Is the Bible a history book?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is the Bible a history book?

Many adamantly maintain that stories from the Bible are literally, actually, accurately historical record and that the Bible is a history book.

The Library of Congress classifies the Bible as philosophy, Psychology, Religion " subclass BS (their designation, not my suggestion) " NOT History or Science.

History is defined as: the study of past events www.merriam-webster.com

Notice events " Not imagined or fanciful accounts.

Historical fiction is defined as:

The genre of literature, film, etc., comprising narratives that take place in the past and are characterized chiefly by an imaginative reconstruction of historical events and personages. www.dictionary.com

OR

Historical fiction tells a story that is set in the past. That setting is usually real and drawn from history, and often contains actual historical persons, but the main characters tend to be fictional. Writers of stories in this genre, while penning fiction, attempt to capture the manners and social conditions of the persons or time presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity. http://www.definitions.net

Might it be reasonable to consider the Bible as historical fiction (as well as religious literature)?

How many of the Bible's main characters are known to have been real and to be as depicted?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why would it need to be anywhere but Paul? Jehovah's Witnesses view the entire bible canon as the Word of God, if its anywhere, it's valid.


JW

So that would include Jesus quote of Hosea 6.6, I desire mercy, NOT sacrifice?

No blood theology needed, animal or human, by that verse and others like it.

Yes that applies to all scriptures. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses don't necessarily interpret scriptures the same way as you do; for example we would interpret Hosea differently but I don't want to deraille the thread. The point is that we JWs accept the entire book as the Word of God.

JW

[bluethread]

If some or many of the "events" described are not authentic it is, at least in part, historical fiction and/or pious fiction.

Since history is generally written by the winners, most history, especial ancient history could very well be considered historical fiction, given this standard. Admittedly, the more accounts and sources the more reliable the accounts. However, few "historical" details are verified by multiple sources. For example, there are historians that posit the Socrates is a fictional character devised by Plato as a literary tool. In short, the rejection of an entire anthology because certain parts have minimal historical verification is a bit over the top.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since history is generally written by the winners, most history, especial ancient history could very well be considered historical fiction, given this standard.

Agreed.

The historical fiction of ancients makes little to no difference in modern life and decisions EXCEPT if a person takes select items (say the Bible) as being actual accounts of claimed events -- and bases decisions on the assumption the accounts are accurate and truthful.

It seems quite rational that no one, to my knowledge, makes important life decisions based upon whether Socrates was real.

Apply the same rational thinking to Jesus tales.

[bluethread]

.

Since history is generally written by the winners, most history, especial ancient history could very well be considered historical fiction, given this standard.

Agreed.

The historical fiction of ancients makes little to no difference in modern life and decisions EXCEPT if a person takes select items (say the Bible) as being actual accounts of claimed events -- and bases decisions on the assumption the accounts are accurate and truthful.

It seems quite rational that no one, to my knowledge, makes important life decisions based upon whether Socrates was real.

Apply the same rational thinking to Jesus tales.

That is not the question. You did not ask if the Bible is a religious document, i.e. is used to make important life decisions. You asked if it is a history book. That is not a requirement for something to be considered historical. Now, admittedly, Plato is in the philosophy portion of the library. However, are we to say that the works of Herodotus and Tocqueville are not history, because they are part of Adler's Great Books, which include philosophy and fiction? Quite frankly, I am very disappointed that more people do not use the writing of Tocqueville in making important life decisions.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since history is generally written by the winners, most history, especial ancient history could very well be considered historical fiction, given this standard.

Agreed.

The historical fiction of ancients makes little to no difference in modern life and decisions EXCEPT if a person takes select items (say the Bible) as being actual accounts of claimed events -- and bases decisions on the assumption the accounts are accurate and truthful.

It seems quite rational that no one, to my knowledge, makes important life decisions based upon whether Socrates was real.

Apply the same rational thinking to Jesus tales.

That is not the question. You did not ask if the Bible is a religious document, i.e. is used to make important life decisions. You asked if it is a history book.

Perhaps you overlooked the second poll option? Does quibbling about the questions help support the Bible as being a history book (if that is the intent)?

That is not a requirement for something to be considered historical. Now, admittedly, Plato is in the philosophy portion of the library. However, are we to say that the works of Herodotus and Tocqueville are not history, because they are part of Adler's Great Books, which include philosophy and fiction?

Are the works of Tocqueville classified under history by the Library of Congress?

Quite frankly, I am very disappointed that more people do not use the writing of Tocqueville in making important life decisions.

Perhaps many are too busy reading the Bible " and attempting to follow the wisdom of ancient preachers who do not seem to offer much, if anything, that is profound or useful.

Tocqueville, evidently a Deist, was a proponent of separation of church and state " with which I can agree. He also, however, thought that religion was necessary in the function of democracy " with which I disagree somewhat. Perhaps encouraging religious beliefs keeps many people from running amok. However, it doesn't seem to constrain politicians with Machiavellian tendencies (characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty) and their supporters.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Is the Bible a history book?

In the same way Calvin & Hobbes is one.

Many adamantly maintain that stories from the Bible are literally, actually, accurately historical record and that the Bible is a history book.

I've seen a bunch of that bunch declare Obama's the antichrist, so there's that.

The Library of Congress classifies the Bible as philosophy, Psychology, Religion " subclass BS (their designation, not my suggestion) " NOT History or Science.

Kinda hard to have a history book, when ya go about telling how critters talk and dead folks walk.

...
Might it be reasonable to consider the Bible as historical fiction (as well as religious literature)?

Only after fessing to the wretched writing style, with the stuff out of order, and the claims of miracles, and how some married chick just happened to be a virgin.

Who stays married to a chick who stays a virgin? That ain't no marriage, that's a divorce.

How many of the Bible's main characters are known to have been real and to be as depicted?

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

There's four of 'em right there.