Historicity of Bible

[leroy]

I
Should we trust experts? Should we distrust experts?

Well most experts accept the burial of Jesus. So by that standard you should accept it.

The point that I am trying to reach is: how do you know that those unknown sources that supposedly imply that Jesus could have not been buried are better than say Paul?

I will also add the fact that crucified people have been found in tombs, so the claim that crucified people where never buried is disproven by this fact.

 

[leroy]

That's never happened, religious texts are not historically accurate.

why ? bacuse you say so?

 

[lukethethird]

why ? bacuse you say so?

No, because no one, least of all you, can show otherwise.

 

[leroy]

No, because no one, least of all you, can show otherwise.

Have you noted the circularity of your reasoning?

 

[Windwalker]

Well most experts accept the burial of Jesus. So by that standard you should accept it.

I don't believe most just simply accept that as true necessarily, if you are talking of modern scholarship. But that doesn't matter if it really happened exactly as the story tells it, in order for its meaning to be conveyed. A story doesn't have to have necessarily happened as told, in order to the story to have meaning.

The point that I am trying to reach is: how do you know that those unknown sources that supposedly imply that Jesus could have not been buried are better than say Paul?

Those are two different sets of eyes, asking two different sets of questions. The modern scholar is looking through the lens of analytical research, trying to detail historical events as they likely unfolded. Paul was looking through the lens of theology and faith. What we see through the eyes of faith, doesn't depend so much upon historical factual details. That's not its focus. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I will also add the fact that crucified people have been found in tombs, so the claim that crucified people where never buried is disproven by this fact.

Don't know about that, but I don't think they are concluding he was never buried. Just saying it's more likely than not. I'm sure there were exceptions, but the writers of the gospels wanted the reader to not think that by including the story of Nicodemus. It may very well have happened that way too, if the details are factual.

 

[lukethethird]

Have you noted the circularity of your reasoning?

I have noted that you can't provide an example of an historical event found within The Bible.

 

[leroy]

I don't believe most just simply accept that as true necessarily, if you are talking of modern scholarship. But that doesn't matter if it really happened exactly as the story tells it, in order for its meaning to be conveyed. A story doesn't have to have necessarily happened as told, in order to the story to have meaning.

The point that I made is that modern scholars tend to agree with the historicity of the burial of Jesus.... so if we trust experts we shoudl accept the historicity of such an event.

Those are two different sets of eyes, asking two different sets of questions. The modern scholar is looking through the lens of analytical research, trying to detail historical events as they likely unfolded. Paul was looking through the lens of theology and faith. What we see through the eyes of faith, doesn't depend so much upon historical factual details. That's not its focus. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I am not comparing Paul with modern Scholars, I am comparing Paul with the ancient sources that supposedly support the claim that romans never buried those that where crucified .

In earlier posts many skeptics (not sure if this includes you) claimed that Paul is not reliable because

1 he wrote 20-30 years after the events

2 he was not a witness.

So if you reject Paul for those reasons then I am assuming that your sources for the claim that “those that where crucified are never buried” don’t have those problems.

Don't know about that, but I don't think they are concluding he was never buried. Just saying it's more likely than not. I'm sure there were exceptions, but the writers of the gospels wanted the reader to not think that by including the story of Nicodemus. It may very well have happened that way too, if the details are factual.

I'm sure there were exceptions,

Yes there where exceptions and guess what:

1 Exceptions where common in jewfish territory

2 Exceptions where common during periods of piece (rather than periods of war)

3 An important and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked Pilate for the body

4 and finally Jesus didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of the romans, so Pilate would have not care much about the body of Jesus,

So all these 4 points make Jesus the perfect candidate to be one of those exceptions.

Besides, why would the authors of the gospels lie? It would have been equally impressive if Jesus would have resurrected from a common grave.

 

[leroy]

I have noted that you can't provide an example of an historical event found within The Bible.

The crucifixión of Jesus

This is an example of a historical event reported in the bible.

 

[Windwalker]

The point that I made is that modern scholars tend to agree with the historicity of the burial of Jesus.... so if we trust experts we shoudl accept the historicity of such an event.

If that is what modern scholars mostly agree on, then I'll go with that. Either way of understanding it works. As I said, the critical lens and the eye of faith lens are each their own thing, and can complement each other either way.

I am not comparing Paul with modern Scholars, I am comparing Paul with the ancient sources that supposedly support the claim that romans never buried those that where crucified .

In earlier posts many skeptics (not sure if this includes you) claimed that Paul is not reliable because

1 he wrote 20-30 years after the events

2 he was not a witness.

So if you reject Paul for those reasons then I am assuming that your sources for the claim that “those that where crucified are never buried” don’t have those problems.

You were originally asking if we should take the word of modern scholarship over the words of Paul. My response was to say Paul was not looking at Jesus through the critical lens of historical research. He was looking at Jesus as the Christ, a theological view, not a critical historians view. Different criteria.

No it wasn't me, as for one I wouldn't call myself a "skeptic". Although there are many things the skeptics do point out that I would agree with, certainly. I don't divide between faith and accepting modern critical thinking and inquiries. I believe in both. Both are necessary for faith.

As far as Paul's comments that Christ was buried. I'll go with that. That is the theological perspective, and it has value and meaning. It didn't have to have actually happened historically exactly that way, for it to have meaning. I know that is a difficult concept for people to understand, but I can explain further if you wish.

Yes there where exceptions and guess what:

1 Exceptions where common in jewfish territory

2 Exceptions where common during periods of piece (rather than periods of war)

3 An important and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked Pilate for the body

No problem. I'll accept all of those as plausible.

4 and finally Jesus didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of the romans, so Pilate would have not care much about the body of Jesus,

I'd stop you there. Absolutely Jesus did something wrong from the point of view of the Romans! Who do you think crucified him, and for what? He was an instigator against Rome in their eyes. They didn't just crucify tourists visiting holy places.

No, crucifixion was to send a very powerful, overwhelming statement to all who dared challenge Rome. You will suffer horribly and for all to see you in you utter shame. Yes, they would have cared, because they treated him as a criminal with utter disdain and disrespect, including his corpse. Unless, as was said earlier, someone influential could have pulled some strings, as the story goes. Possible.

Besides, why would the authors of the gospels lie? It would have been equally impressive if Jesus would have resurrected from a common grave.

It's not lying. It's inspired story telling. It's how they saw Jesus. It's how Jesus inspired them.

 

[lukethethird]

The crucifixión of Jesus

This is an example of a historical event reported in the bible.

We have no way of knowing if that is an historical event.

 

[We Never Know]

We have no way of knowing if that is an historical event.

So if they claim it is, and someone else claims it isn't,,,, who its right being we have no way to know?

 

[lukethethird]

So if they claim it is, and someone else claims it isn't,,,, who its right being we have no way to know?

We have no way of knowing because all we have is religious texts of a dying and rising savior, and no witnesses to an actual event, no primary or secondary sources.

 

[We Never Know]

We have no way of knowing because all we have is religious texts of a dying and rising savior, and no witnesses to an actual event, no primary or secondary sources.

So in reality they are both wrong?

 

[lukethethird]

So in reality they are both wrong?

We don't know who is right and who is wrong, but it is wrong to be certain when we can't know.

 

[We Never Know]

We don't know who is right and who is wrong, but it is wrong to be certain when we can't know.

Right. So both claims are wrong. Its boils down to belief/opinion.

 

[alypius]

Is Bible historicaly accurate or not? (I started to discuss this with @Deeje in the thread about sincretism.)

Let's start with Abraham.

What form of literature is the Bible?

 

[Harel13]

@Justanatheist and @Jayhawker Soule, as promised, some evidence of the authenticity of Abraham. Unfortunately, I don't have all of my sources with me, but I'll do my best.

Archeologist Dr. Yitzchak Meitlis, who studied under the famous Prof. Israel Finkelstein, wrote two books on the subject of the bible and archeology. In his book "Excavating the Bible", he dedicated a chapter to the Patriarchal era. I'll summarize some of his main points and include info from other sources as well:

Camels:

Though a point still touted by some as a way of disproving the authenticity of the descriptions of Abraham's life, the notion that camels were only domesticated much later than his life was already disproven decades ago. For example, a 17th century document from Alalakh mentions stocking up on feed for a camel (see here). Ofer Bar-Yosef wrote in "Studies in the Archeology of Nomads in the Negev and in Sinai" that there's evidence that camels were already domesticated in the 4th millennia BCE, and camel bones were found together with goat bones in Be'er Resisisim, dated to the 3rd millennia BCE.

Personally, I'm a little confused at Ben Yosef and Sapir's conclusion (in the link @Jayhawker Soule brought) based on the finding of a camel skeleton in a 10th-century site. Meitlis seems to be equally confused about conclusions such as this; he wrote in a footnote in his book that certain proponents (Prof. Nadav Na'aman, Finkelstein, etc) of the later-domestication-theory continue to push the view, ignoring evidence for earlier domestication. He is unsure why they continue to do so. Ben Yosef and Sapir are both from Tel Aviv University, which is where Finkelstein and Na'aman are from, so there's quite likely a connection here.

Names of cities and towns:

The cities and towns Abraham wanders around - such as Beit El and Hebron - are sites known to have been settled at the time, while other sites that were settled only in later periods - and became central in the region even later - are not mentioned. If the text had been written by someone from the Iron Age I period and onwards, would it not make sense to include sites important to those subsequent eras? Dr. Meitlis in his second book, "Parashat Derakhim: Archeology and Geography in the Weekly Torah Reading", pg. 32-33, points out that Shechem is also mentioned, but not as a town: "Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem" (Gen 12:6) - which shows that Shechem still wasn't settled at the time. Indeed, in the Execration Texts of the early 19th century BCE, several important Canaanite cities are mentioned, but not Shechem. Shechem is mentioned later on during an Egyptian conquest, decades later, in the middle of the 19th century, but even then, not yet as a city but as an area/land/territory. In the biblical story of Jacob, he meets the ruler of Shechem, Chamor, and his son, also called Shechem. Perhaps there's a hint here that Shechem was named after the person who first settled the Shechem area, i.e., it was first "the land/territory of Shechem" before becoming an actual city.

Abraham's lifestyle:

Abraham's lifestyle reflects that of the typical Middle-Eastern/Mesopotamian nomad during the Middle Bronze Age: Searching for water sources, travelling around the Be'er Sheva-Hebron area in search of pasture, etc. See here and here. It is also known that shepherds travelled down to greener areas in Egypt, which eventually led to the rise of the Hyksos dynasty, originally Asiatic shepherds themselves. Abraham had ties to the Arameans - though it was rightly noted by Na'aman that we only have evidence for the Aramean Empire from the 12th century BCE and onwards, the name "Aram" already appears in a few documents from the third millennia BCE, which ties in to the descriptions of the Arameans in the time of the Patriarchs (that they are not described as a kingdom but rather as shepherding clans) (and see Prof. Yoel Elitzur's study on the possible location of Kir, the first home of the Arameans here).

Geography:

Prof. Yoel Elitzur and Prof. Amos Frumkin conducted a research project some years ago, examining the rise and fall of the water levels of the Dead Sea (see here, and Hebrew here). It was discovered that during the time of the Patriarchs (20th-19th centuries BCE), the water level was so low that there were portions of the sea that were completely dry, whilst in later times, such as the time of the Exodus, this area was once again filled with water. Why is this significant? Because it says: "all the latter joined forces at the Valley of Siddim, now the Dead Sea" (Gen. 14:3) - in the time of Abraham there was a valley in that area, but later on - it was part of the Dead Sea.

The Philistines:

I'll note first that I heard from Prof. Aren Maeir, who has headed the digs in biblical Gath for the last 25 years, that the five main Philistine cities weren't built by the Philistines but by earlier Canaanites, so dating the Philistines doesn't date their cities, which is why earlier mentions of Philistine cities (such as Gaza in Gen. 10:19) aren't problematic. Furthermore, I heard from Dr. Amit Dagan that the only reason the people who settled in the Philistine cities are called by archeologists today "Philistines" is because that's what the bible called them. Similar though not identical terms were found around Egypt and Anatolia, apparently referring to groups of people that came from the Mediterranean area - however, there are very few Philistine texts, and out of those deciphered, none feature the Philistines ever referring to themselves as such. In fact, it is unknown how they referred to themselves. Therefore, if the bible chooses to refer to a number of groups of "Philistines" - it seems there isn't currently any evidence to the contrary.

With that said, as Dr. Meitlis pointed out, there is in fact evidence for two different Aegean groups having settled in Canaan: The first group are the Philistines that were probably those referred to along with the rest of the "sea peoples" in Egyptian texts, and eventually settled in what became the Philistine area of the Israeli coast. The second group settled in the Negev, as described by the bible (see for example Gen. 26:1 and Gen. 20:1) and as is evident from Minoan-style findings in the area, such as burial in clay larnaxes (see here) and texts written in the Minoan alphabet.

There's much more evidence, which is why I recommend checking out Meitlis's book. I hope I did the matter a little justice.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What form of literature is the Bible?

It's a collection. It's certainly not uniform.

 

[Augustus]

We don't know who is right and who is wrong, but it is wrong to be certain when we can't know.

Ancient history is rarely about certainties, more probabilities.

In the absence of certainty it doesn't mean all competing explanations are equally probable.

So what does history have to do with theology and vice versa?

The Bible contains myth, folk histories, legal codes, historical letters etc.

These are of interest to historians although like anything else, are studied critically.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Justanatheist and @Jayhawker Soule, as promised, some evidence of the authenticity of Abraham. Unfortunately, I don't have all of my sources with me, but I'll do my best.

And your best is more than a little impressive. Unfortunately, none of it serves as "evidence of the authenticity of Abraham."