these letters may have been? Or, do you simply take their word for it because it backs the position you prefer? Because you see, I will assure you that these critics understand that if Paul was indeed the author of these letters, it would be very strong evidence for the claims being made. So then, let us dive in to consider what all would have to be involved in order for Paul not to be the author of 2 Timothy.

The first question I would ask is, how do we suppose this fake author would have gotten this letter into circulation after the death of Paul? I mean, the letters of Paul would have already been known at this time, and now all of a sudden, another letter simply comes on the scene, and no one is going to ask, where it came from?

Next, this fake author certainly wanted readers to believe that it was written by Paul, because he begins the letter, identifying himself as Paul. Then this author goes into prayers he has for Timothy, and then even goes on to mention the name of Timothy's grandmother, and mother.

So, did this fake author happen to know the grandmother, and mother of Timothy? The question here really is, why would a fake author, after the death of Paul, even attempt to mention such things? In other words, why not attempt to get straight to the point you are attempting to get out there under the name of Paul? Otherwise, this fake author is going to a lot of trouble, in an attempt to make the letter look authentic. However, unless this author actually knew the names of Timothy's grandmother, and mother, he is taking a chance on others who may have known who these women may have been, no matter how long ago it would have been.

Next, this letter certainly is written with the idea that Paul would have been under arrest at the time of this writing, and this would absolutely coincide with the report of the author of the two letters to Theophilus, with the second letter ending with Paul being under arrest, for some 2 years. However, we are to suppose, this author has the presence of mind, and goes to the trouble thus far in this letter, to mention the name of the grandmother, and mother of Timothy, along with writing as though Paul would have been under arrest at the time?

Okay, and then at the end of this fake letter, after this author has said all he needs to say, he has the presence of mind to actually tell Timothy, (who he is not really addressing) "Make every effort to come to me soon". So, think about this? This author has apparently said all he needs to say, and could simply end the letter, but for some reason he decides to throw in this extra stuff, that really could have nothing to do with the content. In other words, he is making personal request to someone, he is not really addressing, and it would have to be, simply to make the letter look more authentic.

But then in chapter 4, and verse 11, after telling his fake audience about those who have deserted him, this author goes on to tell his fake audience, "Only Luke is with me"?

Now, as we go on to compare what this fake author has to say, with what the author of "Acts" has to say, who would have been one and the same as the author of "Luke" we see that this author begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, all the way up, and until Paul stands trial in Rome, and is arrested, and the author of "Acts" actually ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years.

The point is, this fake author had the presence of mind, to actually mention the name of Luke, which would just so happen to completely coincide with what the author of "Acts" would have to say. Are you beginning to see now, why these critics are so anxious to cast doubt about Paul being the author?

But we are not done yet! This fake author then goes on to tell this fake audience, "Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service". Now, are you really buying this? I mean this fake author has thought of everything? But he is not done yet!

He goes on to say, "When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments". What fake author thinks of these things? I mean this guy is brilliant! But then this author ends by sending out greetings.

Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.

So, here is the exact evidence that Paul would have been the author of this letter to Timothy. As we can see, there would indeed be very good reasons for the critics to want to desperately cast doubt upon who the actual author may have been.

However, what actual evidence do they have which would cast this doubt? All you really seem to be doing here is to take the word of these "scholars", and "critics" without actually analyzing the content of these letters yourself, in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for Paul not to have been the actual author, which seems no different to me than, Christians who simply believe what is contained in the Bible, simply because it is contained in the Bible, and it is something they would rather believe, no matter the facts, and evidence which may, or may not be involved.