Historiocity of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubba_Switzler

Guest
I was watching a program on Nova the other night and it was a 3 hour program on Exodus and the conquest of Caanan. It compared the Bible account with archeological finds.

The gist of it is that they concluded that the exodus and conquest stories were mostly myth. That reliable Bible history begins, roughly, with King David. They theorize that the Israelis were the underclass Caananites who fled to the hills when that society collapsed, perhaps in part by their own rebellion, and then resettled the area later mixing from a small number of more educated Caananites who left Egypt. I’ve heard before of Israeli scholars who claim that Moses was a mythological figure.

Now obviously their evidence and conclusions bear examination. My first question is whether anyone knows of a good book that covers recent Israeli archeology that might provide more detail and support for this theory.

The second question is this: assuming this theory is true, how does it affect Catholic/Christian theology? Of course, Catholics do not claim that the Bible is a reliable history book but this is quite a bit more of a challenge to Bible history than is usually discussed.

Note that we’re not talking here about rejecting the historiocity of the (early) Bible merely because the stories are fantastic but, rather, on the basis of archeological evidence.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I was watching a program on Nova the other night and it was a 3 hour program on Exodus and the conquest of Caanan. It compared the Bible account with archeological finds.

The gist of it is that they concluded that the exodus and conquest stories were mostly myth. That reliable Bible history begins, roughly, with King David. Te.
Click to expand...
how about historiocity of ancient documents in general? archeology has borne out only a fraction of what is related in records of ancient civilizations in general. You cannot look at “bible times” in isolation from the history of surrounding epochs and cultures.
 
puzzleannie said:
how about historiocity of ancient documents in general? archeology has borne out only a fraction of what is related in records of ancient civilizations in general. You cannot look at “bible times” in isolation from the history of surrounding epochs and cultures.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate?
 
I watched the exact same program as part of my Jewish Roots of Christian Faith course at a Catholic University- Masters level. Nothing in this program goes against Catholic teaching. The problem is that sometimes we as the reader have a tendency to place an overly Fundamentalist view on the stories in the Bible. Yes some of the history is there and true. Some are stories and used for contextual lessons. This is why it is important to know which voice has authored a certain story. A good study Bible will help with this. The book we used which I found exceptional easy to follow and learned a lot from was Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt - and it is cheap.
 
Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a Biblical scholar from a Bristish university made some interesting programs on evidence and archiology. I’m sure they can be found on youtube or the BBC website.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Yes, I saw the very same documentary and also saw it somewhere else previously. I find often that the same documentary is renamed and aired somewhere else or essentially the same footage and interviews are repackaged and aired as something new. Or maybe I watch too many documentaries. I find the theory very very interesting and would also be interested in any evidence to the contrary. And no I do not believe that the lack of archeological evidence to be a problem. Regardless of whether or not the events prior to David happened exactly as they are described in the OT they are still valid. I have always suspected that the OT stories are a lot like war movies. Characters and events are combined for brevity and better story telling. And, BTW, there is another documnentary by some dude that calls himself the naked archeologist (no he keeps his clothes on) that provides compelling evidence that the stories are true. So, who knows.
 
I’ve noticed a tendency on these biblical history programs. Rather like the nature programs (never let there be one aired without a “global warning statement” tacked in somewhere).

Archeologists are seemingly always reluctant to draw conclusions about what they’ve found in its relationship to biblical history.

However, if evidence minimalizes Judaism or Christianity in some way - then that comment is selected out and televised.

And generally, the program directors seek out some minimalist preacher to back up the minimalist viewpoint of the archeologist.
 
Only one ankle bone has every been found in Jerusalem indicating crucifixion.

So, with that evidence as conclusive proof, only one person was ever hung on a cross in Jerusalem.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I’ve heard before of Israeli scholars who claim that Moses was a mythological figure.
Click to expand...
Jesus spoke of Moses, would He speak about a mythological figure in this way?

Matthew 19:7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’

8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.’
 
Here’s a riddle that’s bothered me since my conversion, and inhibited that conversion beforehand. How could a professing member of a religion, be it the True Faith, Judiaism or Islam, hold to the claims of their interpretation of God and in the same swoop deny the Authenticity of the claim? If Moses is made myth, the flood, the destruction of Sodom, if Christ is not the Hypostasis of God… how can one hold to a faith tradition? Jesus Saves, He couldn’t do that if He weren’t God Incarnate. Ah well.

God bless,
 
John_Carlton said:
Here’s a riddle that’s bothered me since my conversion, and inhibited that conversion beforehand. How could a professing member of a religion, be it the True Faith, Judiaism or Islam, hold to the claims of their interpretation of God and in the same swoop deny the Authenticity of the claim? If Moses is made myth, the flood, the destruction of Sodom, if Christ is not the Hypostasis of God… how can one hold to a faith tradition? Jesus Saves, He couldn’t do that if He weren’t God Incarnate. Ah well.

God bless,
Click to expand...
Someone here on CA, retitled the “History Channel” the “Heresy Channel” 😃

I watch many TV programs concerning biblical archaeology and have come to your conclusion:
How could a professing member of a religion, be it the True Faith, Judiaism or Islam, hold to the claims of their interpretation of God and in the same swoop deny the Authenticity of the claim?
Click to expand...
Many times, I’ll catch myself wondering out loud, “That archaeologist may live in Jerusalem, but he talks like an atheist.”
 
joanofarc2008 said:
I watched the exact same program as part of my Jewish Roots of Christian Faith course at a Catholic University- Masters level. Nothing in this program goes against Catholic teaching. The problem is that sometimes we as the reader have a tendency to place an overly Fundamentalist view on the stories in the Bible. Yes some of the history is there and true. Some are stories and used for contextual lessons. This is why it is important to know which voice has authored a certain story. A good study Bible will help with this. The book we used which I found exceptional easy to follow and learned a lot from was Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt - and it is cheap.
Click to expand...
I think my first question will require more research on my part. But I am curious about this response to my second question which might be restated as follows: what are the consequences to theology if the Bible narrative up to King David is innacurate, historically. What if the vast majority of Israelites did not flee Egypt but were Caananites, and there was no conquest of Caanan, only a sociall upheaval of some sort.

This does not imply that Abraham, Joseph, and Moses were mythical though obviously Moses role is much different, perhaps being the leader of those Caananites who did leave Egypt to return to their homeland.

I’ll look for that book at our local Catholic bookstore.
 
Nelka said:
Jesus spoke of Moses, would He speak about a mythological figure in this way?

Matthew 19:7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’

8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.’
Click to expand...
That is a very good point, but if Moses was a real person but his role is less than what the Bible portrays, would that make Jesus a liar? I don’t think so.
 
John_Carlton said:
Here’s a riddle that’s bothered me since my conversion, and inhibited that conversion beforehand. How could a professing member of a religion, be it the True Faith, Judiaism or Islam, hold to the claims of their interpretation of God and in the same swoop deny the Authenticity of the claim? If Moses is made myth, the flood, the destruction of Sodom, if Christ is not the Hypostasis of God… how can one hold to a faith tradition? Jesus Saves, He couldn’t do that if He weren’t God Incarnate. Ah well.
Click to expand...
My own suspicion is that the Bible is more historically accurate in the NT than the OT and in the later parts of the OT than in the earlier.

I don’t think you can deny the Resurrection and still call yoursellf a Christian. But does the truth of Christianity hang on the historical accuracy of the exodus and conquest of Caanan? I’m not so sure of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top