Historicity of the Bible - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.205.191.61 (talk) at 00:52, 1 September 2005 (→Biblical maximalism: added Yale info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:52, 1 September 2005 by 128.205.191.61 (talk) (→Biblical maximalism: added Yale info)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The article concerns the historicity of the Bible. In other words, it addresses in what ways the Bible historically accurate; the extent to which it can it be used as a historic source and what qualifications should be applied. This is intended to represent the academic viewpoint. For descriptions of religious beliefs, please go to the appropriate subject-matter page.

This page is not an historical description of Biblical times. For that see History of ancient Israel and Judah.

Introduction

Conservative religious views

Some people, especially those within Fundamentalist Christianity hold that the Bible is the Word of God, and is therefore inerrant and infallible. The Bible is therefore held to be historically accurate, even down to smallest details - although most allow for copyist errors. However, not all theological conservatives believe in Bible inerrancy although this view is very prevalent among religious conservative individuals and scholars. All theological conservatives would agree the Bible is correct in its major historical claims and that the everything in the Bible is not to be taken literally (for example, obvious cases of non literal poetry).

In the field of science, the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis are held to be scientifically accurate and the existing scientific evidence is interpreted not to be in accordance with the theory of evolution which is the existing science community consensus (see: creation science).

Some conservative Bible scholars include: Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. Gary Habermas, FF Bruce, Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, Dr. Bruce Metzger, William F. Albright, Dr. Kenneth Kitchen, and Dr. Bryant G. Wood.

Liberal/moderate religious views and secular views

Many Christians and Jews prefer to stress the importance of the moral and religious values inculcated in the Bible, while its accuracy in terms of some or many of its historical details is not necessarily a key part of their faith. Religious writers and academics often refer to the creation stories as symbolic or intentionally simplified. Judaism in particular rejects the notion of solely literal interpretation of the Bible.

Overview of Academic views

Within the academic community, the main discussion revolves around how much weight to give the text of the Bible against counter-evidence or lack of evidence. Generally those giving more weight to the text of the Bible, assuming its correctness unless proven otherwise, and tending to interpret it literally, are called Biblical maximalists, while the opposing view is Biblical minimalism. The debate between the two sides is inextricably tied to how one views historiography: they disagree over how much weight documentary and indirect evidence should be given. Biblical maximalists view the Biblical narrative as a starting point for constructing the history, and correct or reinterpret it where it is contradicted by archaeological evidence. Biblical minimalists start purely from the archaeological evidence, and only consider Biblical accounts of value if they are corroborated by the archaeological evidence.

One of the reasons for the conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools of thought is the amount of archaeological data found and the estimates of the potential amount of archaeological material found and worked on. Conservatives estimate that only about 2% of the potential archeological material has been found and worked on. . Edwin M. Yamauchi in his work The Stones and the Scriptures summed up the conservative point of view when he wrote, "Historians of antiquity in using the archeological evidence have very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but one fraction of a second fraction of a third fraction of a fourth fraction of a fifth fraction of the possible evidence". Yamauchi estimated in The Stones and the Scriptures that a generous estimate would be that 1/1000 of the archaeological material that once existed has actually been published. Minimalists, on the other hand, obviously argue a higher amount of archaeological material that once existed has been found and published. Minimalist and maximalist both agree, however, that although the amount of parties interested in Biblical archaeological has increased, the political instability and commercial development of the Biblical lands has hampered the collection of archaeological material.

As for any other written source, an educated weighting of the Biblical text requires knowledge of when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. For example, most academics estimate that the Pentateuch was written somewhere between the 10th and the 6th centuries BCE. A popular hypothesis points to the reign of Josiah (7th century BCE). This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible. This means that the events of, for example, Exodus happened centuries before they were written down, so one should be prepared – indeed one should expect – that telling and retelling through the centuries accentuated the tale, perhaps merged originally unrelated stories, and so on. Analysis of the text suggests that it was written in the Kingdom of Judah, and probably reflects the political ambitions of the kingdom or of the temple. Thus, for example, one should keep in mind that representing Judah and Israel as a unity throughout history, separated only "recently", fitted in with Josiah's political plans for the remnants of the Kingdom of Israel.

Finally, an important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which claims that our current version was based on older written sources that were lost. Most scholars accept this hypothesis. See documentary hypothesis for details. Although most scholars accept this hypothesis there certainly have been and are scholars which rejected the documentary hypothesis such as Umberto Cassuto, Kenneth Kitchen, and Gleason Archer.

Old Testament/Hebrew Bible

Genesis

The Biblical creation story, up to and including the deluge, is generally regarded as a myth by most scientists and many religious believers (i.e., non-creationists). The arguments raised come from cosmology, geology, evolution (in particular fossil evidence), and textual analysis of the Bible itself— it is argued that this evidence indicates that the described events, if taken literally, are scientifically impossible.

The Patriarchs

The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who may have lived in the early 2nd millenium BCE. The Biblical narratives about them are generally held to be myths; that is, stories that take place in the past, but serve to communicate moral truths in the present. However, not all scholars believe this. It should be pointed out that a leading archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen, who authored the work On the Reliability of the Old Testament, believes the Abrahamic narrative is historical (Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?, Biblical Archeological Review 21:02, Mar/Apr 1995). Several Biblical passages narrate realistic and detailed cultural traits of the 2nd millenium BCE, as corroborated by archeology, fueling the debate. No archeological evidence supporting the person of the Patriarchs was found, nor was it likely to expect archeological proof for the existence of a single household in the 18th century BCE. The archeological evidence corroborating the early Fertile Crescent cultural practices (cf. the use of household amulets or contractual clauses regarding servants), mostly surfaced during the last century, point to a very old narrative, while some of its ethical undertones are regarded by skeptics as later interpolations. Some features point to a later narrative, however; the text often mentions the use of camels as beasts of burden, although camels were not domesticated until late in the 2nd millennium BCE, and not widely used until the 1st millenium BCE. However, not all scholars agree with the notion that camels show the Genesis text is a late text. . Also, Isaac's encounter with the Philistines in Genesis 26:1 indicates to many scholars that the narrative was written after 1200 BCE when the Philistines had arrived. On the other hand, not all scholars agree that the mentioning of the Philistines in regards to Isaac indicates a late text .

Exodus

The historicity of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is a matter of some speculation. Looking for hints in the extensive Egyptian records, some scholars identify the Israelites with the Hyksos, Asian tribes that inhabited Egypt in the 17-16 centuries BCE. Others suggested the Apir which are reminded occasionally between the 15th and 11th centuries BCE. The earliest known reference to "Israel" (c 1200BCE), is the "Victory Stele" (or "Merneptah Stele", referred to erroneously as the "Israel Stele") of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah, in which among other victories it is recorded that "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not". Egypt continued to rule the area until the 10th century BCE. Some researchers have speculated that the stories of Exodus simply reflect the liberation of Israel from the Egyptian yoke in the land of Israel as presented in the Merneptah Stele, although the validity of the Stele's claims of victory is questionable. Supporting the idea, however, that Israel began as roving nomads as suggested in Exodus is Donald Redford, whose research indicates of a band of roving people- the Shasu- included among their number a Yahwistic group, providing a potential origin for the nation of Israel.

Some have attempted to relate various plagues to historic events, notably the volcanic eruption in Thera in the 17th century BCE. See Ten plagues for details.

The number of Israelites stated in the Bible, 600,000 adult males, is widely viewed as extremely unlikely. While the population of ancient Egypt is uncertain, this figure equals or exceeds the lowest estimates for the period, and it would constitute a majority of Egyptians by most calculations. A common suggestion is that the word "thousand" should be interpreted here as meaning "family", which gives a figure much more compatible with the historical record. (The record shows significant periodic movements by Asiatic populations in and out of Egypt, in particular retreating to the fertile Egyptian delta in times of drought.) Researchers however differ widely in their opinion on the true number, and indeed if the event ever took place.

Joshua

The historicity of the book of Joshua is suspect according to most scholars, as archeological research found no evidence of a massive population increase in Canaan during the traditionally calculated time dates. At this time the land had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. Kathleen Kenyon excavated in Jericho from 1952-1958, using improved methods of stratigraphy, and found many details which would seem to conform to the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho, but she determined that the siege took place 150 years too early for it to have been the city Joshua's army destroyed. She dated the city by the absence of a type of imported pottery common to the era around 1400 B.C. She concluded, as had Sellin and Watzinger before her that the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho was untenable if the traditional dates were upheld. Jericho and other settlements do show signs of violent disruption (an event common on the other hand throughout early history in the area), but, so far, most archeologists do not believe that the Kingdom of Israel was formed by a violent struggle, nor does archeology provide any evidence the Israelite Kingdom existed before, at the very earliest, 853 BC according to most scholars. On the other hand, Dr. Bryant G. Wood published a article in Biblical Archaeological review stating there were serious problems with Kenyon’s conclusions regarding Kenyon's work, and Dr. Wood argued that the archeaological data supported a Jericho invasion around the time period of 1400 B.C thus was not in conflict with the book of Joshua. Dr. Wood also argues that there was archaeological data which correlated with the Biblical narrative.

United Monarchy

Since the discovery of a 9th century BCE inscription at Tel Dan probably referring to the house of David, it is more common to assume David was a real historical figure. However, a heated debate extends as to whether the united monarchy, the vast empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboam ever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication. Proponents of this theory point to the fact that the division of the land into two entities, centered at Jerusalem and Nablus, goes back to the Egyptian rule of Palestine in the 10th century BCE. Solomon's empire stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archeological evidence of Jerusalem being occupied in the 10th century BCE (although a recent discovery might change that), and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed and then subsequently rebuilt approximately 15 to 20 times since the time of David and Solomon, much of the evidence could easily have been destroyed ; still, evidence from the Middle Bronze Age and later in the Iron Age has been found in the city. The conquests of David and Solomon are not mentioned in contemporary histories (which are rather meager, since other empires were in decline at the time), which admittedly is a argument from silence.

Later kings

It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is historic, even if not unbiased. Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail. For example, Ahab's participation in the Battle of Karkar is clearly documented in Assyrian chronology. King Omri of Israel is mentioned in the Mesha Stele. Many later kings who paid tribute to Assyria are mentioned in Assyrian records.

Despite widespread belief among the academic community that no Assyrian king named Sargon (this Sargon is mentioned in Isaiah 20 as having captured Ashdod) existed, Sargon's palace was eventually discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. His capture of Ashdod was recorded on the palace walls. Fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were also found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position.

New Testament/Greek Bible

For more detail, see main article: Historicity of Jesus

Historicity of Christian beliefs

The historicity, teachings and nature of Jesus are currently debated among Biblical scholars. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to him, Paul's letters, are usually dated from the mid-first century. Paul himself had seen Jesus only in visions; but he claimed they were divine revelations and hence authoritative. Most modern scholars hold that the works describing Jesus (primarily the Gospel accounts) were initially communicated by oral tradition and were not finally committed to writing until several decades after the crucifixion. It is therefore believed that these texts may not have retained the same level of historical accuracy as they might have, had they been direct first-hand accounts actually written during or soon after the life of Jesus. The exact level of the historical accuracy contained in these texts is debated, however most scholars agree that the actual existence of a historical Jesus is probable.

Historicity of Christian traditions

Some scholars maintain the Jesus we know from the Bible today has many elements that come from myths and religions current at the time — for example Mithraism. However, not all agree. For example, contributors to the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies maintained that the only area which has any historical detail with regard to the influence of Mithraism on Christianity was in the area of art.

It has been suggested that this process of assimilation is similar to the way in which peoples in Latin America and Africa have often incorporated elements of their traditional faiths into their newly-adopted Christianity. Nevertheless, from what is known of Roman Mithraism, it bears little resemblance to Christianity until a few centuries afterwards, possibly suggesting that the borrowing was in the other direction.

They also point out that even in European traditions, such fundamentals as the traditional date of Jesus' birth (midnight 24 December) and death (Easter) are taken from pre-existng pagan practices (the winter solstice and the fertility rites of the goddess Eostre).

Some scholars, most notably Earl Doherty, have suggested that Jesus never existed at all, that the character is a combination of numerous real individuals and myths that were common currency during the late Hellenistic age. The early secular references (Tacitus on Jesus, Josephus on Jesus) can be disputed, and once these are discounted little extra-biblical support for Jesus' existence remains. However, currently the position that Jesus never existed is very much a minority position among scholars. At the other end of the spectrum are historians which have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection and did not believe the Christ myth was plausible - scholars such as Thomas Arnold , A. N. Sherwin-White , and Michael Grant.

Marginal views

Popular writers such as Immanuel Velikovsky, Donovan Courville and others believe that the lack of archeological attestation of biblical figures is due to errors in the traditional chronology or the dating of archaelogical strata. Velikovsky's theories were rejected outright by the scientific community and refuted in detail, see Immanuel Velikovsky. More recent theories, notably those of Egyptologists David Rohl and Peter James are viewed with cautious interest by the scientific community but have not gained widespread acceptance. Indeed, a re-dating on the order of 300 years, as they proposed, is strongly rejected by leading Egyptologists, notably Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, although a redating by lesser amounts, such as 64 years, is more widely seen as potentially necessary. (see Chronology of the Ancient Near East).

Schools of archaeological and historical thought

There are two loosely defined historical schools of thought with regard to the historicity of the Bible, biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism, as well as a non-historical method of reading the Bible, the traditional religious reading of the Bible.

Note that historical opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than in two tightly defined camps. Since there is a wide range of opinions regarding the historicity of the Bible, it should not be surprising that any given scholar may have views that fall anywhere between these two loosely defined camps.

Biblical minimalism

Biblical minimalists generally hold that the Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a mythic character. None of the early stories are held to have any historical basis. In this view, all of the stories about the Biblical patriarchs are mythical, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, Biblical minimalists hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the unified Biblical kingdoms of Israel never existed.

Some Biblical minimalists, most notably Earl Doherty, have suggested that Jesus never existed, that the character is a gestalt of numerous individuals who lived and myths that were common currency during the late Hellenistic age.

Biblical maximalism

The term "maximalism" is something of a misnomer, and many people incorrectly relate this to Biblical inerrancy. Most maximalist, however, are not Biblical inerrantists.

Most Biblical maximalists accept many findings of modern historical studies and archaeology and that one needs to be cautious in teasing out fact from myth. However, maximalists hold that the core stories of the Bible indeed tell us about actual historical events, and that the later books of the Bible are more historically based than the earlier books. However, there are maximalist who argue that the Bible has been shown to be very reliable. Prominent Yale archaeologist, Millar Burrows stated the following: "On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record...Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. . Many scholars believe that archaeology corroborates the historicity of the Bible.

Archaeology tells us about historical eras and kingdoms, ways of life and commerce, beliefs and societal structures; however only in extremely rare cases does archaeological research provide information on individual families. Thus, archaeology was not expected to, and indeed has not, provided any evidence to confirm or deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs. As such, Biblical maximalists are divided on this issue. Some hold that many or all of these patriarchs were real historical figures, but that we should not take the Bible's stories about them as historically accurate, even in broad strokes. Others hold that it is likely that some or all of these patriarchs are better classified as purely mythical creations, with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past, much like the British legends of King Arthur.

Biblical maximalists agree that the twelve tribes of Israel did indeed exist, even though they do not necessarily believe the Biblical description of their origin. Biblical maximalists are in agreement that important biblical figures, such as King David and King Saul did exist, that the Biblical kingdoms of Israel also existed, and that Jesus was a historical figure.

Note, however, there is a wide array of positions that one can hold within this school, and some in this school overlap with biblical minimalists. As noted above, historical opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than in two tightly defined camps.

Increasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools

In 2001, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman published the book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts which advocated a very minimalist view and caused a uproar among many conservatives. However, the 25th anniversary issue of Biblical Archeological Review (March/April 2001 edition), editor Hershel Shanks quoted several mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars who insisted that minimalism is now dying. In 2003, Kenneth Kitchen, a staunch maximalist, authored the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament . Kitchen advocated the reliability of the Old Testament and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein, Silberman, and other minimalist scholars. In the short term, there are no signs the intensity of the debate between the minimalist and maximalist scholars will diminish.

Archaeology and modern Israeli politics

Biblical archaeology is sometimes politically controversial, especially when it touches on the United Monarchy period, as some Israelis seek to use the existence of the Kingdom as support for a Greater Israel today. Arguments against the historicity of the Kingdom (or perhaps an existence in a smaller and less impressive form), or against the historicity of a recognisable Exodus, can lead to charges of anti-Semitism, for example from Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. Nonetheless, since these periods are fundamental to Israelis' understanding of their history, it is understandable that it is an emotive subject for some.

References

Sources on Biblical maximalism versus Biblical minimalism:

Biran, Avraham. "'David' Found at Dan." Biblical Archaeology Review 20:2 (1994): 26-39.
Cassuto, Umberto. The documentary hypothesis and the composition of the Pentateuch: eight lectures by U. Cassuto. Translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams. Pp. xii, 117. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961
Coogan, Michael D. "Canaanites: Who Were They and Where Did They Live?" Bible Review 9:3 (1993): 44ff.
Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed. New York: Simon and Schuster
Harpur, Tom. 2004. "The Pagan Christ. Recovering the Lost Light" Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Mazar, Amihai. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1996 ."The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E." BASOR. 304: 17-27.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1997 "Cow Town or Royal Capital: Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 43-47, 67.
Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.
Shanks, Hershel. 1995. Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House.
Shanks, Hershel. 1997 "Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 26-42, 66.
Steiner, Margareet and Jane Cahill. "David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?" Biblical Archaeology Review 24:4 (1998): 25-33, 62-63; 34-41, 63. This article presents a debate between a Biblical minimalist and a Biblical maximalist.
Thomas L. Thompson, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, London 1999
William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001
Wood, Bryant G., "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeological Review 16(2) (March/April 1990): 44-58.
Yamauchi, Edwin, The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972.

External links

Old Testament/Hebrew Bible:

New Testament/Greek Bible:

Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Dr Gary Habermas

Category:

Biblical criticism