I don’t me that I require non-Biblical contemporary accounts of the individual like Jehu or Pontius Pilate, just that the individual was likely not just part of a legend. Was Abraham probably a real person?
Thanks,
Rob
Without those accounts, how could your question possibly be answered? If the only record we have is within the Bible itself, it’s anybody’s guess.
1.) What panache said
2.) I think you want to say something like “It’s not that I require…”
3.) Abraham might have existed, but who can tell? I have a commentary written by a Catholic that admits that any or all of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob might have been representations of whole groups of people, rather than simply individuals. Without an external reference, how would you know?
4.) Even with an external reference, it’s frequently possible not to know. A couple of places I’ve read have suggested that the king Nimrod in the book of Genesis is really Tukulti-Ninurta, king of Mesopotamia. How could you possibly prove or disprove it? Is Ahasuerus really Xerxes? (The similarity of names is closer in the original Hebrew and the original Babylonian --Kshayarsha) You’re on surer ground with Omri, Jehu, Nebuchadnezzar, and the like.
Theologically speaking the answer is Jesus.
I think they’re meaning “verified by non-Biblical historical sources”. The pre-existent Son doesn’t fit that criteria.
Omri, King of Israel (the Northern Kingdom), is the first figure chronologically to be mentioned with certainty of identity in non Biblical sources. There are a lot of references to ‘Son of David’ (i.e., heir in line, not the strict meaning of ‘son’) and ‘House of David’ but only a questionable probably-contemporary instriction about him as a person.
Remember that ‘legendary’ does not mean ‘historically false’ – rather, it’s ‘not proven.’ I.e., there’s likely to be a historical figure around whom legends have accreted, as with Charlemagne in definitively-historical times, but with strictly legendary figures, separating historical truth from legendary accretion is difficult. Even David appears from the parallel stories in Chronicles to have picked up a few stories that actually happened to other historical men.
If you’re a strong conservative Christian, with a belief in the accuracy of the Biblical accounts, you can go back as far as you choose. But that’s not what sweeeviljesus is asking. I suspect there’s a core of historical fact behind every figure in Genesis, plus Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, and the judges, but how much gets tacked onto the story after the fact is a quite different question.
For the record, one possible connection is Amraphel in the Battle of Nine Kings (Gen. 14) being the Hammurabi of Mesopotamian lore. But there’s no possible way to prove or disprove this potential connection.
I don’t think there is a GQ answer to this question. There are very many Christians and Jews who believe firmly that Adam was the first “real” person in the Bible.
A stele was discovered mentioning the house of David, so I’d think that David being a historical figure seems likely. Certainly not the great emperor in the Bible, but real. If we knew who the Pharaoh was in Exodus, that might count, but I don’t think there is enough information to know for sure. He might be a generic king like those in fairy tales.
Technically speaking, Adam and Eve were absolutely real, the are the first 2 Homo Sapiens to ever exist and their offspring, everyone of us, are proof of their existence.
Now, whether they behaved and lived through the biblical verses is a whole new other ballpark.
By the time one gets to the babylonian exile and later, one starts getting real names - e.g. here is someone discovered this year from 595 BC Top 10 Discoveries of 2007 - Nebo-Sarsekim Cuneiform Tablet - Archaeology Magazine Archive
Nope.
No “Old Testament” Jesus for you! (or anyone else!)
NEXT!
And I like the way Ted put it. 
(Poster named at top of post)
Explain this, please.
Because according to doctrine, He existed in the beginning, before time and creation, alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit.
That’s silly. As though there’s some concrete divide between what we would today consider humans and the ancestors which we would not. Even if one imposed semi-arbitrary cutoffs, it needn’t be the case, and almost certainly wouldn’t be, that at one time there was exactly one male and one female on the human side of the cutoff, with everyone on the human side of the cutoff descended from their union.
I am not saying this is absolute, just that I would nominate a strong contender to be from Isaiah 20
- 1 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it*
There really isn’t any doubt today - after 1847 when we discovered his ginormous palace - that Sargon II (722 BC-705 BC) was an Assyrian king whose forces fought against Asdod and took it… and took most of Judea as well but that is another story.
[nerd hat on]
Sargon is also the name of a Star Trek Character
[/nerd hat off]
That would be Christian Theologically speaking. And it appears other Christians have disagreed with you, so perhaps more qualifiers might be needed.
I don’t understand the OP’s question either. If you trust in the Bible, then it is whoever it says it was. If you don’t, then you need to look at other sources to get any idea of what “probably” means.
The answer might not be clear but the question is. Who is the person who lived the longest time ago that is mentioned in the Bible where there is non-Biblical evidence that this individual really existed?. I suppose that the non-Biblical evidence could be archaeological or mentioned in other written sources.
But the OP is saying he doesn’t need that outside evidence.
Well, what OP explicitly says is no need for contemporary primary-source accounts, but that seems to leave the opening for indirect or circumstantial evidence, for instance, if third parties refer to King Omri “of the House of David” it’s suggestive (but not conclusive) that somewhere there may have been someone involved in the founding of a royal house who was referred to as “David”. As mentioned, that has zero bearing if that “David” was in any way like the character in the Bible (e.g. as in, is Shakespeare’s Falstaff vs. real-life Sir John Fastolf).
One possible interpretation could be: “If you accept the bible in general, who is the first character that is supposed to be understood as a real person?” Of course the answer will still differ from denomination to denomination.
For example, our catholic religion classes in school taught that Adam and Eve were not real people.