Pontius Pilate

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Sorry, forget the last bit. I'm not overly familiar with the Bible, sorry.

[antisocialmunky]

The New Testament isn't really a historical document. Its mostly letters dealing with issues within Christianity that you can glean a little history from.

As for the Old Testament, its pretty good historical document since it lines up with archeology fairly well during the Assyrian, Babylonian periods, and early Persian periods. Before that evidence is a little sparse. :-\

Just look at all the stuff that corroberates that part of the Old Testament including the things that it brought up that were unknown in any other source but were confirmed by evidence that has been found within the last 200 years.

[Cyclops]

I am an agnostic humanist. I respect other peoples faith as it gives them strength. Speaking from a critical secular veiwpoint though I feel the Bible is a most misrepresented collection of works.

The New Testament isn't really a historical document. Its mostly letters dealing with issues within Christianity that you can glean a little history from.

The new testament is a narrative account of the life and teachings of a religious leader (the gospels) and his followers (Acts) and a number of letters attributed to those closest followers (letters and the Apocalypse). I think it is an historical document: it is flawed and has synoptic problems, and some pretty obviously mis-attribution (or even forgeries?), but it narrates a course of events and quotes primary sources.

As for the Old Testament, its pretty good historical document since it lines up with archeology fairly well during the Assyrian, Babylonian periods, and early Persian periods. Before that evidence is a little sparse. :-\

The old testament is a gaggle of court histories, wisdom literature, erotic poetry, creation myths (most likely written with an eye to discrediting rival religion's practices), genealogies (most likely written to justify land-grabs), prophecy (some of it perhaps backdated to make it look better), a couple of different lawcodes apparently by the same bloke (never mind the anachronisms) and a folksy story directly contradicting one of the law codes (Ruth), all edited, revised, assembled and reassembled many times over. its more like a weeks worth of net-surfing than a history book.

Just look at all the stuff that corroberates that part of the Old Testament including the things that it brought up that were unknown in any other source but were confirmed by evidence that has been found within the last 200 years.

The stuff about the Maccabees smashing the Seleukids is over-stated to say the least. People hunt for history in a story like Job that starts with Satan teasing God into torturing a good man, or Jonah where a fella survives inside a sea monster.

There's a handful of major things like "oh, really, there actually were Assyrians?" but usually when people say "history proves Bible right" its a tenuous link, eg a grave marked "Goliath" with a 6 foot bloke in it from 600 or more years after David lived.

More often its utter nonsense like "there were giants" "they had a box that shot lightning" or "there's a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal parked halfway up Mt Ararat".

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

@ Cyclops

Its still a historical document. It documents the thoughts and prejudices and attempts at justification of a people. Yes there are legends, David and Goliath, the trek out of Egypt etc. but these could be metaphors/ exaggerations.

Everyone exaggerates, its human nature. I definately do!

I'm not saying (and I doubt that antisocialmunky is too) that it is a definitive history of the world! Merely that it can be useful in understanding the mindset of the people at the time, not to mention the way of life etc.

History is written by the victors, is a well-known saying but I'd say more that history is written in every book, computer, construction etc. that is left behind/ recorded. It just offers differing opinions.

In truth I agree with your representation of the New Testament as a historical document for the same reasons given above.

I don't see how you can accept one and not the other, particularly when the the other is the one that is supposed to be historical (at least in part).

I'm sorry I'm rambling...



... I'll shut up now.

[pezhetairoi]

I'm not saying (and I doubt that antisocialmunky is too) that it is a definitive history of the world! Merely that it can be useful in understanding the mindset of the people at the time, not to mention the way of life etc.

... I'll shut up now.

Don't worry, nothing wrong you said. Keep talking, Curio!

The Bible definitely isn't a definitive history of the world, because there are definitely justifications and backdating and selective censorship/editing in there. Depending on your faith, you may or may not take the parting of the Red Sea, the smiting of Jericho, the crushing of the Assyrians, et al as gospel truth (pun not intended). That's a personal choice of belief. But it is nevertheless an interpretation of the truth, and we 21st-century students of history are certainly experienced enough in historiography and historical inquiry to be able to filter our fact from fiction as long as we set aside the absoluteness of blind faith (because faith by definition requires belief in something that cannot be conclusively proven) and adopt a critical, cynical POV if only for the duration of the analysis.

It seems to me that the Old and New Testaments are simply two kinds of history: one a typical modern-day compilation of historical essays, edited by a person or organisation. Each person contributes an essay, on a particular period. Hence each guy gets a say over what goes into his period without intervention from other writers. The other, on the other hand, is made of essays of the same period, but with different interpretations by different people. If I understood Cyclops rightly, he sees the Old Testament as being a lot less truthful than the New.

May I be so bold as to say that I feel at the least they are pretty on par. Consider that the Old Testament, for all its editing and censorship and apologia, has come down to us more or less faithfully from the 'not-one-word-more, not-one-word-less' faithful copyings of the Torah. The only issue being the veracity of the original document.

Whereas the New Testament is actually (if I may use the word) unworthy to be called a historical document in the sense it was originally intended. The number of books that have been cut out from it, forbidden and made practically heresy to even read, is probably the biggest and most wide-ranging historical act of censorship there has ever been in human history in consideration of the people it has affected directly or indirectly throughout the centuries.

On a nearly unrelated note, it's amazing how you can find said Forbidden Books of the New Testament readily available on Project Gutenberg.

[antisocialmunky]

The stuff about the Maccabees smashing the Seleukids is over-stated to say the least. People hunt for history in a story like Job that starts with Satan teasing God into torturing a good man, or Jonah where a fella survives inside a sea monster.

There's a handful of major things like "oh, really, there actually were Assyrians?" but usually when people say "history proves Bible right" its a tenuous link, eg a grave marked "Goliath" with a 6 foot bloke in it from 600 or more years after David lived.

More often its utter nonsense like "there were giants" "they had a box that shot lightning" or "there's a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal parked halfway up Mt Ararat".

I was thinking about Nabonidius, Belshazzar, the fall of Babylon without a major siege from Daniel. The account in Jonah refering to the size of the Ninevah megalopolis. Genesis names of cities match closely with the naming conventions(as far as can be told) used in the 4th millenium. The accounts of Ur being a rich city. The political situation during the Assyrian perios to the early Persian period. Etc.

As for stuff 'cut' from the New Testament... well aren't most of them works after the first century, nostic, or obvious forgeries by Greeks?

As for faith, its defined as an asured expectation of unseen things IE: you believe things will happen, the common misconception is that there's no basis for it. Faith often has a basis for it IE: I trusting your friend because you know his character - I have faith in him. Blind faith should not be representative of the idea of faith but an abberation. Otherwise you get the commonly held view that faith is for the ignorant which I can quite assure you that it is not as we all have faith in something whether it be God, gods, goverment, or each other.

[Justinian II]

The New Testament isn't really a historical document.

True, but as both a Christian and a Historian, you can see some tidbits about what WAS going on in Jesus's lifetime; societal movements, religious movements, and it provides, weirdly enough, a "snapshot" (albeit blurry) of the life of what amounts to the average citizen in the Roman world: the poor, disgruntled peasant which is always walked over.

This, IMO, does make the gospels valuable for historical research. Whether what it says about Jesus is true or not is irrelevant for the historian, IMO, and only relevant for the believer.

[unreal_uk]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.