Scripture and History, the same or different?

[polonius]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 31 by polonius.advice]

What is with all of these straw mans I've been seeing lately? Your post has nothing to do with anything that I said.

RESPONSE: Really? What did you say? Was it accurate?

[polonius]

“Archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000–1500 BCE).

“Recent research has suggested that the domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [B.C.E.]*. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent.� - Civilizations of the Ancient Near East states, Jack M Sasson
*Before Abraham’s time

Southeast Arabia is a very long way from Egypt.

Written evidence : “In Mesopotamia, cuneiform lists mention the creature [the camel] and several seals depict it, indicating that the animal may have reached Mesopotamia by the beginning of the second millennium,�

Question: What tablets precisely and from when do they date?

Archaeological evidence “It is no longer necessary to regard the mention of camels in the patriarchal narratives as anachronisms, since there is ample archeological evidence for the domestication of the camel before the time of the patriarchs.� - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia


Question: Which edition are your quoting from? Wasn't the original published over 100 years ago The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia refers to two different revisions of a Bible encyclopedia. The first version was published under the general editorship of the fundamentalist James Orr (1844–1913), among other objectives to counteract the impact of higher criticism.[1]


QUESTION: What "archaeological evidence would this be exactly?


The first question was whether Moses could really have been the author of the Five Books of Moses, since the last book, Deuteronomy, described in great detail the precise time and circumstances of Moses' own death. Other incongruities soon became apparent: the biblical text was filled with literary asides, explaining the ancient names of certain places and frequently noting that the evidences of famous biblical events were still visible "to this day." These factors convinced some seventeenth century scholars that the Bible's first five books, at least, had been shaped, expanded, and embellished by later, anonymous editors and revisers over the centuries.

From an analysis of the archaeological evidence, there is no sign whatsoever of extensive literacy or any other attributes of full statehood in Judah — and in particular, in Jeru-salem — until more than two and a half centuries later, toward the end of the eighth century BCE. Of course, no archaeologist can deny that the Bible contains legends, characters, and story fragments that reach far back in time. But archaeology can show that the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History bear unmistakable hallmarks of their initial compilation in the seventh century BCE. Why this is so and what it means for our understanding of the great biblical saga is the main subject of this book.


The Bible Unearthed
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
By ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN and NEIL ASHER SILBERMAN
Free Press

From the New York Times review of Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
By ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN and NEIL ASHER SILBERMAN[/u]

[polonius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Authorship

The modern scholarly consensus is that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[21] This contemporary common hypothesis among biblical scholars states that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE .....

McDermott, John J., (2002). Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction. Pauline Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8091-4082-4. Retrieved 2010-10-03.

[dio9]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

Actually Paul'd letter to the Galatians is a historic record of his activity. When we compare this with accounts in Acts , say the Jerusalem council , we can say the Act's account is , how shall I say it, imaginary history. Acts and the Gospels are theological documents. Legends based on history, or historic fiction. Any which way there is a history upon which these are based. Jesus Peter Paul John Mary and the disciples really existed and really started Christianity.

[marco]

Jesus Peter Paul John Mary and the disciples really existed and really started Christianity.

Mary had next to nothing to do with Christianity except perhaps make supper. She initiated the first grudging miracle from her bachelor son. These actors appear in later writings and form the substance for Rome's later honeymoon with the new belief set. It's fairly certain Peter couldn't have got his tongue round Trinity, so what emerged as Christianity, was related to Christ only nominally.

[bluethread]

There is a tendency in us all to exaggerate the contribution of our chosen field to mankind and we can be convincing if we support of our claims with articulate erudition.


Scripture seems closer to mythology than history, and the NT deals largely with Christ's psychology rather than the size of his shoes.

These appear to be somewhat controdictory statments. I do agree that people tend to see things from their own perspective. The would also include the scientific humanist. To that one history would be restricted to that which can be empirically verified and related to the benefit of humans. As your first statement indicates, this is a very narrow view of history. The human experience is much more than empirical verification and species promotion. Therefore, "History" is much more than what is acceptable to a scientific humanist.

[bluethread]

Can't someone function on the rational plain without considering modern scientific fact as more important than legends and forklore?

RESPONSE: Not really. If I find a present under my Christmas tree, must I then believe in Santa Claus? Or should I apply reason?

Whether you believe in Santa Claus or not, you could consider the various derivations of the the Christmas tree ritual and the Santa Clause mythology and examine how they have effected life on this planet over the ages. That, my friend, is also history.

[polonius]

Can't someone function on the rational plain without considering modern scientific fact as more important than legends and forklore?

RESPONSE: Not really. If I find a present under my Christmas tree, must I then believe in Santa Claus? Or should I apply reason?

Whether you believe in Santa Claus or not, you could consider the various derivations of the the Christmas tree ritual and the Santa Clause mythology and examine how they have effected life on this planet over the ages. That, my friend, is also history.

RESPONSE: To be more accurate that would be historical fiction! Would you base your belief system on it?

[polonius]

Jesus Peter Paul John Mary and the disciples really existed and really started Christianity.

Mary had next to nothing to do with Christianity except perhaps make supper. She initiated the first grudging miracle from her bachelor son. These actors appear in later writings and form the substance for Rome's later honeymoon with the new belief set. It's fairly certain Peter couldn't have got his tongue round Trinity, so what emerged as Christianity, was related to Christ only nominally.

RESPONSE: Actually, it was Constantine who established the Christian religion.

[bluethread]

Whether you believe in Santa Claus or not, you could consider the various derivations of the the Christmas tree ritual and the Santa Clause mythology and examine how they have effected life on this planet over the ages. That, my friend, is also history.

RESPONSE: To be more accurate that would be historical fiction! Would you base your belief system on it?

Now you are hedging. Yes, it is not an empirically verifiable tale in many of it's forms. However, it is commonly accepted that there was a Saint Nicolus, who practiced secret gift giving. It is also, verifiable through the study of the literature of many western cultures, the effects that tale hs had on those cultures. Regardless of the fact that we can not empirically verify many of the specifics of the life of St. Nicholus, those effect on the various cultures since are indeed history. Calling it historical fiction is nothing more that an attempt to discredit history that one does not particularly like. Is the biography of George Herman Ruth historcal fiction. After all, much of what is recorded about him can not be empirically verified?