We can often read and hear how some researchers doubt the historicity of events mentioned in the Bible. This is especially true as comes to the initial accounts of the Fall, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and miracles that appear in the Gospels. These are issues that researchers regard as unreliable. They may deem them only legends and think that those accounts are not worth taking seriously.
We are going to study this difficult issue by looking at many examples. This study has been directed especially to people who sincerely want to study this area and struggle with this issue. In other words, it has been targeted at persons who want to know whether the events mentioned in the Bible are really historically correct.
This looks interesting, but haven't the time to read through all of this tonight. I will read it later.
At a glance you may well be interested in the findings by Colin J Humphries in "Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories"
Amongst other things he retraces the route of the Exodus, using the book of Exodus as his guide, known trade routes (that are unchanged)and local Bedouin traditions. The entire book is very interesting and I think compliments the work you are doing here.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
There are undoubtedly valuable and reliable historical data in the bible, but the archaeological record is often in conflict with many of its major events. The website linked to in the OP is not a reputable source.
Of course people with opposing views to the biblical record are going to say the archaeological record is in conflict. That argument only has any merit if the supporters of the biblical record have no explanation from their perspective, and they have.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
I believe that the basic thrust of the Exodus stories are true, but there are certainly exaggerations. If most of the Egyptian army drowned, you'd think such an event would be mentioned in the Egyptian records. But there is no mention, and although Pharaohs often invented history, most of Egypt's historical texts have been verified.
__________________ You must take your place in the great circle of...stuff.
Last edited by marlowe007; 6th September 2009 at 07:53 PM.
Of course people with opposing views to the biblical record are going to say the archaeological record is in conflict. That argument only has any merit if the supporters of the biblical record have no explanation from their perspective, and they have.
The argument has merit if the evidence bears it out...and it does.
It's pretty standard knowledge in the field, acknowledged by Syro-Palestinian archaeologists and Egyptologists. (who are relevant because of Egyptian suzerainty in Palestine during the periods in question)
A detailed comparison of this version of the Hebrew takeover of Palestine with the extra-Biblical evidence totally discredits the former. Not only is there a complete absence, as we have seen, in the records of the Egyptian empire of any mention or allusion to such a whirlwind of annihilation, but also Egyptian control over Canaan and the very cities Joshua is supposed to have taken scarcely wavered during the entire period of the Late Bronze Age...Finally, the overall archaeological survey of settlement patterns in the final two centuries of the second millennium B.C. does not show destruction at a single point in time, but rather a gradual settlement of pastoralists (not completed until the tenth century) first in the hill country and then in regions densely populated by sedentary inhabitants. --Redford, Donald B. [1992] Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton University Press, pp. 263f.
Thus a 'patriarchal era,' an 'exodus from Egypt,' and a pan-military 'conquest of Palestine,' as portrayed in the biblical narratives, have all been shown to be essentially nonhistorical, 'historiced fiction' at best. And the proof has come largely not from radical biblical scholars, attempting to undermine the historicity of the biblical texts. It has come from 'secular' archaeologists, Israeli and American, who have no theological axes to grind.
-- Dever, William G. [2001] What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel, Eerdmans, p. 41. [original italics]
But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all.
--Finkelstein, Israel, Silberman, Neil A. [2001] The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Free Press, p. 5
Cf. my reviews of these books and other archaeological and relevant sources here, here, here, here, here, for a few examples
I believe that the basic thrust of the Exodus stories are true, but there are certainly exaggerations. If most of the Egyptian army drowned, you'd think such an event would be mentioned in the Egyptian records. But there is no mention, and although Pharaohs often invented history, most of Egypt's historical texts have been verified.
Quite so.
I would further contend that EVERYTHING in Genesis is allegorical and/or the result of oral transmission of ancient myths. Its not difficult to see how many of the events in it stem from the traditions of other people in the region, or are religious explanations for mundane, yet at the time, unexplainable events.
We can often read and hear how some researchers doubt the historicity of events mentioned in the Bible. This is especially true as comes to the initial accounts of the Fall, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and miracles that appear in the Gospels. These are issues that researchers regard as unreliable. They may deem them only legends and think that those accounts are not worth taking seriously.
The key word in the OP's first statement is "accounts."
While certain "events" may or may not be confirmed by the archaeological record or corroborated by other historical documents -- the latter being of much more practical use -- the biblical accounts are highly fictionalized. By this I mean, there are many things that take place which are written, not in the style of official historiographical records, but rather in the style of literary narrative.
While historical events obviously undergird many of the stories of the Bible -- such as the flood, the exodus from Egypt, the invasion of Palestine, and the ascent of the monarchy -- one can hardly argue from this that the Bible constitutes a historical document. It was clearly intended to communicate the traditions of the ancient Jewish peoples and preserve the integrity of those traditions to a greater degree than a merely oral account might.
It is our modern priority of "scientifically validated history" which we anachronistically apply to the ancient writers and thinkers, supposing that they must have had the same interest in preserving word-for-word conversations, confirming that an event is historical by the use of multiple independent sources and then writing tenaciously and reservedly on the subject, and so forth. In reality, there is no basis that the ancients had any such priority in their writing, and we wrong them when we attempt to divulge specific historical "facts" from their literary works.
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
The only historical event which I feel I absolutely need to know is Jesus died on the cross for us. Without that peice of history, all other history wouldn't matter.
The only historical event which I feel I absolutely need to know is Jesus died on the cross for us. Without that peice of history, all other history wouldn't matter.
Linear Mode
