The Bible as History

[gilius]

What in the bible can be read as history in terms of real people, places and events?

 

For example, I don't think any non-Christian can say Jesus really existed as a historical person, yet we know Pontious Pilate existed, right? King David and Solomon; were these real people?

 

Obviously, historians have to be extremely careful when considering sources written by any ancient authors, so what useful info do we get from the bible in terms of learning about the Middle East at the time of the old testament and the Roman Empire in the East at the time of the new testament?

 

Is there any websites or good books you can recommend on this subject? Just to clarify: I am not looking for a guide to understanding the bible or hearsay/speculation (Did the exodus happen?); I am looking for a guide that can tell me what historians accept as historical fact when it comes to the Bible, hence info that is corroborated by other authors as well as archaeological remains such as inscriptions?

 

Any help would be much appreciated!

[Centurion-Macro]

I think a Google search on the subject would probably reveal some good info. But I have not real any books that could help you I'm sorry

 

My own personal views agree that Jesus existed, and many of the other people mentioned are maybe real people or based on real people. In my opinion, it is comparable to the Iliad, where real people are mentioned that actually existed, but mythology is incorporated into it.

[GhostOfClayton]

Can't help, but it's a bloomin' good topic. I look forward to the replies!

[Klingan]

My own personal views agree that Jesus existed, and many of the other people mentioned are maybe real people or based on real people. In my opinion, it is comparable to the Iliad, where real people are mentioned that actually existed, but mythology is incorporated into it.

 

I have to agree and Jesus is, as far as I know, generally considered at least based of a historical person (although that doesn't mean that any of the miracles ever happened) even by non Christian scholars. There must simply have been something to inspire the writing of the gospels at roughly the same time.

[Melvadius]

The whole topic area is a 'religious' minefield where most of the scholars traditionally have had a religious agenda be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim or one of the the numerous sects split from the main religions.

 

Irrespective of that you are heavily dependent on writings that in many (but not all) cases were primarily religious in intent so often less interested in providing details of the events recorded in the 'relatively' scarcer secular writings relating to the Roman province.

 

Josephus in this instance is one of the writings which seem to deliberately cross both areas of interest.

 

BTW I understand that 'Jesus' is considered one of the prophets in the Muslim faith therefore belief in him as a 'real' person as already implied extends well beyond the 'religious' Christian sphere.

[gilius]

Jesus is only mentioned in religious writings, so how can we assume he was a real person? That's bad scholarship.

 

I've just started reading the Bible... It mentioned Babylon; is that the same Babylon that we know with the Ishtar Gate? I know that the Roman fortress at Cairo was also called Babylon. The first few verses also mention Gallilee, Bethlehem and Nazareth; are these places listed by Ptolemies Geography or referenced elsewhere etc? The bible seems a bit suspect to me...

[Klingan]

Jesus is only mentioned in religious writings, so how can we assume he was a real person? That's bad scholarship.

 

No, he is also mentioned in other texts from the same period (see below).

 

It is certainly not bad scholarship, you simply need to know how antique text corpora works (and the bible is, religious or not, an antique collection of texts) and under what circumstances the text in question was produced. Religious texts are as useful for historical studies as the "real" ancient annals and histories are. I would guess that The Bible and Herodotes histories contain about the same amount of facts. Not to mention the early history of Rome in Livy. Anyway, on Jesus and Christianity; there are actually many and surprisingly early references to the Christians - only a couple of decades after his death - in the Roman literature (too many to be listed here) although references to Jesus himself are rare. He is, however, mentioned in Josephus history of the Jews:

 

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]"

 

Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews XX. 9.

 

This event is said to have taken place under the rule of Herod Agrippa I, i.e. 37-44 AD, not long after Jesus death. And on the brother thing, take a look at the dead sea scrolls for more information on Jesus brothers (e.g Thomas).

 

It is, in the end, quite inconceivable that a small cult would spring out of nowhere in the 30's-50's AD by inventing a characters life, describe it in several gospels and tie them to historical events and characters. Then add that the main character, i.e. Jesus, would also be mentioned in other texts - and we know for a fact that there were several Messiahs in Judea during the period, so the though of one of them actually becoming famous is not far fetched.

 

It would have been, had Christianity been a cult invented by the ruler, possible that Jesus was fictional, but it wasn't. Christianity came from "middle-class" Jews with no major influence and no aim but to spread the faith, there are no indications of the Apostels getting rich so to speak (getting killed under horrible circumstances seems to have been likelier). And they were not trying to create a uniting religion for the empire (as some later emperors), they had no such interests.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Klingan

[caldrail]

What in the bible can be read as history in terms of real people, places and events?

 

For example, I don't think any non-Christian can say Jesus really existed as a historical person, yet we know Pontious Pilate existed, right? King David and Solomon; were these real people?

 

 

In my view (and you will find those who disagree0 the Bible is a disaster as a history book, because it wasn't written to describe events objectively but to promote a certain religion. The bias in the writing is fairly obvious. Not only that, but a great deal of the supposedly 'christian' events are in fact borrowed from asian and middle eastern mythology that existed back then.

 

I am reliably informed that there are cultural details that can be gotten from the work, in terms of behaviour and customs, though even that is coloured by Roman and Medieval thought. The problem is of course that the Bible has not survived in its original form, but now exists as reviosed and censored versions. The Romans decided which of the stories were suitable and junked the rest, inventing heresy at the Council of Nicaea in 325 in order to force the various christian sects to unify and conform (which they didn't, laying the foundation for later religious persecution)

 

Also be wary of taking the dstories out of context. The Book of Revelations is the worst offender by far. As you may well be aware, many christian sects now use this as a modern day prophecy - which interestingly probably isn't too far removed from the style of worship in Roman times other than the overt chauvanism now clutching tightly onto the modern churces. That is of course a convenient interpretation. What I consider more likely is that the book was written as a rally against Rome way back in Nero's reign by disaffected Judaeans, rather like an ancient version of radical moslem propaganda. In that sense, we can determine a possible thread of history in that we see how Roman rule has provoked discontent among a subject people.

 

Now regarding the characters in the book.... Well, it wouldn't suprise me if many of the people described are in fact based on real personalities. I would caution a historian to view the Bible in much the same way as a Hollywood film. It's based on historical events, but uses considerable license and tells its own story for its own ends.

[gilius]

Thanks Klingan, I've taken that on board and will be following it up pretty quickly!

 

I've been reading some more verses. It mentions Jerusalem and the River Jordan; are these confirmed to be the same river and region as we know them to be or could the English translator of the bible have guessed them to be Jerusalem/Jordan?

 

One thing that is interesting: it says Jersulaem, in the province of Judea, so I guess that is confirmed?

 

 

[caldrail]

You can, but with caution. Never assume the Bible is authorative.

[Klingan]

Thanks Klingan, I've taken that on board and will be following it up pretty quickly!

 

I'm glad!

 

You can, but with caution. Never assume the Bible is authorative.

 

I could not agree more. You should confirm those kind of facts with old (but in a sense modern, say from the late 19th century and onwards) sources that are cited in modern literature. I reckon that the Swedish bible 2000 has a quite good reference system.

[gilius]

I've carried on reading more of the New Testament. There is references (probably Old Testament based) to King Solomon, Queen Of Sheba and Nineveh. I still don't know if these were real people. I now have to research when Nineveh was discovered and how historians/archaeologists know it's the same place that is mentioned in the bible? Obviously, if a place is mentioned in the bible then it wouldn't surprise me if there are 10 places in the Middle East claimed to be Nineveh or is there only one?

Edited February 16, 2011 by gilius

[Ursus]

Two books I have read may help you along these lines, at least with the New Testament:

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/historical-figure-of-jesus.php

 

 

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/backgrounds-of-early-christianity.php

As for me, I'm very wary of the whole thing. Growing up as a kid I always took it as granted that (for instance) the Egyptians used Hebrew slaves to build the pyramids. Then as an adult I read history and archaeology books that prove that Egyptians never had slavery on that scale (and I'm not sure if there were ever large numbers of Hebews in Egypt). If the Exodus story, one of the central pillars of Judeo-Christian belief, is simply a fairy tale, everything else should be questioned as well.

 

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Jesus is only mentioned in religious writings, so how can we assume he was a real person? That's bad scholarship.

 

No, he is also mentioned in other texts from the same period (see below).

 

It is certainly not bad scholarship, you simply need to know how antique text corpora works (and the bible is, religious or not, an antique collection of texts) and under what circumstances the text in question was produced. Religious texts are as useful for historical studies as the "real" ancient annals and histories are. I would guess that The Bible and Herodotes histories contain about the same amount of facts. Not to mention the early history of Rome in Livy. Anyway, on Jesus and Christianity; there are actually many and surprisingly early references to the Christians - only a couple of decades after his death - in the Roman literature (too many to be listed here) although references to Jesus himself are rare. He is, however, mentioned in Josephus history of the Jews:

 

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]"

 

Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews XX. 9.

 

This event is said to have taken place under the rule of Herod Agrippa I, i.e. 37-44 AD, not long after Jesus death. And on the brother thing, take a look at the dead sea scrolls for more information on Jesus brothers (e.g Thomas).

 

It is, in the end, quite inconceivable that a small cult would spring out of nowhere in the 30's-50's AD by inventing a characters life, describe it in several gospels and tie them to historical events and characters. Then add that the main character, i.e. Jesus, would also be mentioned in other texts - and we know for a fact that there were several Messiahs in Judea during the period, so the though of one of them actually becoming famous is not far fetched.

 

It would have been, had Christianity been a cult invented by the ruler, possible that Jesus was fictional, but it wasn't. Christianity came from "middle-class" Jews with no major influence and no aim but to spread the faith, there are no indications of the Apostels getting rich so to speak (getting killed under horrible circumstances seems to have been likelier). And they were not trying to create a uniting religion for the empire (as some later emperors), they had no such interests.

Josephus was relying on second hand information from the christian cult itself. He was not a christian. We don't know how he got that information. Where do you get the idea that christianity was popular among middle class jews? If you read the letters of Paul you get the impression that jews were not drinking the cool-aide and that was why he turned to the greeks. Romans of the period speak of the religion as largely attracting plebeians and slaves. Why were greeks drawn to it? That is a good question.

 

If you are going to dissect the bible you need to separate the old testament and new. Jewish scholarship regarding the old will no doubt be the more reliable. You will need to separate the Pentateuch which is the Torah from the other books.

 

The new testament was assembled by the Imperial church (which later divided into the Catholic and Orthodox churches) so they will give the best interpretations of that.

 

It only confuses the texts when they are lumped together. Good for religions but bad for historians.

 

On the subject at hand I find Genesis as the most interesting. The bronze age myths are a glimpse into the minds of those times.

They are allegories and not historical per se. Cain and Able seem to me to represent the inevitable clash between farmers and free rangers that has its parallel in the american west. Like many myths it tries to explain a mystery, "why are the farmers so short compared to the shepherds and cattlemen?" They would not have known that diet, meat and dairy vs. grain and legumes plays a major role in size. Therefore it must have been God.

 

Abraham and Isaac, why don't we sacrifice humans like the Phoenicians? I think this points to the time that jews broke off from their fellow Phoenicians and abandoned human sacrifice. Again "it was God".

 

Poor Eve, women always get the blame. With the retreat of the last ice age north africa and the middle east have gotten drier and harsher what was once "a garden of Eden" now looks like dried out husk.

 

"Why do people speak so many languages? and "Wow, that Ziggurat is a really big building why did they build it?" The Tower of Babel gives us a two-fer.

[Northern Neil]

I often wonder if the 'Plagues of Egypt' story could be a garbled account of the chaos and death which would have occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean round about the time of the Santorini eruption. The date and the Pharaoh are about right.