The Bible is most likely as historically accurate as can be expected for a work of the time However, you can't really cite it as a source because it contains material other than history itself, true chronicles of history shouldn't contain a significant amount of religious rhetoric and/or claims
Because it's an anthology that collects ancient myths and less ancient genealogies and slightly more recent letters spanning around a 2000 year period written by over 40 people in 3 languages. You have to evaluate each book independently as a historical document.
>>16585 >the bible contradicts everything we know about history Not really. There are some parts of the Bible which validate the existence of other independent historical figures, Augustus Caesar for example.
>>16380 Well it is wrong on major issues. For instance the Jews were never slaves in Egypt, they were local Canaanites. There was no census taken which required people to return to their places of birth, so the story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem is wrong as well.
I mean that's a hypothesis - and not one without its own bias's. Reaching that far back into history is always a problem, whatever the culture/religion, but Cannanite pottery is not proof that the Hebrew people were Cannanites...
In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus. Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch. If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.
>>16380 the same reason we regard most things from hat time as reliable. the majority of Roman writers for example just outright made shit up for poetic license, not a lot of it is 100 percent reliable but at least the bible has a long recorded history and apocrypha which backs it up as at least legitimate and from a set time period.
Thread replies: 15 Thread images: 1
Thread DB ID: 68859
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.