some religions like the first bit, some like the second the disclaimer page is missing from the front that states that any similarity to persons dead or living…
but are there any other books that can back up the good book? you know, for cross-referencing and the like, to coroborate dates, facts, events etc. etc.?
Absolutely. First of all, the bible coroborates itself. It hasn’t always been one book. It’s a collection of documents. The easiest example is how the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell the same stories.
It’s also my understanding that in the Vatican Library there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages.
I once read a book about jack and jill, i was very young, it made me who i am today.
There are numerous ‘Documents’ to prove the validity of the Bible, such as a column in the British Museum depicting Hebrew slaves being marched to exile (ref with Issaiah, Jeremiah etc.)
One piece of evidence I find most fascinating is the debate of the exile, some say during Rameses II, in the 13th Century BC, others during the 15th Century. If the 15th Century is followed, the Armana letters, a series of clay tablets from folk in Canaan back this up.
They are letters to the Egyptian Pharoah, dated around 1400BC, asking for relief from a bunch of invaders, called ‘Habiru’ there is no evidence to suggest they were the Hebrews, but the similarity is a bit close, don’t you reckon?
This is a complex topic, and it depends on what you mean by back up. I assume that simply a restatement of the Bible story by a believer (Matthew and Luke, for instance) would not really be considered corroboration. My focus here is on Old Testament first.
Some of the events described in the later Old Testament books are documented by outside sources. For instance, we have both the Biblical version and the Babylonian versions of the wars mentioned in Jeremiah, in the 500s BC.
Back before that, things get less clear. First off, remember that the archaeological record is greatly incomplete. Some buried stuff gets found, some doesn’t; some stuff is preserved, some rots away to dust.
Second, remember that history as we know it today is very different from ancient history. In ancient times, history was written by the winners, and history was meant to praise your gang and to put down the others. So, a story of the defeat of Pharaoh (Son of the Sun, a god incarnate) at the hands of a rabble of escaped slaves would NOT have made it onto the tomb carvings.
Finally, remember that the languages and pronunciations were different and not standardized, and that we have only a vague glimpse into most of them. Thus, whether the Egyptian reference to Habiru really is the same as the Israelite term for themselves 'Ivrit (which came into English as “Hebrew”) … well, OK, some similarity of letters, and the H and 'I are similar, as B and V are similar in Semitic languages. However, that’s pretty much speculation based on similar sounding names. That kind of evidence would lead us to think that George (Washington) and George (III of England) were the same person.
As you get back into the earliest reaches of Bible stories, you will find minorities of archaeologists holding all sorts of weird-- um, interesting perspectives. Some don’t believe that David and Solomon existed, let alone Moses, Joseph, Joshua, and the earlier Patriarchal crew. These people are scholars and archaeologists; they could not hold such a viewpoint if there were clear, firm, unconditional corroboration from outside sources. (A treaty on a stele between Solomon and some Pharoah would do nicely, but such a thing has not been found yet.)
Well, I saw a documentary once about a fellow (I think his name was Illinois Smith, or something) who actually found the Ark of the Covenant during WWII. The Nazis actually beat him to it, but the Ark melted all of them, so this archaeologist was still able to find it. Unfortunately, because of government red tape, it got hidden away in some government warehouse somewhere. Isn’t that corraoration?
Some of the events in the Acts are historically
corroborated, especially in Rome. A few of the early friends and supporters of Peter and Paul were real persons who were wealthy enough to own large houses. Some of the oldest churches in the city are named after these people who
lent their support to the early Church. One, I think, still incorporates some architectural elements of the original house.