In Hebrew School I learned the Bible - post Abraham - as history. Though there wasn’t probably any sense of history at all when the OT was written, just stories which would have been seen as history if anyone asked. In any case the reason that Bible was written was mostly political. And indeed the feel is valuable, but you can say the same of any writing from long ago.
That is pretty much my view as well. There is functionally no evidence for anything in the Bible prior to around 800BC. No Genesis, no Exodus, no Judges, no Saul, no David, no Solomon. We are around 200 years into the divided kingdoms when we start to get mentions in other countries’ documents or get archeological agreement.
Did David exist? Maybe. There was certainly a legendary Davidic family that claimed descent from him. But there is no evidence that he did anything that he was credited with. And he certainly didn’t conquer from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Likewise it doesn’t look like any of the building projects credited to Solomon were actually built at that time. Both of them are like Arthurian legends. If they existed at all they weren’t very much like how they were represented.
The E, J, P, and D sources were writing from legends liberally sprinkled with individual beliefs. Historical fact was not a focus of any of them. Instead they all had specific religious and political viewpoints they were putting forward. In fact it appears that P was written as a response to E-J. And D was written as a response to P. When the Redactor (Ezra?) came along he combined works that were actually written in opposition to each other.
In the same vein, the Gospels were not written by people that were direct witnesses. Mark clearly was not directly familiar with Palestine or Judaism. He gets geography, scripture, and Jewish practices wrong. And both Matthew and Luke are clearly based on Mark.
Basically the only NT author we are sure of is Paul. And of his letters there are only 7 out of the 14 that everyone agrees that Paul wrote. Basically nothing else in the NT can be treated as a primary source.
So, you think that Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian exile, etc etc never happened?:rolleyes:
Hell even for the “mythic” portions of the Bible, like Noah, the Exodus story etc, there is evidence that something happened.
Absolutely love that video.
No, there isn’t.
I voted “I believe the Bible is historically accurate in very few, if any details.”
It is threads like this one that cause me to wish the mods here would have found a way to forgive **Diogenes’ **transgressions. He would have added depth to this discussion.
It’s true; there have been few if any posters on the SDMB with comparable knowledge of Bible historicity.
I agree; I’d say the same thing about The Iliad, for example. Tells you a lot about the culture, society and attitudes of the time as well as specific facts - you can believe that Achaeans wore bronze armour without believing that Hera and Apollo took sides in wars.
The Bible is obviously different in many ways but it is still useful for its historical context. Jefferson had a somewhat similar thought when he took pruning sheers to it and removed the supernatural elements.