Were Matthew and Luke both credible historians?

[polonius]

Matthew reports that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 B.C.

Luke reports that Jesus was born during the 6 AD census of Judea. There is at least a ten year difference.

Based on scripture then the logical conclusion is that Mary had two sons named Jesus born ten or more years apart.

Are these really claimed to be divinely inspired scripture?

Do major errors occur elsewhere in scripture. Did God make these errors?

[Yahwehismywitness]

Jesus was not promoting himself I think is why we do not have those details never does it state to remember the date of his birth. Therefore it is doubrful Matthew and Luke actually knew the exact date

[Red Wolf]

In Matthew's Gospel, there is a passage, which contains several proofs that Matthew's Gospel is Fiction.
Matthew 28:11-15 (New American Standard Bible)

11Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.

12And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,

13and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.'

14"And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble."

15And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.


List of Proofs.
Here is my list of proofs.
1) The Jewish Priests and Elders tell the guards to say "" 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep."" This is a ridiculous story to tell. Everyone knows that if the guards were asleep they would be unconscious and not know what happened. The ruling Jewish Sanhedrin was 71 members, seventy elders and the High Priest reputed to be amongst the wisest men. It is not believable that these very smart Jews would concoct such a dumb story.

2) In the Roman world, the penalty for sleeping while on guard duty was death. It is doubtful that even with a "good word" from the High Priest [Matthew 28:14] to the Roman Governor, he would have suspended the death sentence. It is not believable that the guards would have lied and said they were sleeping and subject themselves to the death penalty. Can't spend money if you're dead.

3) The Priests and Elders were very religious men. According to Jesus they were very careful about observing every point of the law, but were missing the spirit of the Law. Matthew 23:23-23-24 It is not believable that these religious men would suborn false witness and commit such a grave sin.

4)The Roman Governor would never believe such a dumb story ""'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep." One did not get to rule an entire country by being an idiot.

5) This conspiracy to tell this lie, that the disciples stole the body, involves, the guards, the Jewish leadership, and even the office of the Roman Governor. It is not believable that a conspiracy based on such a poor lie would have held together. But that is what Matthew asks his readers to believe. "And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day." Matthew 28:15 Matthew would have his readers believe the conspiracy lasted for years after the event. Not believable.

6) We have the witness of the four gospels. But only Matthew's gospel mentions a guard on the tomb. Not even a hint from the other gospels. The guard on the tomb is a vital element of the Jesus resurrection story. Had the guard existed the other gospel writers would have most assuredly mentioned it. To fail to mention such an important aspect of the story would be to miss the point of the story. Jesus was in the tomb, the guard was on duty, the tomb was now empty, so Jesus must have resurrected. The other gospel writers didn't mention the guard because this was Matthew's fiction.

[Divine Insight]

Were Matthew and Luke both credible historians?

I don't see where they ever claimed to be historians. They were basically preachers. They weren't covering history in general.

Moreover, much of what they claim could not be known by any historian. They would have needed to be a fly on the wall to have witnesses conversations they claim to have known about verbatim.

I think the naive theological view is that these authors were supposedly inspired by God to write what they wrote and that God was providing them with this omniscient information.

But even that doesn't make any sense, because as you point out in the OP if God was inspiring them to write things then they wouldn't have been writing different things.

So we really have no choice but to conclude that they were neither historians, nor being guided on what to write by an God or Holy Spirit. Instead, they were just religious zealots who recanted different rumors. Rumors that couldn't possibly be simultaneously true.

So the theological position on these authors simply doesn't hold any water. There was no God or Holy Spirit telling these men what to write.

[brunumb]

Jesus was not promoting himself I think is why we do not have those details never does it state to remember the date of his birth. Therefore it is doubrful Matthew and Luke actually knew the exact date

But they were recording the inspired word of God. Did God forget the date?

[polonius]

Jesus was not promoting himself I think is why we do not have those details never does it state to remember the date of his birth. Therefore it is doubrful Matthew and Luke actually knew the exact date

RESPONSE: The main reason is that neither were apostles nor companions of Jesus and wrote their stories 50 years of more after the fact.

[polonius]

Were Matthew and Luke both credible historians?

I don't see where they ever claimed to be historians. They were basically preachers. They weren't covering history in general.

Moreover, much of what they claim could not be known by any historian. They would have needed to be a fly on the wall to have witnesses conversations they claim to have known about verbatim.

I think the naive theological view is that these authors were supposedly inspired by God to write what they wrote and that God was providing them with this omniscient information.

But even that doesn't make any sense, because as you point out in the OP if God was inspiring them to write things then they wouldn't have been writing different things.

So we really have no choice but to conclude that they were neither historians, nor being guided on what to write by an God or Holy Spirit. Instead, they were just religious zealots who recanted different rumors. Rumors that couldn't possibly be simultaneously true.

So the theological position on these authors simply doesn't hold any water. There was no God or Holy Spirit telling these men what to write.

RESPONSE: What's a Fundamentalist to do?

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke were never written by Matthew and Luke. The four Bible gospels were written anonymously.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy . . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

If you read the gospels carefully you will notice that they were not written from the viewpoint of an eye witness. They are written from the viewpoint of a narrator....a story teller....a sure sign of fiction.

[Divine Insight]

RESPONSE: What's a Fundamentalist to do?

That's the question of the millennium.

I actually started out on a path to become a preacher of "God's Word". Not just the "Gospels". After all the Gospels is meaningless if the Old Testament is false. So the whole shebang has to be true if there is any truth to any of it.

I also did not consider myself to be a "Fundamentalist". I was a very liberal Free Methodist in terms of the Church I was actually raise in. However, none of those labels matter really. Either the Bible is "God's Word" or it's not.

Any Christian theists who claims that the Bible is NOT "God's Word" has already shot their own theology in the foot. If the Bible is not God's word then it's undependable and basically irrelevant as we would have no idea which parts of the Bible might be approved by God and which parts aren't. If we need to discern that through our own judgment, then we most certainly don't need any God to help us figure out what's right or wrong.

Any Christian who rejects "Fundamentalism" has already rejected Christian theology.

I didn't demand that the Bible be taken "literal" in terms of the precise meaning of every word. To the contrary, I was totally open to very much abstraction. I allowed that a "day" for God could be a billion years on earth. I allowed that God could have created Adam from the dust of the earth via a long process of evolution.

I was totally opening to bending over backwards as far as possible allowing for metaphors and the such. But none of that helps the Bible. The bottom line is that the Bible still contradicts its own stories no matter how much abstraction we are willing to give to it.

You can only give it so much abstraction before you come to the realization that you are desperately trying to make it say things that are clearly opposite to what it is actually saying.

You can only take the metaphorical apologies so far before they break down completely.

In short, the Bible has to be the "Word of God" if Christian theology is to have any credibility at all. And the bottom line is that this ideal cannot be maintained by an stretch of the imagination or extreme metaphorical excuses.

The truth is that once Fundamental Christian Theology has broken down, which the overwhelming of Christians agree that it has, then the theology simply has no more credibility.

And that's where the theology stands today.

So in answer to you question:

RESPONSE: What's a Fundamentalist to do?

It's time to start looking for a more credible line of employment.

[Yahwehismywitness]

To answer the question look at something John wrote:

He that speakest of himself seekest his own glory: John 7:18