Sentences with phrase «modern historians»

This may be true, but modern historians question the claim.

Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.

These texts and studies do not exhaust the various ways in which women were perceived, and their roles commented upon, by writers of the early church, but they offer points of departure for a discussion on the contribution of women to the life and witness of the early church without forgetting that the «ancient sources and modern historians agree that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than among males»

It DOES matter who wrote the story down first because whoever does something first is the winner, the undisputed originator (in the eyes of modern historians).

While the birth year of Jesus is estimated among modern historians to have been between 7 and 2 BC, the exact month and day of his birth are unknown.

The story of him killing the babies and toddlers after Jesus» birth (Matthew 2:16) doesn't surprise modern historians and wouldn't have warranted a mention from ancient historians.

But modern historians see the Middle Ages quite differently.

However, modern historians tend to think that Lao Tzu either did not exist or that he lived during either the 5th or 4th - centuries BCE - around the beginning of the Warring States period (a 200 + year period which ultimately led to the first unified Chinese empire under the Qin dynasty.)

Modern historians say El Cid really existed, but he was a much more mercenary and self - interested character than the hero immortalized in epic poetry, ballads and film.What on earth does that have to do...

One use of the term «eponym» is in the description of the ancient Assyrian method of naming individual years after individuals, for whom modern historians use the term «eponym».

The Trojan War depicted in Homer's Iliad may have been part of a larger clash of civilisations — one of which has so far gone unrecognised by modern historians

We may suggest that Luke, as astute as most modern historians, observed that the materials in Mark 6:45 - 8:26 add little or nothing to what he could obtain either from other passages in Mark or from other materials available to him; he therefore chose to omit them.

These texts and studies do not exhaust the various ways in which women were perceived, and their roles commented upon, by writers of the early church, but they offer points of departure for a discussion on the contribution of women to the life and witness of the early church without forgetting that the «ancient sources and modern historians agree that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than among males» [13] in the time of the early church.

Luke writes like a Roman Historian which is very similar to our idea of how a modern historian would write today.

Moreover, if we compare the fragments that a modern historian will glean as reliable against, for example, the narrative flow of the passion narratives in any of the Gospels, it is hard to deny that the historian has lost something.

Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell Praeger, 117 pages, $ 12.95

The modern historian, as Friedrich Gogarten has pointed out, sees history as a linear process of evolution, comparable to the flow of experience reflected in the consciousness of the unrelated I.

Accepting the validity of the planters» two worries, massacre and poverty, is more than most modern historians can bring themselves to do.

This is not to say that he was always reliably informed, or that — any more than modern historians — he always presented a severely factual account of events.

We now know that we can not treat this material as if it had been written under the conditions that a modern historian would impose, namely, access to reliable contemporary records.

Of course even the modern historian must use his imagination.

True, it is, in general, of much too narrow Scope, omitting whole large areas of social life which have become of paramount importance to the modern historian; and even within its chosen limits, its record of national fortunes runs off, not uncommonly, into colorful personal episodes, to the neglect of major political developments.

Neither does the other illustration hear critical examination by the modern historian, but it is similarly eloquent of the Orient's deep - rooting in the far past.

Modern historians have found no evidence that chastity belts were invented in the middle ages.

Modern historians have taken Hubble's explanation at face value.

You don't have to be a feminist to object to one modern historian's description of Katherine Howard as a «stupid slut», but if you are, it makes it more annoying.

The purpose of this splendid city is still a mystery to modern historians.

Modern historians are constantly «re-writing» history to satisfy their own spin on reality.