Reply #22: Yes, the Bible is much more historical than other religious texts. But.... [View All]

[TechBear_Seattle]

You must also take in to consideration the fact that only Christianity has taken a large library of different books, collected them together in to a single text and called it Scripture.

To Jews, only the Torah is actual sacred scripture. The rest of what Christians group together as the Old Testament are important but do not have the same stature or basis in Jewish religious belief.

The Q'uran, held by Muslims to have been dictated directly from Allah, has nothing at all to do with history.

The Vedas, the central holy texts of Hinduism, deal with philosophy and proper ritual. Other writings considered scripture by large groups of Hindus, again, focus mainly on philosophy and proper ritual. Where written histories do come together with religious texts, the histories usually provide a framework or setting for the religious text. For example, the Bhagavad Gita is actually a small part of a much larger historic epic, the Mahabharata.

I could go on with many more examples, but I think you get the idea. Christianity is pretty much unique in its elevation of history to the position of Sacred Scripture, and no other religion has collected so much history under that seal. That makes any comparison to history in other scriptures a logical fallacy: there is simply nothing else that is comparable.

Also, please remember that each historic assertion must stand or fall on its own. Most of what has been verified in Biblical history is relatively small, "routine stuff": lists of kings, names and locations of many cities, accounts of this country invading that country and annihilating the people there. That doesn't change the fact that, despite a century and a half of modern archaeology in to Biblical history, much of which was done by ferverent believers, there remains no evidence of a world-wide flood, no evidence of the Hebrew people being kept as slaves in Egypt, no evidence of an Exodus, no evidence of a massive invasion of Canaan by tribes who murdered entire cities and conquered the land.

The fact is that there is no evidence that supports, and considerable evidence that refutes, all of the actual historic accounts of the Old Testament from Genesis to Judges, inclusive. It is not until the wars to consolidate the lands of the Twelve Tribes* under a single ruler that we have verifiable history.

As for the New Testament. I will again assert that Paul had no first hand account of Jesus. He says, more than once, that his only contact with Jesus was through visions.

The Gospel of John is quite different from the other three. There is no way to reconcile it being a first hand account and still have Matthew, Mark or Luke be first hand accounts; likewise the other way around.

Luke gets his geography messed up badly in both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. He places within half a day's walk cities that are almost a hundred miles distant, makes trips of several days out of cities that are less than a day apart, and moves cities around from their known position seemingly at random. It is very clear that Luke has no first hand experience with the geography of Judah, so it is very unlikely that he had any first hand experience with Jesus.

Matthew and Mark tell essentially the same story, with Matthew adding more material. Parts of that added material, however, are demonstrably false. His nativity narrative, for example, has many critical flaws; documentation can easily be found online so I won't clutter up this thread. Even if you are willing to overlook such flaws as the work of an overly enthusiasic disciple and an aging memory, there is still the question of whether these really are first hand accounts. A close study of the texts shows that they were originally written in Greek rather than in Hebrew or Aramaic, a very unlikely choice for Jewish nationalists writing their memoirs.

As for the rest of the New Testament, whether they reflect first hand experience or not is irrelevant: none of them purport to be first hand accounts. Well, except for the Revelation of John, but that claims to be a first hand account of future events, not history.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for your civility. I try very hard not to attack a person's beliefs, but I will challenge statements I am confident are untrue or have no logical basis when such statements are presented as fact. If I ever step over that line, please let me know. I am pretty good about stepping back over it and restating my argument in a less confrontational manner. :hide:

* Written records and archaeology show that Canaan was not invaded over a period of years by a group of violent conquerors who slaughtered entire cities and claimed the land as their own, which is exactly the history presented by the book of Joshua. Every bit of evidence shows instead a mostly peaceful influx of various Semitic peoples over a period of centuries. Each group of settlers had differences in their religion, language and customs. The more powerful groups came to dominate different regions, with latter settlers adopting the language, religion and culture of the people already there. This seems to be the kernel around which the pious history of the Twelve Tribes was formed.