How much of the Old Testament is actually historical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
Scholars are pretty much unanimous that the Exodus described in the Pentateuch could not have occurred, there simply is no historical or archaeological evidence for it. Scholars also tend to dismiss the Patriarchs as non-historical too. I don’t think we should just dismiss them as attempting to “disprove” the Bible. Actually, many of them are Jewish or Christian, and regardless of their beliefs, they do genuinely try their best to reconstruct a history. Scholars might concede a Moses like figure existed sometime in the 13th century BC, he may have been an inhabitant of Midian, and may have had responsibility for spreading Yahweh to Canaan, but not much more can be historically reconstructed than that. Most scholars are also willing to concede that David and Solomon existed since there is some archaeological and historical evidence for their existence, but that they were heavily romanticized in the post-exilic period. So, what as Catholics are we to think of this? How much of the OT is actually historical?
 
I have met people who take both the OT and NT as literal, which is very very scary. I think it’s always a good thing to use logic and common sense in whatever interpretation you may take.
 
Yeah, I understand. Though, the NT is usually regarded as much more historical than the OT since scholars usually separate them as different kinds of genres. This is why historians are reluctant to admit Abraham existed, but anyone who says Jesus didn’t exist will get laughed out of the room.
 
One needs to recall that much was handed down in oral tradition, and also, “writing” and reporting were not the clinical and journalistic sort that we have in these times.
ONe would ask how these experts have concluded that certain things were impossible. There is a liberal use of allegory, myth and just plain storytelling in order to get a point across. But there’s also a good bit of history.
I would recommend reading this:
https://www.amazon.com/Exodus-Ignat...1&sr=8-1&keywords=Ignatius+Study+Bible+Exodus

paying close attention to the footnotes.
 
I agree, but if any “historian” thinks that an actually Ark existed and contained 2 of every animal, they would seriously get laughed out of the room too. Which is why Noah is an allegory not meant to be taken literally.
 
Yes indeed. The OT is more mythological in instances, which isn’t bad, and it’s not like stories like that were meant to be taken as 100% literal in every way. I have heard scholars say that Fundamentalist who do take it literally are actually in some ways dishonoring the text itself since it was never meant to be read like that. All in all, they don’t read it in the proper context. The Bible is, as they say, a library. There is myth, history, poetry, etc. At its core we shouldn’t always worry about these things, its the theological truths that matter.

People also need to learn to read the NT in a different way than the OT, which as I have already said, scholars put more historical weight into the NT than in the OT based on the genres they represent.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me for a bit of a non-answer, but I would think they’re all historical in some way , in that it relates to real and cultural history in some fashion. I will note exceptions for certain books such as Job, Judith, Esther, whose purpose isn’t necessarily to relate historical events.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Scholars are pretty much unanimous that the Exodus described in the Pentateuch could not have occurred
Click to expand...
there simply is no historical or archaeological evidence for it.

…not much more can be historically reconstructed than that.

…there is some archaeological and historical evidence for [David’s and Solomon’s] existence
Click to expand...
You realize, of course, that there’s a world of difference in the claims of the first quote and those of the second, right?

The latter claims are all about evidence that exists, whereas the first claim is one of absolute truth. Now, if you want to change the first claim to be something like “scholars are pretty much unanimous that there’s no historical evidence that the Exodus could have occured”, then I’d be cool with that conclusion. Or, even “based on the lack of evidence, scholars have concluded that they cannot prove that the events in Exodus occurred.” That would be cool, too.

But, the first claim is way too strong and absolute to be supported by “lack of evidence” claims.
 
All of the events it describes as happening did happen and I don’t care what any heretic or apostate scientist says about it.

Exodus didn’t happen? What a joke. Why do these people even pretend to believe? It’s all just Babylonian war-god myths to them.
 
Abraham is regarded as the first historical man.

The Old Testament is what God wants us to know for our salvation, written in human language. The Old Testament is also God preparing us for the Incarnation of Jesus.

That’s all I know at this point.
 
Most scholars are also looking at the wrong time frame there is definitely traces of the events of the exodus and Egypt. Read up on the Hyksos expulsion


There are tons of articles and videos on them. Not to mention they found Egyptian inscriptions detailing the plagues. Plus if the exodus never happened the Jewish Passover would be pointless and Jesus passion would have no meaning or significance behind it.
 
Hope1960 said:
Meaning what, exactly?
Click to expand...
Meaning when someone begins a claim with something like “scholars are pretty much unanimous,” it’s a pretty good bet that the claim is a bunch of nonsense.

Leonard Cohen put it best: “There is no God in heaven/and there is no Hell below/so says the great professor/of all there is to know/But I’ve had the invitation/that a sinner can’t refuse/and it’s almost like salvation/it’s almost like the blues”

I will never understand the impulse to disprove Scripture. If you don’t believe, just move on and find something else to do with your time. People who genuinely trust that God speaks through Scripture couldn’t care less what a “scholar” concludes or what archaeological evidence does or does not exist. It’s irrelevant. The effort to compromise trust based on such nonsense is futile.
 
I’m a history buff .

But I won’t claim it as any point of pride , rather , just another hobby , like watching soap operas , at best. At worst, a hobby of the macabre and perverse sort.

Because i can scarce think of any history book , no matter how authoritative, exhaustively documented , footnoted , or caveat-ed , so that it is rendered as dull as dishwater , that is not , yet , essentially , the equivalent of a pointlessly propagandistic commercial for soda pop or sanitary napkins.

The Middle Ages has been called , " The Age of Faith " . If that is an apt description, Then I suppose it is not unlikely that someday the current age will be described as the Triumph of the Head-Hunting Cannibal Animists, ( In fewer words though. )

The old folks knew better when their history course was the Bible, Greek Mythology, Julius Caesar writing about what he did on his summer vacation, and Xenophon writing about the funny thing that happened to him on the way to Babylon.

And I think that answers the question.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly enough that article is advocating for a variation of the Kenite hypothesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top