How historical is history in the bible

Submitted by Harrak (Canada), Apr 9, 2006 at 00:53

Dear Lisa,

I just have a comment on the term Historical Bibles. I think there is no historical bible. The bible is not a reliable historical document. Therefore when we study history, we rely on what is anthropologically and archeologically proven. Besides, what is reported by authoritative narrators can also be relied on. Usually, especially in modern history, the winners of the wars become automatically the authority that makes and defines history.

NB: also there is something called collective memory that can be relied on to define history, the condition to that is to have several sourses on an event sayying the same thing with a guarentee that no contact was established between the reporting sourses. This is different than the collective memory in sociology that talks about tradtional events in general.

..a documents that speaks of events passed orally for 800 years before being marked down (OT);and in the case of the New Testament 200 years after the Crusifiction or occultation of Jesus, can not be relied on academically although may be considerable in matters of religions and cults..

"I see more authentisity in the Torah-Talmud and the Quran-Imamite Tradition than the Bible as per what could have been said by the founders of these faiths" Harrak

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".