Bible not a Historical Document?

[aball1035]

I’m confused on this. I would think that if one believed in the Bible and all it has to say, they would consider it both a religous and a historical document. However, most Christians I talk to say that it cannot be taken historically since it is a religous document from God.

Any thoughts?

 

[puzzleannie]

It is not, in the first instance, a document per se, but a set of documents or books, letters and other literary forms, set down in writing at different times by different people, from in most cases oral history sources (which are also legitimate in historical research) dating to a much earlier time period. It is yes a collection of primary source material which has historical relevance to the peoples who produced them, and in some cases, provides primary source historical documentation for the people, places and events discussed. That is the answer of someone trained in historical research and the discipline of archives, care and provenance of historical documents. Like all primary source material, some is redaction, editing and transcription of earlier sources. Like all primary source material, it is used in conjunction with other sources to document what happened, when, to whom, but does not stand alone as the definitive record of the history of the time and place in which it was produced. The New Testament particular is a valuable primary source record of 1st century events surrounding the figures about whom it relates, particularly of course Jesus Christ and his followers, in that it includes first person testimony and contemporary reporting of those events.

 

[Bookcat]

ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcgospl.htm

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402bt.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403bt.asp

 

[NHInsider]

I’m confused on this. I would think that if one believed in the Bible and all it has to say, they would consider it both a religous and a historical document. However, most Christians I talk to say that it cannot be taken historically since it is a religous document from God.

Any thoughts?

I wonder if they mean not that it isn’t a historic document but that it isn’t a history book in the way we think of history books today? It’s clearly a historic document, with manuscripts that go back more than 2000 years and clear evidence of prior written and oral transmission for another thousand before those manuscripts.

But it’s not a book that was written to be a history text - it is, as has been pointed out, a collection of lots of different kinds of material, including some historical records. And, of course from a faith perspective, it is a collection which exists to reveal truth about God and His relationship with and plans for His people.

 

[Faith1960]

It is not, in the first instance, a document per se, but a set of documents or books, letters and other literary forms, set down in writing at different times by different people, from in most cases oral history sources (which are also legitimate in historical research) dating to a much earlier time period. It is yes a collection of primary source material which has historical relevance to the peoples who produced them, and in some cases, provides primary source historical documentation for the people, places and events discussed. That is the answer of someone trained in historical research and the discipline of archives, care and provenance of historical documents. Like all primary source material, some is redaction, editing and transcription of earlier sources. Like all primary source material, it is used in conjunction with other sources to document what happened, when, to whom, but does not stand alone as the definitive record of the history of the time and place in which it was produced. The New Testament particular is a valuable primary source record of 1st century events surrounding the figures about whom it relates, particularly of course Jesus Christ and his followers, in that it includes first person testimony and contemporary reporting of those events.

For me, I have trouble with the OT. Adam and Eve, talking serpents, Jonah and the whale, etc. Are these stories meant to be taken as literal history or were they ficticious stories written to teach us about God and His love for us?

 

[edwest2]

For me, I have trouble with the OT. Adam and Eve, talking serpents, Jonah and the whale, etc. Are these stories meant to be taken as literal history or were they ficticious stories written to teach us about God and His love for us?

They were written to teach but as actual events as well. Jesus walked on the water. Does that make more sense than a talking serpent? Jesus commanded one of His disciples to take a hook, and to open the mouth of the first fish he caught and he would find a coin. That coin was to be given as tribute for Jesus and that disciple.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is both historical and religious. I recommend perusing the 1994 Pontifical Biblical Commission document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church and doing keyword search for “historic.”

 

[Jim_Baur]

The Bible is an historical document.

God created the universe!

Humans were created by God.

God is love.

God sent His Son to save us.

Those historical facts are revealed to us by God in the Holy Bible.

This is what we believe.

 

[Faith1960]

It is both historical and religious. I recommend perusing the 1994 Pontifical Biblical Commission document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church and doing keyword search for “historic.”

I googled “are Bible stories history?” and came up with this article, among others. It’s kind of long, but basically it concludes that some of the Bible is factual while other parts of it have been likely fabricated for some reason or another. time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983854-1,00.html

 

[Cashue]

I’m confused on this. I would think that if one believed in the Bible and all it has to say, they would consider it both a religous and a historical document. However, most Christians I talk to say that it cannot be taken historically since it is a religous document from God.

Any thoughts?

This is heresay, of course the bible is a historical document. It has been authorised by the holy church.

 

[patg]

The bible is not a “historical document” as we know history and the church does not teach that it is. The bible is not even a single “document”. It is a collection of a great number of different literary genres spanning thousands of years. It contains some history but also legends, myths, allegories, parables, infancy narratives, poetry, and numerous other forms of fiction. It is all true but it is ***not ***all historical truth (as dogmatically stated in Dei Verbum).

 

[MarcoPolo]

I googled “are Bible stories history?” and came up with this article, among others. It’s kind of long, but basically it concludes that some of the Bible is factual while other parts of it have been likely fabricated for some reason or another. time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983854-1,00.html

This comment from the article caught my eye:Most scholars suspect that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Judaism’s traditional founders, never existedSo I would take the Time Magazine article with a grain of salt. As well, they are approaching the Bible from a secular perspective. They do not believe that the truth can be portrayed by way of allegory in a way that is sometimes far more dynamic than a forensic list of facts of a crime scene. CS Lewis and Tolkien got into this with philosophy of how sometimes a myth conveys a truth far richer than if you were describe scientific details of a reality. For example, calling Jesus “Lamb” holds within it an immense scope of truth completely superior to if you called Jesus “the 6 foot 2 guy”, even though the former label would be considered by Time to be untrue while the latter was.

 

[simspt]

This comment from the article caught my eye:Most scholars suspect that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Judaism’s traditional founders, never existedSo I would take the Time Magazine article with a grain of salt. As well, they are approaching the Bible from a secular perspective. They do not believe that the truth can be portrayed by way of allegory in a way that is sometimes far more dynamic than a forensic list of facts of a crime scene. CS Lewis and Tolkien got into this with philosophy of how sometimes a myth conveys a truth far richer than if you were describe scientific details of a reality. For example, calling Jesus “Lamb” holds within it an immense scope of truth completely superior to if you called Jesus “the 6 foot 2 guy”, even though the former label would be considered by Time to be untrue while the latter was.

By the media’s definition today groups like the Jesus Seminar represent “most scholarship”. Not that there arent good scholars in that group its just gives a false impression.