Is the Bible a historical document?

[otokage007]

According to most historians, people like Adam, King David or Moses never existed. However, they all agree that Jesus was probably a real person.

As we all know, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of different books, written at different times, and with different genres. You can find documents that claim to be historical, documents that are apparently myths, poetry, prose... What is real and what not? Do you consider that the entire Bible should be taken literally as a strictly historical text? Do you think that only one part is real and the rest is fiction? Or perhaps you think that it is entirely a work of fiction set in a real time and real geographic place? And what are your bases to separate fact from fiction?

Comment!

 

[InfidelRiot]

The fact that the Apocrypha exists makes the bible a work of fiction.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

According to most historians, people like Adam, King David or Moses never existed.

Verify that most historians claim that King David never existed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fact that the Apocrypha exists makes the bible a work of fiction.

Nonsense.

 

[SageTree]

It's a narrative history as well as a biography of the people who wrote, compiled and canonized it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

While I think there's a possibility that some of the information in the Bible may be historically true, ultimately I think that most of it is not, and the book is simply a spiritual text, not a historical or scientific one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Bible contains collections of about every kind of religious spiritual historical and legal writings. The First half, the Old testament, was "Borrowed" from the Jews.
The second half was collected and selected from writings available in the first few centuries of Christianity.

As such both Old and New are useful collections for study about the roots of Christianity.
At the present time it is the best we have. Were more detailed, accurate or new information to come to light, it would be incorporated, as editions are revised.
The Apocrypha Is incorporated in many editions of the Bible, and readings from it are used in a cyclical way through out the year by many churches.

No single edition of the Bible has ever been universally canonised

 

[otokage007]

Verify that most historians claim that King David never existed.

Well, there's plenty of stuff about this on the Internet, you only have to google "did king david exist?" to get all the information you want. Actually all the sources about this topic say almost the same thing, but I think Steven McKenzie's article, from Oxford University, sumarise the historians' perspective quite well:

"The Bible is our only source of information about David. No ancient inscription mentions him. No archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him. The quest for the historical David, therefore, is primarily exegetical."

He goes even more far, and suggests that there's very little evidence to say that "David's United Kingdom" existed.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mckenzie-david.html

I will quote some other interesting things:

David and the Kingdom of Damascus

The city of Damascus is at least 4000 years old. It is recorded as being conquered by Pharaoh Tutmosis in the 15th century BC and it became the capital of an Aramean kingdom from the 11th century BC. The Kingdom of Aram-Damascus resisted the Assyrians until late in the 9th century BC, and even came up against Pharaoh Shoshenk in the Jezreel Valley, conquering Israelite Dan along the way. Israelite refugees, displaced by the Arameans, resettled in the hill-country.

In contrast to its heroics and intrigues of "King David", the Bible avoids mentioning Aram's 9th century conquest of much of Israel. Dan, Hazor, Jezreel and Megiddo were among the cities destroyed.

"Around 835 and 800 BC the kingdom of Aram-Damascus controlled the upper Jordan valley and significant areas in northeastern Israel – and devastated major Israelite administrative centres in the fertile Jezreel valley as well."– Finkelstein, Silberman,The Bible Unearthed, p202.

Curiously, King Hazael of Aram-Damascus (844-803) enjoyed a 40-year reign – just like that ascribed to the biblical 'David' (and, for that matter, also to his son 'Solomon'!). The existence of Hazael is not in doubt, whereas outside of the biblical texts, there is as yet NO historical proof of a Hebrew king named David ruling an 'empire'. Much has been made of the so-called Tel Dan Inscription recovered in 1993 (see below) but the "Davidic empire" remains a pious invention, inspired by an Arab kingdom of the same place and time.

"Damascus reached its zenith during the reign of Hazael ... Transjordanian regions were overrun ... Hazael was able to cross Israelite territory to progress down the coastal plain to take Gath in Philistia ... In fact, Hazael appears to have established an empire or sphere of influence not unlike that ascribed to David."– B.S.J. Isserlin, The Israelites, p86.

Not David, But Hazael

The city of Methegammah (Tell es-Safi/ Gath) – hometown of Goliath! – was destroyed in the 9th century BC, not the 10th, and apparently after a siege.

According to archaeologists of Bar-Ilan University, the conqueror was none other than Hazael, King of Aram-Damascus.

"The biblical story of David is indeed mythic in nature.. He spent most of his career as a brigand-king, and, where he ruled, he did so by employing murder and mayhem.. " – Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons, p 479/80.

Some "David supporters" claim that The Tel Dan Inscription of an Aramean King is an archeological proof that supports David's existence. But... let's take a look at what the inscription is supposed to say:

"Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of the House of David. I set their towns to ruin, their land to desolation."

The inscription appears to confirm that a chieftain called David was not pure invention yet even so, it contradicts the biblical story that it was Jehu who assassinated the tribal leaders in Jezreel.

"And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot ... But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot." – 2 Kings 9:24,27

But this interpretation of the fragments has been challenged, both by a realignment of the 3 fragments and a corrected rendering of the word "BYTDWD" – not "House of David" but a place-name meaning "House of Praise".

"The desire to read the letters bytdvd as house of david is ... a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence." – M. Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p129.

King David – The Boy Wonder

 

[Caladan]

It's not mission impossible to study about the historical people and events that the Bible discusses. There are monarchs, wars, and geopolitical near eastern realities that are documented in extra Biblical history. Discretion is best, some narratives may lean more towards ideology than to history, others reflect historicity in an ideological Biblical narrative. The Bible is a collection of books which were not written in one day, or even in one year, but during a period of hundreds of years. Some narratives may not describe a factual historical event, but they certainly reflect realities in the ancient near east. When we read ancient Egyptian sources or Mesopotamian sources they contain plenty of ideological elements, but they also contain accounts about Pharaohs, monarchs, priesthoods, classes, and realities in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
The Bible discusses actual Assyrian kings, actual Israelite kings, and other figures of antiquity. These men were historical (not necessarily David or Solomon as everyone seem to be fixated on them). In this case I can see that the Bible touches what mattered in the geopolitics of the region during those days. But when it comes to creation myths I allow more freedom of allegory and metaphors at the expense of accurate history.

 

[outhouse]

Do you consider that the entire Bible should be taken literally as a strictly historical text?

absolutely not


It was written as mythology and theology first and formost

It does contain some credible history, but some is straight mythoogy

sifferent legends have different degrees of historicity.

David, may have existed, but the biblical portrayal would not be accurate written 500 years after the fact

Moses, Noah, and others have zero historicity.


take into account the mythology often has a historical core, but not always.

 

[gnomon]

According to most historians, people like Adam, King David or Moses never existed. However, they all agree that Jesus was probably a real person.

As we all know, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of different books, written at different times, and with different genres. You can find documents that claim to be historical, documents that are apparently myths, poetry, prose... What is real and what not? Do you consider that the entire Bible should be taken literally as a strictly historical text? Do you think that only one part is real and the rest is fiction? Or perhaps you think that it is entirely a work of fiction set in a real time and real geographic place? And what are your bases to separate fact from fiction?

Comment!

Yes, it is a historical document. An historical document. A historical document. Whichever.

All mythological works, despite certain fantastical concepts, are classed as historical documents. Not all historical documents must be of the nature of mundane, factual recordings or diaries.

Much of the Bible exists as a historical recording of a specific culture. It is left up to the interpretation of the reader, and based on other documents extant of the Bible, to determine the specific historicity of certain events and people depicted in the Bible.

Most importantly, to me it is a historical document of the Jewish people as they interpret their history. My disagreement over certain aspects doesn't change the historical value of the work.

Then you have the influence of the Bible on numerous cultures with the advent of Christianity and the development of Europe. Dismissing the Bible as a historical document in the development of the Western world is to fail at history.

 

[fallingblood]

According to most historians, people like Adam, King David or Moses never existed. However, they all agree that Jesus was probably a real person.

You can definitely find historians who suggest that Kind David never existed; however, I wouldn't say that is the majority view. Most historians also don't rule out individuals such as Moses, but are skeptical about them. But then again, there are many more individuals in the OT and NT that are considered to be historical.

As we all know, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of different books, written at different times, and with different genres. You can find documents that claim to be historical, documents that are apparently myths, poetry, prose... What is real and what not? Do you consider that the entire Bible should be taken literally as a strictly historical text? Do you think that only one part is real and the rest is fiction? Or perhaps you think that it is entirely a work of fiction set in a real time and real geographic place? And what are your bases to separate fact from fiction?

Comment!

I think one has to take the separate books by themselves, and decide what the genres are. To say anything really of the entire Bible (at least in terms of it being historical or not), I think is reckless and inconsiderate.

Looking at different books, there definitely are works that are meant to be historical (or at least the equivalent of their time). And I don't think one can over look that, and thus they should be treated as such. To claim that they are just mythological, theological, philosophical, or what not simply is placing a biased and really lacking idea on them.

Other works are truly theological arguments (Job pops into mind), poetic, mythological (not meaning they are false, as myth does, at the basis, bear a truth, and thus are true in a way), epic, etc. Even in just one book, such as Genesis, one can find different genres. The first chapters are clearly mythological, and are meant to provide a truth. After that, we do begin to get into what is a historical narrative. Whether or not it is accurate really doesn't take away the fact that it is historical (and there are inaccuracies. Some paint many more than there really are, but there definitely are some).

As for separating fact from fiction, that can be very difficult. Some use the idea that an absence of evidence is enough to show an event didn't happen or a person didn't exist. I think the main problem with that is that in order to see an absence of evidence one has to ignore the Bible, which does contain historical works.

There is a need to substantiate ideas. And really, we are discovering more every day. We can do this through archeological research, anthropological research, etc. But even then, there is some guess work. Historians after all are working with probability.

 

[fallingblood]

The fact that the Apocrypha exists makes the bible a work of fiction.

That really makes no sense. The Apocrypha itself isn't a work of fiction. And just because we see other writings that were once believed to be scripture, but later abandoned, really does not say anything. In fact, some of those very works are historical in nature anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some "David supporters" claim that The Tel Dan Inscription of an Aramean King is an archeological proof that supports David's existence. But...

But you are being pathetically dishonest. You zealously cherry-pick bits and pieces from the internet (the sum total of your scholarly research) yet simply dismiss ...

The Tel Dan Stele is a stele (inscribed stone) discovered in 1993/94 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel. It consists of several fragments making up part of a triumphal inscription in Aramaic, left most probably by Hazael of Aram-Damascus, an important international figure in the late 9th-century BCE. Hazael (or more accurately, the unnamed king) boasts of his victories over the king of Israel and his ally the king of the "House of David" (bytdwd), the first time the name David had been found outside the Bible. The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, and even accusations of forgery, "but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus." It is currently on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. [source]

A fragment of an Aramean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850–835 BC contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because the ancient Aramaic script is written without vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David". Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel", the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.
The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle). Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David." Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable. [source]

Finally, to quote from Understanding the History of Ancient Israel:West Semitic Inscriptions; (pg. 294):

It is clear that, for political propaganda purposes, Hazael was interested in the claim to haave killed 'two powerful kings' so that people would understand that nobody is able to resist him (cf. the parallel with the Rabshageh's speech in 2 Kgs 18).

Is there unanimity? Of course not, but even Israel Finkelstein accepts Tel Dan while demoting David to something on order of tribal chieftain.

To claim that "according to most historians ... King David ... never existed" is little more than intellectual fraud.

 

[otokage007]

To claim that "according to most historians ... King David ... never existed" is little more than intellectual fraud.

I thought that you would counter my argument with something actually considered evidence. Because as you have seen, Tel Dan is not. Most historians will agree that you simply can't say that David existed because there's not a single evidence that points otherwise. If you want me to re-write myself and say "even the existence of the mighty King David lacks a single evidence" then I'll do it. My thread is not meant to be focused on David so I didn't extend on explaining why David, Adam or Moses aren't more than myths nowadays.

 

[melcollanero]

Most probably is that Jesus wasn't a real person, and so fictional.

 

[fallingblood]

I thought that you would counter my argument with something actually considered evidence. Because as you have seen, Tel Dan is not. Most historians will agree that you simply can't say that David existed because there's not a single evidence that points otherwise. If you want me to re-write myself and say "even the existence of the mighty King David lacks a single evidence" then I'll do it. My thread is not meant to be focused on David so I didn't extend on explaining while David, Adam or Moses aren't more than myths nowadays.

Actually, it isn't just one single piece of evidence. The thing is, we do have a historical account of King David. He is written of in a historical work within the Bible. So we have written evidence that he existed. The Tel Dan verifies at least a portion of that written evidence. So we have both written evidence, as well as physical evidence both telling us that King David existed.

And really, single pieces of evidence often do tell us that a figure in the past existed. This is especially true when it comes to marginal people.

 

[outhouse]

Tel Dan is not.

it has a strong possibility though

Could refer to a culture instead of a person. I still dont see why there wouldnt be a David

Just the fictional legends we know cannot be substanciated in any way shape or form surrounding him. We know that is mythology

 

[otokage007]

Actually, it isn't just one single piece of evidence. The thing is, we do have a historical account of King David. He is written of in a historical work within the Bible. So we have written evidence that he existed. The Tel Dan verifies at least a portion of that written evidence. So we have both written evidence, as well as physical evidence both telling us that King David existed.

And really, single pieces of evidence often do tell us that a figure in the past existed. This is especially true when it comes to marginal people.

How can you tell those Bible passages are factual and not fictious? And again, Tel Dan is not an evidence in favour of David. David is not mentioned by anyone outside the Bible, nor the pharaos or any other contemporanean person, despite being apparently a very important king.

 

[outhouse]

He is written of in a historical work within the Bible.

and we know the there is no historicity to any claim made surrounding David, some we know for a fact didnt happen and were created as theology and mythology

I would give a very small amount of historicity in the fact a david existed, but beyond that nothing at all can be said with any certainty

So we have written evidence that he existed.

that is not evidence at all.

We can use Noah as a example as how mythology may not have any sort of Israelite historical core

The Tel Dan verifies at least a portion of that written evidence

not really

it only has about a 1/3 chance of being interpreted correctly even though it is followed by most including me. BUT even granting you that, that doesnt give David any historcity other then he may have existed as a man or leader, culture or dynasty.