Is the Bible a historical document?

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have to take the entire Tel Dan into consideration.

You are dealing with a person who fabricates claims, cherry-picks assertions, and dismisses countervailing arguments using bigoted ad hominem. There is zero reason to believe that you can have a meaningful discussion with him on Tel Dan or any other related material.

 

[outhouse]

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

fraud in early Israelite or biblical history is huge and you know it.

people so desperate to prove a point, its common.


I havnt researched this piece at all, but it shouldnt be disounted easily

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From: A 'Centrist' at the Center of Controversy - BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein

Shall we get back to the question about the United Monarchy of David and Solomon? You said we’d come back to that later.

Okay, let’s talk about the United Monarchy. I see the fire in your eyes, Hershel, that you want me to speak about the United Monarchy. How can I let you down? You traveled all the way from Washington to Tel Aviv to sit with me and talk about the United Monarchy. Ask me, please.

Well, there are a couple of questions. Of course, the historical question relates to whether the United Monarchy existed, whether David and Solomon ruled over a united Israel, and what the nature of this entity was—a state or a chiefdom or some other kind of entity. And of course this relates to the question of your now-famous low chronology, in which you date things that were traditionally dated to the tenth century B.C. down to the ninth century B.C. According to you, what was traditionally considered the poor material from the 11th century B.C. now becomes tenth century B.C., the period of the United Monarchy. So we want to see if we can explain to our readers this so-called low chronology of yours.

Let me start by saying that I see myself as a scholar standing somewhere in the center between the more conservative camp, on one hand, and the more critical camp, on the other. Being in the center is a very tricky business. If you stand on one side, you are attacked only from one side; but if you are in the center, you are always being attacked from both sides. So sometimes some of my friends from the more conservative camp accuse me of belonging to the more nihilistic approach (or the very critical approach), denying the existence of the United Monarchy. This is not the case. For many reasons I do not deny the existence of David and Solomon. The Tel Dan inscription is one of them.

There was a memory already in the ninth century B.C. that the founder of the dynasty in the capital of Judah was a person named David. I do not deny the existence in history of a David and a Solomon. I must put this on the table, once and for all, in order to make things clear.

However, I definitely have a different view on the extent, on the nature of the entity which was centered around Jerusalem in the tenth century. There was something there in the tenth century, but exactly what it is is the big question.

So, as we see, Finkelstein joins the ranks of those condemned as an 'unprofessional Jew' by otokage007's bigoted rant:

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.

What a pathetic joke.

 

[outhouse]

You really are cute defending your at the moment mythical King.

I believe this to be more accurate then what j is selling.


we know the bible describing David is mythology, and by J's own link it states nothing can be determined with certainty about the man.

 

[otokage007]

I believe this to be more accurate then what j is selling.

we know the bible describing David is mythology, and by J's own link it states nothing can be determined with certainty about the man.

Thank you. And as I said before, I won't discuss about David's existence anymore because I would need to quote myself again, and again, and again.

Jay, if you want to go on about this topic, you can create a thread showing your so-called evidence supporting David's existence. Trying to provoke me, calling me a bigot and shouting nonsense is not helping you in any way

 

[waitasec]

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.

this...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you. And as I said before, I won't discuss about David's existence anymore

We are not talking about David's existence. We are talking about fabricated claim regarding the consensus of historians and your bigoted ad hominem attck on scholars with whom you disagree.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

When did it actually get that stamp? You're seemingly working on the assumption that the compilers of the works (which the canon really didn't close until relatively recently) were trying to put together the word of God. That really isn't how it happened. The canonization process is a very long and complicated, but the basis of it was that certain books were used by the majority of the population. Most of it was never considered to be inspired by God when it was first written.

The religion and theology were already in place by the time much of the Bible was written. In fact, we know this to be true because there is quite a few works in the Bible arguing against theological ideas that were already in place. Paul does this quite a bit, and we see similar sort of works in the OT, such as Job. The religion had to be in place for someone to argue against various ideas in it.

Much of the OT was written in order to tell the history of the Hebrew people. We know this because we have multiple attempts at it, and they resemble historical accounts. More so, they weren't written for the Bible. There were various groups who didn't even accept such works as scripture. In the end, they were really canonized (the OT that is) because they were widely used by Jews, and there was a need to make a definite collection of works.

So in a way, it is a random assortment of books that were lucky enough to have survived. We know other books of the Hebrews didn't (as they mentioned such books), and there were other accepted books that continued to be used. But these books, because they supplied great information, were deemed most important. And no, it wasn't because they created a religious ideal. The religion was already created by the time these works were created, and some of the books don't even contain much religious ideals.

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.

They can, but it is silly to do so, and really shows a lack of understanding of what is being written about. They are only contained in a singular volume now. The original authors didn't intend for that. They didn't purposely write for that. So to treat them as such is ridiculous. I can find many collection of books, but that doesn't mean I make sweeping generalizations about all of the books based on some of the books. That wouldn't be accepted.

And whether or not they are the text for a specific religious group really is besides the point and really is special pleading. Just because they are used by a religion doesn't mean we shouldn't treat them like any other work from the time periods they were created.

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.

You need to show that is true. There really is no evidence that the whole purpose of the Bible was to serve as a doctrine and religious text. We have to look at what the purpose of each book was. And there is no reason to think that any of the authors assumed that their work would be considered scripture.

The purpose of various books within the Bible is very diverse, and that is what we need to look at. We would do the same thing with any other collection of books.

In the end, all you're doing is making a special case in regards to the Bible that is hardly logical.

 

[fallingblood]

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" ".

There is reason to think that it means House of David. The stele talks about a king of Israel, and then has the disputed text. To have House of Praise simply doesn't make much logical sense. House of David, in context of the entire stele, makes sense as we are talking about a king of Israel, and the House of David would refer to a dynastic line.

And really, the "probably" quote you got from some author really is irrelevant. Because really, he's making things up. We don't know what we would think if the Bible wasn't there.

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.

You wouldn't have to re-quote yourself at all. Mainly because I addressed what you said, and showed why it was wrong. Such as your claim that the Egyptians kept really good records, and we could name all of the pharaohs. That is simply wrong, and in fact, in the last couple of centuries, (and even very recently) we have continued to find new pharaohs. The same is true with the kings of nearly any major ancient empire.

Also, you have shown no reason why we shouldn't accept the Bible as, in part, a historical source. Really, you wouldn't repeat yourself at all if you actually addressed what I said.

 

[melcollanero]

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

Oh well, ok. So, you can conclude that, a man from ancient Middle East, some Yeshua, pretty common name in those places at the time, was a supermen who turned water into blood, opened the seas, cured every poor he went through, and the so many other miracles he is famous of. Apart from that he died, and then resurrect. So he is a zombie as well. He said "Don't you think I came to bring peace upon thy earth. I don't came to bring peace, but the sword!. That's on Mathew gospel.

Despite all that tale, the only historical document we have of this character, is the Bible made long time before he was re-dead. In times when it's supposed he lived no historian who knew how to write actually wrote about him. The only document is fraud as histarians said.

So I can say, you believe in tales and consider them part of reality, which makes you still a dreamer on kid's tales.

But because this is false, I'm liar, heretic sinner, and on and on. You will continue being an atheist who knows jesus lived among normal people, and that he knew something we not, he was revealed, he got superpowers, he was a mind leader, and the masses followed him wothout hesitation.

Sorry, but i can't take bible seriously, and less tales which seem to be so childish, that I can only imagine, a credulous mind to eat it all from the start. And even If you are a selective mind, you fail more, because you pick what you can tolerate and assert as reasonable.

Kind regards, someone that esteem you, not some "faith" in something or someone you take as yours, as personal stuff.

With all due respect from a man who who goes for the argument rather the person.

Good luck knowing yourself and not believing infeasible and doubtful stories you got told from someone else.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh well, ok.

Why not start a new thread and we can all debate this subject there? Being one who has studied the historical Jesus very thoroughly, I would be happy to enter into a debate about his historicity with you, but in a different thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I would be happy to enter into a debate about his historicity with you, but in a different thread.

 

[Quagmire]

Oh come on Jay, the classics never get old.

 

[otokage007]

There is reason to think that it means House of David. The stele talks about a king of Israel, and then has the disputed text. To have House of Praise simply doesn't make much logical sense. House of David, in context of the entire stele, makes sense as we are talking about a king of Israel, and the House of David would refer to a dynastic line.

And really, the "probably" quote you got from some author really is irrelevant. Because really, he's making things up. We don't know what we would think if the Bible wasn't there.

You wouldn't have to re-quote yourself at all. Mainly because I addressed what you said, and showed why it was wrong. Such as your claim that the Egyptians kept really good records, and we could name all of the pharaohs. That is simply wrong, and in fact, in the last couple of centuries, (and even very recently) we have continued to find new pharaohs. The same is true with the kings of nearly any major ancient empire.

Also, you have shown no reason why we shouldn't accept the Bible as, in part, a historical source. Really, you wouldn't repeat yourself at all if you actually addressed what I said.

Actually I have no problem on requoting myself. But I thought you would find it quite boring to read the same thing again, again and again. But here u got:

Tel Dan, at the foot of Mount Hermon in northern Galilee, is Israel's longest continuous archaeological dig. Work started in 1966. Three fragments of a 13-line Aramaic inscription discovered by archaeologists of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology in 1993/4 purportedly refer to the "House of David."

One interpretation is that stele records King Hazael's 842 BC killing of "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.

One problem with the early Aramaic of the inscription (which pre-dates the adoption of the square-form developed in Babylon) is the absence of a dot separating words. "DVD" could mean many things, including, for example, uncle, beloved and kettle.

"The author (of Tel Dan scripture) was not Hazael – it was his son, Bar Hadad ... The inscription has nothing to do with Jehu's coup and assassinations." – George Athas (University of Sidney – archaeologist and Christian.)

And btw, when I say “all the pharaohs” is obviously on a practical sense. I’m perfectly aware of the fact that we may not know all the pharaohs that have existed through history. But anyway, sorry about that.

Oh well, ok. So, you can conclude that, a man from ancient Middle East, some Yeshua, pretty common name in those places at the time, was a supermen who turned water into blood, opened the seas, cured every poor he went through, and the so many other miracles he is famous of. Apart from that he died, and then resurrect. So he is a zombie as well. He said "Don't you think I came to bring peace upon thy earth. I don't came to bring peace, but the sword!. That's on Mathew gospel.
Despite all that tale, the only historical document we have of this character, is the Bible made long time before he was re-dead. In times when it's supposed he lived no historian who knew how to write actually wrote about him. The only document is fraud as histarians said.
So I can say, you believe in tales and consider them part of reality, which makes you still a dreamer on kid's tales.
But because this is false, I'm liar, heretic sinner, and on and on. You will continue being an atheist who knows jesus lived among normal people, and that he knew something we not, he was revealed, he got superpowers, he was a mind leader, and the masses followed him wothout hesitation.
Sorry, but i can't take bible seriously, and less tales which seem to be so childish, that I can only imagine, a credulous mind to eat it all from the start. And even If you are a selective mind, you fail more, because you pick what you can tolerate and assert as reasonable.
Kind regards, someone that esteem you, not some "faith" in something or someone you take as yours, as personal stuff.
With all due respect from a man who who goes for the argument rather the person.
Good luck knowing yourself and not believing infeasible and doubtful stories you got told from someone else.

Well, I’m not really into the Quran, but as far as I know, Jesus is also mentioned quite often on that book. If I remember correctly, he was known by the name of Isa.

Most of historians accept the existence of Jesus as a jew that lived during first century, on Galilea and Judea, and died some time near year 30 in the cross, by the comandment of prefect Pontius Pilatus. They don’t mention his “miracles” as historical facts, though. Some of the historians that agree Jesus existed are:

Raymond E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah)
John Dominic Crossan (Jesus, jew peasant, Jesus unburied)
Bart Ehrman(Jesus, apocaliptic jew prophet)
Gerd Theissen y Annette Merz (The historicity of Jesus) (Jesus as a historical figure),
Geza Vermes (Jesus the jew: the scripture read by an historian),
Paul Winter (The jesus process)

Most encyclopaedia accept the historicity of Jesus. An example is The New British Encyclopaedia .

The few historians that are against jesus existence, recognice that most academics think the opposite.

«It is almost universally accepted that Jesus lived in the opening decades of the first century, taught certain doctrines in Galilee, worked there what were at any rate taken for miracles, and died in Jerusalem, at the behest of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate» - (George Albert WELLS: «Earliest christianity»,).

 

[gnostic]

I think some parts of the bible contained historical events, but I don't think it is very reliable. I doubt many of the details are true; meaning they may not have happen the way the scriptures narrated, especially the miracles.

Genesis 1 to 11 (Creation of Adam to Tower of Babel) is definitely myth. From Abraham to Solomon perhaps myth or legend; these biblical figures were at the very least, were semi-historical.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... "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.

Who is M. Sturgis? What peer reviewed works has he submitted?

 

[otokage007]

Who is M. Sturgis? What peer reviewed works has he submitted?

A journalist specialized in historical and archaeological press. On his book "It ain't necessarily so", is where he speaks about the supposed archeological evidences regarding King David.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"The author (of Tel Dan scripture) was not Hazael – it was his son, Bar Hadad ... The inscription has nothing to do with Jehu's coup and assassinations." – George Athas (University of Sidney – archaeologist and Christian.)

This is a wonderful example of quote-mining and unethical polemic. If one wishes to quote Athas, by all means do so, but include ...

With regards to the biblical texts, the Tel Dan Inscription demonstrates that there are definite historical kernals in the bible that cannot readily be dismissed. Indeed, the biblical records are an integral part in reconstructing the History of Syria-Palestine. However, these need to first be evaluated in light of the archaeological discoveries, such as the Tel Dan Inscriptions. The method that should be followed is to examine inscriptions independent of biblical texts in the first stage. In this way, the epigraphical, palaeographical, and philological considerations may proceed without external influence. Once the inscription has been appraised, we may corroborate it with the biblical texts.

< -- snip -- >​

The Tel Dan inscription also brings us a definite step closer to finding a historical David. This was perhaps the most hotly contested issue among scholars when the fragments were first discovered. The reappraisal and subsequent new reading and interpretation offered in this study have not settled the issue beyond all doubt. The evidence proceeding from the inscription cannot be construed as proof. Rather, the inscription has increased the likelihood of a historical David.

- The Tel Dan Inscription: a Reappraisal and a New Interpretation; Chapter 8. Concluding Remarks; George Athas

otokage007 would do well to actually read and understand the authors he so casually enlists in his cause.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A journalist specialized in historical and archaeological press.

Reference? (Sorry, but you're clearly not the most credible source on such matters.)

 

[otokage007]

Reference? (Sorry, but you're clearly not the most credible source on such matters.)

https://www.google.es/search?hl=es&...0.2.2.0.78.221.3.3.0...0.0...1c.1.wPaKv41-49E

Google + 5 seconds.