How much of the Bible do you consider to be history?

Maki · Nov 8, 2020

In one of our recent threads a topic of how much historical truth is in Biblical stories came up so I got the idea of opening this thread. I have been unable to find any similar thread of a newer date and since resurrecting old dead threads is not allowed the only way was to open a new thread. I hope the focus will remain on the historical rather than the religious aspect although I assume the two will naturally overlap.

The question is clear. What parts of the Bible do you consider to be fictional, historical or somewhere in between? I already gave my answer in the thread mentioned above: I believe that the Bible is generally describing actual events (apart from the parts that are not describing events at all), but I believe those events were exaggerated in order to convey a clear message. Some parts I consider to be allegorical such as the creation account in Genesis. Later parts of the Bible have a much more clear historical foundation and are also corroborated by other non-Biblical accounts.

PHILIP WHITEHOUSE · Nov 8, 2020

iT's very difficult to put any sort of precise yardstick as to how much is folk myth and allegory and how much authentic history. For example, did the deliverance of the "Children of Israel" from bondage in Egypt actually occur ? Did the Empires of Kings David and Solomon actually exist ,or are a sort of nationistic exaggeration ? Generally, I suppose the later in time in recorded events occured, the more authentic they are likely to be.

Maki · Nov 8, 2020

The only thing about Exodus that presents a problem for me is the scale. Then again, I believe in God so the plagues do not seem unbelievable for me.

Novosedoff · Nov 10, 2020

The world was made in 7 days and Eve came out of rib - is this historical in any part?

Willempie · Nov 10, 2020

PHILIP WHITEHOUSE said:
iT's very difficult to put any sort of precise yardstick as to how much is folk myth and allegory and how much authentic history. For example, did the deliverance of the "Children of Israel" from bondage in Egypt actually occur ? Did the Empires of Kings David and Solomon actually exist ,or are a sort of nationistic exaggeration ? Generally, I suppose the later in time in recorded events occured, the more authentic they are likely to be.

That is sort of how I see it. The parts of the kings seem to be backed more and more by archeology.

Maki · Nov 10, 2020

Novosedoff said:
The world was made in 7 days and Eve came out of rib - is this historical in any part?

IMO no. But Adam and Eve had to have existed in some shape or form since both the Old and the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, treat them as actual people while they leave open a possibility of interpreting the account of creation as an allegory.

dreamregent · Nov 11, 2020

I think this question is very difficult to answer as it's often hard to distinguish where mythology ends and history begins. I believe they often bleed into each other as well. Consider the United Monarchy, for example. The text describes a fabulously wealthy kingdom holding great sway across the region. But the only polity of the period which has been found by archaeology to have existed as a powerful entity which dominated surrounding regions is the Northern Kingdom of Israel based in Samaria. If some sort of united polity existed prior to that, it evidently existed on a much smaller scale than the bible says as it's invisible to archaeology. Finkelstein has identified a nascent political entity north of Jerusalem which would be a better fit, temporally. He identifies it as the kingdom of Saul but no other realistic contender for this supposed united monarchy appears to exist. The only problem is that this would make for a relatively small and weak kingdom which never dominated anything but the land it occupied and may never have actually included Jerusalem, so nothing like what the bible describes.

Novosedoff · Nov 11, 2020

Maki said:
IMO no. But Adam and Eve had to have existed in some shape or form since both the Old and the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, treat them as actual people while they leave open a possibility of interpreting the account of creation as an allegory.

Well, I guess one has to remember when reading Bible is that it is a Jewish nationalistic monument, so exaggerations are imminent. As to the question of what is the best way to quantify those exaggerations, I don't think that will make much difference for you as a reader whether there is 70% or 30% true facts narrated in the book. The key is that you cannot really trust it fully. This book is NOT your friend, to put it in simpler words.

Maki · Nov 11, 2020

Novosedoff said:
Well, I guess one has to remember when reading Bible is that it is a Jewish nationalistic monument, so exaggerations are imminent. As to the question of what is the best way to quantify those exaggerations, I don't think that will make much difference for you as a reader whether there is 70% or 30% true facts narrated in the book. The key is that you cannot really trust it fully. This book is NOT your friend, to put it in simpler words.

To an extent yes, the Bible can be seen as a nationalistic text of the Israelites, but I don't think that label can be applied to everything. The Bible is full of spectacular Israelite victories, but it is also full of their spectacular defeats and numerous texts lament Israel's wickedness and evil that brought God's judgment upon the nation.

Willempie · Nov 11, 2020

Novosedoff said:
Well, I guess one has to remember when reading Bible is that it is a Jewish nationalistic monument, so exaggerations are imminent. As to the question of what is the best way to quantify those exaggerations, I don't think that will make much difference for you as a reader whether there is 70% or 30% true facts narrated in the book. The key is that you cannot really trust it fully. This book is NOT your friend, to put it in simpler words.

I really need to reread Book of Songs with that perspective...

Tulius · Nov 11, 2020

Maki said:
In one of our recent threads a topic of how much historical truth is in Biblical stories came up so I got the idea of opening this thread. I have been unable to find any similar thread of a newer date and since resurrecting old dead threads is not allowed the only way was to open a new thread. I hope the focus will remain on the historical rather than the religious aspect although I assume the two will naturally overlap.

The question is clear. What parts of the Bible do you consider to be fictional, historical or somewhere in between? I already gave my answer in the thread mentioned above: I believe that the Bible is generally describing actual events (apart from the parts that are not describing events at all), but I believe those events were exaggerated in order to convey a clear message. Some parts I consider to be allegorical such as the creation account in Genesis. Later parts of the Bible have a much more clear historical foundation and are also corroborated by other non-Biblical accounts.

Ages ago when I was in College I had a discipline entitled “Pre-Classic Civilizations” or something like that, among the civilizations and cultures that were studied were the Hebrews.

I still recall that my professor considered several books of the Bible as “historical”; Joshua; Samuel; Judges; Kings; Chronicles; Esdras and Nehemiah. These books along with information written by other peoples, epigraphy and archaeology were pointed as the main sources to study the Hebrews. After that I never read anything that made me change much that initial perspective.

Naturally that the Bible is a religious book that has the main purpose to reveal the Hebrew God for His believers, and must be analysed with care due the hermeneutic difficulties.

Novosedoff · Nov 11, 2020

Maki said:
To an extent yes, the Bible can be seen as a nationalistic text of the Israelites, but I don't think that label can be applied to everything. The Bible is full of spectacular Israelite victories, but it is also full of their spectacular defeats and numerous texts lament Israel's wickedness and evil that brought God's judgment upon the nation.

The problem of accuracy has also something to do with people's personal interpretations. There is one example of biblical story that is often quoted on Russian discussion boards. Perhaps you've heard the story of Ananias and Sapphira

Ananias and Sapphira - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The brief story is as follows. A couple wanted to join the early Christian community, which required them to sell off their personal belongings. Somehow they concealed a part of their property, so were hit by the Holy Spirit. Their death was witnessed by St. Peter and other folks.

Many folks take the story literally as demonstration of the power of the Mighty Lord. However those of a more skeptical attitude take it as evidence that Peter the Terrorist and his crazy squad killed people in order to get their hands on other people's belongings.

So how would you personally classify the story? True or false?

Maki · Nov 11, 2020

Novosedoff said:
The problem of accuracy has also something to do with people's personal interpretations. There is one example of biblical story that is often quoted on Russian discussion boards. Perhaps you've heard the story of Ananias and Sapphira

Ananias and Sapphira - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The brief story is as follows. A couple wanted to join the early Christian community, which required them to sell off their personal belongings. Somehow they concealed a part of their property, so were hit by the Holy Spirit. Their death was witnessed by St. Peter and other folks.

Many folks take the story literally as demonstration of the power of the Mighty Lord. However those of a more skeptical attitude take it as evidence that Peter the Terrorist and his crazy squad killed people in order to get their hands on other people's belongings.

So how would you personally classify the story? True or false?

I personally consider the whole of the New Testament to be true. So I also believe in the historicity of the misfortune befalling Ananias and Sapphira. The interpretation that Peter ordered their murder in order to gain their belongings contradicts the text. Peter explicitly told the two that their sin was lying, not withholding money. In fact, Acts 5:4 clearly has Peter telling the pair that they could have done whatever they wanted with the land and later with the money. It was the act of lying that doomed them. The interesting thing is that the text does not say God killed them, it just says they died. Compare this to Acts 12 where it is explicitly stated that God (His angel to be precise) killed Herod Antipas.

Novosedoff · Nov 11, 2020

Maki said:
I personally consider the whole of the New Testament to be true. So I also believe in the historicity of the misfortune befalling Ananias and Sapphira. The interpretation that Peter ordered their murder in order to gain their belongings contradicts the text. Peter explicitly told the two that their sin was lying, not withholding money. In fact, Acts 5:4 clearly has Peter telling the pair that they could have done whatever they wanted with the land and later with the money. It was the act of lying that doomed them. The interesting thing is that the text does not say God killed them, it just says they died. Compare this to Acts 12 where it is explicitly stated that God (His angel to be precise) killed Herod Antipas.

Well, you see, something must be really wrong with my personal perception too. Because when I read

In fact, Acts 5:4 clearly has Peter telling the pair that they could have done whatever they wanted with the land and later with the money.

I somehow tend to start questioning the whole scene: "If Peter told them that, there must have been some doubts about their legal capacity to do what they wanted with their own land", "If Peter hadn't told them that, they could have used the money for another purpose. So they needed Peter's guidance as if they were children" or who knows they could have been a family of imbeciles so Peter had to take care of them
PS I am sure Peter was a good chap who wanted the best for everyone

Maki · Nov 11, 2020

I don't really see that meaning at all. Peter was telling them they could have done whatever they wanted with their money, they chose to give it to the Church but were led away by Satan to lie and keep something for themselves.

Novosedoff · Nov 11, 2020

Maki said:
I don't really see that meaning at all. Peter was telling them they could have done whatever they wanted with their money, they chose to give it to the Church but were led away by Satan to lie and keep something for themselves.

As I said earlier, it all comes down to people's personal interpretations.. Everyone has different life experience, which is reflected in our views

Maki · Nov 11, 2020

Generally I think people, even religious people, get carried away with allegorical interpretation. Yes, I am aware that science especially has forced us to take a different view of the Scripture, but that does not mean everything scientific and/or historiographical consensus does not agree with is an allegory.

pugsville · Nov 11, 2020

None it of it. It;s work of political fiction. ANy resemblenece to fact cannot be be relied upon and in absence of any otehr eveidence it cannot be relied upon.

Novosedoff · Nov 11, 2020

Maki said:
Generally I think people, even religious people, get carried away with allegorical interpretation. Yes, I am aware that science especially has forced us to take a different view of the Scripture, but that does not mean everything scientific and/or historiographical consensus does not agree with is an allegory.

Many people become atheists while studying the history of Christianity, not the science

I personally don't believe in God, in soul, in sins, in life after death. So I am more of Buddhist view

Maki · Nov 11, 2020

Novosedoff said:
Many people become atheists while studying the history of Christianity, not the science

Well I won't deny Christians have done horrible things in the past.

pugsville said:
None it of it. It;s work of political fiction. ANy resemblenece to fact cannot be be relied upon and in absence of any otehr eveidence it cannot be relied upon.

There is a lot of Biblical material, especially from the later books that is corroborated by other sources.

Search

Search

How much of the Bible do you consider to be history?

Maki

PHILIP WHITEHOUSE

Maki

Novosedoff

Willempie

Maki

dreamregent

Novosedoff

Maki

Willempie

Tulius

Novosedoff

Ananias and Sapphira - Wikipedia

Maki

Ananias and Sapphira - Wikipedia

Novosedoff

Maki

Novosedoff

Maki

pugsville

Novosedoff

Maki

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions