No, I'm saying, straight facts are boring. A writer adds life to the facts.
Not one of your stronger arguments Purpledawn.
The degree of "boringness" depends on the interest of the reader.
Now I think you would have to admit that the miracles recorded in the New Testament are related in a very "matter of fact" way. There is little to no theological commentary on them. There is no embellishment or begging the reader to believe. They are related in a very dry and straightforward way. You get it or you don't - periohd. Would you agree ?
One has to understand the purpose the writer's had for writing the story.
It is helpful. It need not be mandatory.
If outside records (the unvarnished facts) do not substantiate assumed facts within the story, then we have to look at the writer's intent.
Example: In Acts 527-37, the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin. When the members got furious and wanted them put to death a Pharisee named Gamaliel addressed the Sanhedrin and said:
"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it call came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers scattered.
We can check when the event with Theudas and Judas took place.
According to Josephus, the Theudas event took place about 44-46CE and the Judas event took place 6CE.
From the book entitled A History of the Jews, by Paul Johnson, a conservative Catholic. (Page 119)
There was a rising, led by Judas of Camala, in 6 aD, in protest at the direct rule imposed after Herod the Great's death. There was another, for similar reasons, when direct rule was restored following the death of Herod agrippa in 44 AD, led by a man called Theudas who marched down the Jordan Valley at the head of a mob.
I don't know much about this. I am willing to look more into it.
However, the following discussion is copied by permission from Glenn Miller's website on the matter. A portion of the discussion is provided:
Now, as to Theudas...
All indications lead to the belief that Josephus and Gamaliel were NOT talking about the same "Theudas".
Josephus refers to a more "troublesome" figure than does Gamaliel (Antiquities, 20.5.1.97-98). Whereas Gamaliel ascribes only 400 men to T., Josephus uses the terms "a great part of the people" and "many" [The following paragraph in Josephus recounts a massacre of over 20,000 people, so a band of only 400 would probably not be 'newsworthy' enough for Josephus to even mention. Therefore the ISBE insistence that Josephus WOULD HAVE mentioned so 'significant' an event is unwarranted.].
The terminology for the figure is likewise somewhat different: Gamaliel says T. was 'claiming to be somebody', Josephus uses the terms 'magician' and 'prophet'.
Gamaliel says that T's followers 'rallied to him' (a more political sounding term); Josephus says T.'s followers took their effects and were migrating to the river Jordan.
Gamaliel says that T. was simply killed; Josephus says T was captured and then beheaded, and the head then taken to Jerusalem.
Gamaliel says that after T was killed, "all his followers dispersed", but Josephus says that many of the followers were killed by the Roman troop of horsemen, and that many of them were likewise captured and arrested.
(Additionally, it should be noted that the scholar Origen referred to a Theudas active before the birth of Jesus as well, in Contra Celsum 1.57, although it is possible that this is simply a referral to Acts already.)
At the surface, these events look like different occasions, even though the name 'Theudas' is the same. That this would not create a prima facie case for identity, can be seen from the following considerations:
Although 'Theudas' was not a common name itself, it does show up in Jerusalem ossuaries close in time, e.g. Inscription 1255).
'Theudas' shows up in the Papyrii as hypocoristic forms (i.e. "pet" names, 'nicknames') for many Greek theophoric names (e.g. Theodotus, Theodorus, Theodotion, etc.) [New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol 4.183-185], so it could refer to any number of people at the time.
At the time there was a prevalence for having both a Greek AND a Hebrew name, with the Greek name having the same or very similar meaning as the Hebrew. This pattern shows up in the Jerusalem ossuaries and the 'Goliath' family in Jericho [e.g. 'Theodorus' (gk) for 'Nathanel' (hb)]. With this in mind, 'Theudas' could be Greek for a wide range of Hebrew names: Jonathan, Nathanael, Mattathias, Hananias, Jehohanan, etc. In one case, the synagogue ruler in Ophel was listed under his alternate Greek name "Theodotus".
We do know that there were many smaller tumults in Judea after the death of Herod the Great (Josephus uses the phrase "ten thousand" in Antiquities, 17.10.4.269-8.285!), and that we do not have data on many of them. The data seems to indicate that that the two that we know of led by a 'Theudas' are NOT the same event.
Therefore, the reference by Gamaliel to the minor exploits of a Theudas was not necessarily historically illegitimate or confused.
Doesn't seem like a closed case on Luke's "error" yet.
™ Version 4.2
