Is the Bible a historical document?

[outhouse]

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

False

and off topic

 

[melcollanero]

Then saying most historians believe jesus most probably existed is false and offtopic.

 

[otokage007]

We can name all the pharaohs including those who were supposedly contemporanean to David and support their persona with monuments, buried cities, tombs, documents of other civilizations naming them and even mummies. It is the same for the Kings of Persia, some also supposedly contemporanean to David. We can name very little states around that era and present evidence of their existence, we can also name a huge list of much less important people than David that actually existed. But when it comes to this King and his “United Kingdom”, there’s nothing. Nothing at all. You won’t find monuments, or documents, or ancient historians declaring how their king defeated an enemy. You won’t find treaties of any kind. David is not mentioned by any isrealite, babylonian, assyrian or egyptian or whatever. We know these ancient states mantained a diplomatic relation, or at least they communicated with missives, that, in the case of egyptians, were very well preserved. In none of this documents is David mentioned, and the same goes for his kingdom, a kingdom that apparently rivalized the contemporanean empires. It is said that Hiram of Tyre knew King David’s son Solomon, but even this guy never mentions Solomon in any text. It is certainly like if David, Solomon and their Kingdom never existed.

Some historians even think that Solomon is the assyrian King Shalmaneser V, who conquered Samaria and sent the Israelites into captivity. Later in time, it could be that Yahweh priests would take Shalmaneser as a basis for the biblical myth of Solomon. Because as far as we now, he and his father are just jewish post-exilic mythology.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

I think the first question that one should ask is should we expect him to be written about anywhere else? I don't think so. The Kingdom, even as the Bible describes it, didn't really expand to threaten major kingdoms. There was really no reason for a pharaoh or some other to write about him. And in fact, this isn't unique. We can look at some other Egyptian Pharaoh's even, and see basically nothing written about them by anyone else.

He was really only important to the Hebrews. Outside that, him and his people were marginal. So there is no reason for us not to just use the Bible here.

So how can we tell if the passages are meant to be historical or not? The genre. The genre we see say in Chronicles is more of a historical record. It is written like what we would expect a historical document from that time to be of. We can be fairly certain that the author was using previous sources (some of which are suggested). We also have some other sources, such as Samuel and Kings. So we have multiple attestation to David.

Now, there are some things that are mythological in his story. And we can tell that because they look like mythology that we would expect. We expect it because we can look at other historical figures, and see the mythology that was placed on them, and we can find similarities.

This means we then have to look at these books as the genre they fit into. Of course there are going to be things that are inaccurate. That is true for any historical book from this time. But we can expect things to be correct to. With David, we have everything we would want to showcase that an individual in fact lived. We have written sources (and really, this is all that we have for many people). We have multiple attestations in those sources. We have embarrassing points made about the character (his little escapades with a married woman, which resulted in him having her husband killed, or the fact that he was said to never have built the temple, even though if he was just a mythological character, it would have been logical for him to do such). And then we have the Tel Dan, which backs up his historicity.

The Tel Dan is evidence. Sure, it could refer to something else, but the most logical conclusion is that it refers to King David. It follows what else we know about the Tel Dan.

 

[fallingblood]

We can name all the pharaohs including those who were supposedly contemporanean to David and support their persona with monuments, buried cities, tombs, documents of other civilizations naming them and even mummies. It is the same for the Kings of Persia, some also supposedly contemporanean to David. We can name very little states around that era and present evidence of their existence, we can also name a huge list of much less important people than David that actually existed. But when it comes to this King and his “United Kingdom”, there’s nothing. Nothing at all. You won’t find monuments, or documents, or ancient historians declaring how their king defeated an enemy. You won’t find treaties of any kind. David is not mentioned by any isrealite, babylonian, assyrian or egyptian or whatever. We know these ancient states mantained a diplomatic relation, or at least they communicated with missives, that, in the case of egyptians, were very well preserved. In none of this documents is David mentioned, and the same goes for his kingdom, a kingdom that apparently rivalized the contemporanean empires. It is said that Hiram of Tyre knew King David’s son Solomon, but even this guy never mentions Solomon in any text. It is certainly like if David, Solomon and their Kingdom never existed.

Some historians even think that Solomon is the assyrian King Shalmaneser V, who conquered Samaria and sent the Israelites into captivity. Later in time, it could be that Yahweh priests would take Shalmaneser as a basis for the biblical myth of Solomon. Because as far as we now, he and his father are just jewish post-exilic mythology.

Actually we do have some evidence of Hebrew settlement at that time. More so, many of the individuals you talked about, we only have evidence of them from their own people. Their own people wrote about them (same as David's own people wrote about him), and we have those documents. More so, it wasn't as if we always knew all of the Pharaohs. In fact, the pharaoh Akhenaten was lost to history until the 19th century. More so, just recently, a previously unknown pharaoh was discovered.

As for monuments and the like, we do know that the first Temple did exist. However, we don't find much from that either. The reason being that the stones and even the area was used later. And that is a major problem. Especially when it comes to smaller kingdoms. When they are decimated, over and over again, they simply don't have time to make these large monuments as they are busy with war. And that is probably the history of Israel. Not to mention, graven images like that were forbidden anyway.

Finally, when you say this stuff is well preserved for other cases, that really isn't true. Look at Akhenaten, virtually nothing was known and still we have to speculate. We do loose information. If we had perfectly preserved records that detailed everything, that would be amazing. But we don't. And in fact, we continue to find new documents, have new insights, etc that make us rethink past ideas.

 

[outhouse]

So there is no reason for us not to just use the Bible here.

false

the bible makes many unsubstanciated claims about david that did not happen.


the bible claims noah existed and was on a boat in a global flood

 

[outhouse]

Then saying most historians believe jesus most probably existed is false and offtopic.

theres only two scholars out of hundreds that follow mythicism for a explanation. The rest are not credible and nothing but internet bloggers


Carrier and Price

Price is easily debunked despite a amazing amount of knowledge all aimed in the wrong direction.

And Carrier takes a middle of the road non commital view, but is coming out with a new view that is claimed to tick all the mythers off because it puts theirs to shame.





despite that, there is no reason to think the romans would create mythology and deify a poor poverty stricken peasant jew.

what does explain the story accurately is that a traveling jewish teacher/healer who caused a disturbance in the temple over money and the corrupt jewish government, and was martyred after his death in front of 400,000 ish possible witnesses who spread oral tradition throughout the roman empire

 

[gnomon]

Here's a simple question.

Name one important element in understanding the development of European history.

Want the answer?

It's the Bible.

So, if the Bible is an important aspect in the development of European history does that make the Bible an important document in understanding such development?

Yes it does.

Literature is an important part of understanding history. The Bible is recognized as the hands down important literary aspect of the Western world. It's really that simple.

Is Homer's Odyssey and Iliad an important historical document? Yes.

Is Beowulf an important historical document? Yes.

It is impossible to separate literature, history and culture.

 

[outhouse]

Here's a simple question.

Name one important element in understanding the development of European history.

Want the answer?

It's the Bible.

So, if the Bible is an important aspect in the development of European history does that make the Bible an important document in understanding such development?

Yes it does.

Literature is an important part of understanding history. The Bible is recognized as the hands down important literary aspect of the Western world. It's really that simple.

Is Homer's Odyssey and Iliad an important historical document? Yes.

Is Beowulf an important historical document? Yes.

It is impossible to separate literature, history and culture.

excellent points

probably not the context the OP was looking at but a great one none the less.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Bible is most definitely no a historical document. Its purpose was not to document history. Its purpose was to spread a specific theology/philosophy, and therefore its accounts of history - and the events therein - are unreliable. That's not to say that it doesn't contain within it some historically viable information, or that it is in an way not a hugely significant piece of historical literature, but it simply cannot be regarded as a reliable source of historical fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

You dishonestly cherry-pick minority views about Tel Dan and pretentiously call it an 'argument.' Those foolish enough to accept such a strategy are welcomed to their bias. But let's first talk, not about your so-called argument but about your dishonest and entirely unsupported claim. Again:

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]

Let's now turn to the highly respected Amihai Mazar who writes:

In evaluating the historicity of the United Monarchy, one should bear in mind that historical development is not linear, and history cannot be written on the basis of socio-economic or environmental-ecological determinism alone. The role of the individual personality in history should be taken into account, particularly when dealing with historical phenomena relating to figures like David and Solomon (for recent theoretical discussions of the emergence of the Israelite state see Masters 2001; Joffe 2002).

Leaders with exceptional charisma could have created short-lived states with significant military and political power, and territorial expansion. I would compare the potential achievements of David to those of an earlier hill country leader, namely Lab'ayu, the habitu leader from Shechem who managed during the fourteenth century to rule a vast territory of the central hill country, and threatened cities like Megiddo in the north and Gezer in the south, despite the overrule of Canaan by the Egyptian New Kingdom. David van be envisioned as a ruler similar to Lab'ayu, except that he operated in a time free of intervention by the Egyptians or any other foreign power, and when the Canaanite cities were in decline. In such an environment, a talented and charismatic leader, politically astute, and in control of a small yet effective military power, may have taken hold of large parts of a small country like the Land of Israel and controlled diverse population groups under his regime from his stronghold in Jerusalem, which can be identified archaeologically. Such a regime does not necessitate a particularly large and populated capital city. David's Jerusalem can be compared to a medieval Burg, surrounded by a medium-sized town, and yet it could well be the centre of a meaningful polity. The only power that stood in David's way consisted of the Philistine cities, which, as archaeology tells us, were large and fortified urban centres during this time. Indeed, biblical historiographer excludes them from David's conquered territories. Short-lived achievements like those of David may be beyond what the tools of archaeology are capable of grasping.

< -- snip -- >​

The mention of bytdwd ('the House of David', as the name of the Judean kingdom in the Aramean stele from Tel Dan, possibly erected by Hazel) indicates that approximately a century and a half after his reign, David was recognized throughout the region as the founder of the dynasty that ruled Judah. His role in Israelite ideology and historiography is echoed in the place he played in later Judean common memory.

- Understanding the History of Ancient Israel:West Semitic Inscriptions; (pp. 165-166):

Now, please name one single peer-reviewed Syro-Palestinian archaeologist who has echoed your fabricated and preposterous claim that "according to most historians ... King David ... never existed."

Or, finding yourself unable to do so, perhaps it would be best to simply relinquish the thread to those willing to engage in an honest discussion of the questions at hand.

 

[otokage007]

The Tel Dan is evidence. Sure, it could refer to something else, but the most logical conclusion is that it refers to King David. It follows what else we know about the Tel Dan.

I will quote M. Sturgis again as I wouldn't express this better:

"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." &#8211; M. Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p129.

Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning &#8220;House of David&#8221; is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism. There are more than several problems with that scripture that you can easily find on google. For example, there&#8217;s now a discussion because it seems that the last letter was produced some time after the rest of the scripture, which could mean it is a falsification. And I could go on.

The Bible is most definitely no a historical document. Its purpose was not to document history. Its purpose was to spread a specific theology/philosophy, and therefore its accounts of history - and the events therein - are unreliable. That's not to say that it doesn't contain within it some historically viable information, or that it is in an way not a hugely significant piece of historical literature, but it simply cannot be regarded as a reliable source of historical fact.

Indeed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning “House of David” is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism.

Now it's a conspiracy of unprofessional Jews and Christians. Your arrogant diatribe becomes more disgusting by the post.

 

[otokage007]

You dishonestly cherry-pick minority views about Tel Dan and pretentiously call it an 'argument.' Those foolish enough to accept such a strategy are welcomed to their bias. But let's first talk, not about your so-called argument but about your dishonest and entirely unsupported claim. Again:

​

Let's now turn to the highly respected Amihai Mazar who writes:

​

Now, please name one single peer-reviewed Syro-Palestinian archaeologist who has echoed your fabricated and preposterous claim that "according to most historians ... King David ... never existed."

Or, finding yourself unable to do so, perhaps it would be best to simply relinquish the thread to those willing to engage in an honest discussion of the questions at hand.

You really are cute defending your at the moment mythical King. I won't enter on a discussion about this because the only thing u have to do is to reread all I've said. And sorry, but I'm really not impressed by Amihai Mazar and his "Biblical Archeology". Until any reliable proof of David or his hundred-hectarea kingdom is found, I'll simply remain skeptical.

And I repeat, if you want to replace "David never existed" with "There's not a single proof about David's existence", feel free to do it. If you feel better that way, that is!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Until any reliable proof of David or his hundred-hectarea kingdom is found, I'll simply remain skeptical.

Your skepticism is irrelevant. At issue is your asserted consensus that "according to most historians ... King David ... never existed". Rather than defend it, you simply descend into pathetic and bigoted ad hominem, claiming ...

Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning &#8220;House of David&#8221; is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism.

Your 'argument' is intellectually and ethically bankrupt and should be clearly condemned and dismissed as such.

 

[otokage007]

Your skepticism is irrelevant. At issue is your asserted consensus that "according to most historians ... King David ... never existed". Rather than defend it, you simply descend into pathetic and bigoted ad hominem, claiming ...

​

Your 'argument' is intellectually and ethically bankrupt and should be clearly condemned and dismissed as such.

 

[fallingblood]

The Bible is most definitely no a historical document. Its purpose was not to document history. Its purpose was to spread a specific theology/philosophy, and therefore its accounts of history - and the events therein - are unreliable. That's not to say that it doesn't contain within it some historically viable information, or that it is in an way not a hugely significant piece of historical literature, but it simply cannot be regarded as a reliable source of historical fact.

The Bible has no one single purpose as it is not just one book, but a collection of books, all with different purposes. There are historical documents within, as well as theological. One cannot just make such a sweeping generalization over a collection of books and expect to be accurate.

Not everything in the Bible is theologically motivated.

 

[fallingblood]

I will quote M. Sturgis again as I wouldn't express this better:

"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.

Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning “House of David” is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism. There are more than several problems with that scripture that you can easily find on google. For example, there’s now a discussion because it seems that the last letter was produced some time after the rest of the scripture, which could mean it is a falsification. And I could go on.



Indeed.

You have to take the entire Tel Dan into consideration. Focusing on just the last part can cause confusion. But when taken as a whole, the logical end is that it is talking about David. You can't just take a part of it out of context and pretend that it means anything.

And again, there is little reason to doubt it as we also have the Bible which contains historical documents.

You seemed to have missed rest of my argument as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Bible has no one single purpose as it is not just one book, but a collection of books, all with different purposes.

But they were all collected together for a reason. It's not a scrapbook of random miscellany that a bunch of people put together just to inform people. It's specifically structured for the purpose of creating a religous, dogmatic text. It doesn't bear the stamp of "this is the word of God" for nothing.

There are historical documents within, as well as theological. One cannot just make such a sweeping generalization over a collection of books and expect to be accurate.

They can when those books are all contained within a singular volume that happens to be the central religious text of a specific religious group.

Not everything in the Bible is theologically motivated.

I didn't say it was. In fact, I explicitly stated that there are parts of the Bible that are historically accurate. That doesn't change the fact that the whole purpose of the Bible - more than anything else - was to serve as a doctrine and religious text of a specific religious movement, and that therefore any historical claims within it that cannot be independantly verified are not reliable.

 

[otokage007]

You have to take the entire Tel Dan into consideration. Focusing on just the last part can cause confusion. But when taken as a whole, the logical end is that it is talking about David. You can't just take a part of it out of context and pretend that it means anything.

And again, there is little reason to doubt it as we also have the Bible which contains historical documents.

Well as I said, there's no particular reason to think it means "The House of David" rather than "House of Praise" or the many other meanings in which that scripture can be translated. In one of the sources I quoted, it was said that "probably if we didn't know about David because of the Bible, no one would have translated that into "House of David" ".

You seemed to have missed rest of my argument as well.

I didn't answer the rest of your argument because it would require to re-quote myself. And that wouldn't be very constructive for you or me.