Answer180

	Sign In Sign-Up

Answer180

Question180

How much of the bible do you think is historical as opposed to mythological?

I figure most of the places are historical to some degree (It's likely Jericho didn't have walls, but there was Jericho), as well as some of the people (Lots of people are well documented), but all in all, it's just hogwash. The finnish national epic/saga the Kalevala has similar actions and people, and always the places are something that everybody knows are there, but just far enough that likely noone has been there. (Kalle Helenius #907)

I think that depends on how you are separating out "historical" vs. "mythological", whether or not you are making a distinction between myth and folklore, and whether you are speaking of the Hebrew Scriptures or the Greek Scriptures. (I prefer not to use the phrases "Old Testament" and "New Testament".)

The cities, territories and political jurisdictions mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures are, by and large, historical. (Jericho existed. Egypt was ruled by Pharaohs, a group of Semites called the Tribe of Dan controlled a fairly specific piece of territory, etc.) There are significant parts of the scriptures which recount, in general, verified historic facts such as the conquest and total dissolution of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, the conquest and latter repatriation of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon, and in the deuterocanonical books of Maccabees, the persecution of the Judeans by the Greek Ptolemies and the rebellion for independence won by Judas Maccabee.

A very large part of those scriptures recounts *folklore*, ie a body of oral tradition that was ancient by the time it was written down in its current form. The stories of Abraham visiting Egypt, the move for Jacob and his household to Egypt and the latter Exodus, for example, are most likely tied to the historical invasions, settlement, wars and departure from Egypt by a large number of Semitic people collectively called the Hyksos. I use "folklore" to mean traditional legend most likely based on fact but "decorated" by generations of retellings and a hazy, "those where the days" feeling. I also use "folklore", perhaps too broadly, to include the rationale behind customs and traditions that remain intact such as the why of circumcision or the reason for celebrating Passover or Sukkot.

Another significant division in the Hebrew Scriptures involves the laws necessary for maintaining the security of a (at first) nomadic people. These laws are primarily to provide a sanitation code in an age that knew nothing of germ theory, to mediate conflicts between group members, to define concepts of "property", "justice" and "duty", and most importantly to provide for tribal identity. While these laws are given mythic origin, it would be improper to class them as myth.

This actually leaves only a fairly small part of the Hebrew Scriptures as being mythological. Within "mythological", I include attempts at giving a cause (such as the creation of life and the destruction of the Decapolis -- which included Sodom and Gomorrah -- by sulfur and fire) to inexplicable events, and the "decoration" or justification of legendary or historical events. That several groups of Semites invaded the area known as Canaan and brutally conquered the non-Semitic Canaanites is historic fact; that they did so at the command of their god of war is myth.

Regarding the Greek Scriptures, I would place the Gospels and Acts as folklore decorated with myth and Revelation as pure myth. The letters which make up the bulk of the Greek Scriptures belong in a different category, that of personal opinion. While they recount myth, folklore and historic fact, they primarily reflect the subjective views of the authors. (Gregory Gadow #1897)

Depends on what you mean by "historical", really. I think that the OT does have some basis in history, even if some of it is made up of folklore. I get the idea that it was a sloppily compiled and edited account of one tribe and it's beliefs.

The NT I am somewhat less sure about. I get the idea Paul really heavily messed with it if he didn't in fact write it himself.

Then you have got the intervening years where anything could have been done to it.

To take a bit of British folklore as an example the King Arthur myth has been changed numerous times (often to reflect the prevailing political ideology of the day) and has been used by Kings to support /their/ claim to the throne.

I see no reason why the same shouldn't have happened to the Bible. ("The" Owen #1883)

Given that the "less fanciful" stories (even _that_ is being generous) like Moses floating down the river are ripped off from other religions and cultures (Egyptian, in this case), and that in many cases the "bible as archeology" ends up a case of the Texas sharpshooter, I highly doubt that the bible could have more than 5% chance of being useful.

The Incas have no written language, their religion is dead, and yet their stories passed down by word of mouth are more useful to archeologists than the bible is.

Let's stick to the written records of Rome, Greece, Egypt and Phonecia if we want to check facts on the Israel of 2000 years ago. At least those societies were in the habit of being accurate when fitting their myths to facts. (Bob Dog #153)

I'm afraid we'll never know for certain.

Oh, but you asked what *I* think. Well, some of it is historical. There certainly were individuals named David and Solomon and Nebudchadrezzer, and they lived about when the bible said they lived, and they performed some of the things the bible said they did. There were also places like Babylon and Tyre and Jericho and Ararat.

The trick is to corraborate what the bible says with independent sources, which has been done in the above cases.

In others, such as the mythical Eden, no corraboration has ever been accomplished. So we must conclude (absent other evidence) that no such place ever existed and that the events presumed to have taken place there never took place.

It's not wise to read the bible as history unless there is corraborating evidence from independent sources. (chibiabos)

That's actually a fairly hard question. Much of the Bible is not even meant to be historical/mythological: proverbs, psalms, most of the prophets, song of songs, etc are meant to be lyrical. Over in the New Testament much of the epistles are meant to explain doctrine, not to be historical or mythological either.

Now, given that, and looking only at the items that ->are<- meant to be taken as a description of history (Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Kings I and II, the Gospels) then the answer would be that very little could actually be described as historical. I would wager on a mass exodus from Egypt, wars in Palestine, the exiles in Babylon and so on, but very little about specific characters or specific actions. (Arturo Magidin #257)

Much of the first part, Genesis, Exodus, etc. is clearly mythology. It is not even original, as many of the same stories about creation, the garden of Eden, and a great flood, can be found in Babylonian and Sumerian legends. In another thread, the parallel between the snake in the Eden story and the Prometheus legend has already been described.

There also is some of the hero-myth making, which seems to be common in many cultures. A great leader rises from humble beginnings, overcomes many difficulties, conquers oppression, and leads his followers to safety and/or glorious victory. It could be Moses, it could be Aeneas, it could be any one of the main characters in a number of other myths and fairy tales.

Is any of the bible factual? Many place names are real, Jericho, Jerusalem, Egypt, the Sea of Galilee, etc. Many historical peoples are also mentioned, Babylonians, Assyrians, Philistines, etc. Archaeological remains of Solomon's temple, and other structures mentioned in the bible were found. I don't know how strong the evidence for Solomon is, but someone built the temple.

Many passages of the bible seem to describe historical events. Much of it is concerned with wars carried on by the Hebrews. The invasion and conquest is one. I don't know if they came from Egypt or not but the Hebrews may have entered what is now Israel 3500 or more years ago and seized control of the country. What happened? Who knows. One prominent battle is the one in which they seized Jericho. Archaeologists have found that Jericho, one of the oldest settlements on earth, has been destroyed and rebuilt several times. Did a group of people parading around and blowing on trumpets bring the walls down. I think not. That part of the world is particularly susceptible to earthquakes, and stone or masonry walls would be especially susceptible. The Hebrews may have attacked after an earthquake, before the inhabitants had time to rebuild their defenses.

Other wars are mentioned. Palestine is at the crossroads of three continents. Great powers, including those of today, have always recognized the strategic importance of that real estate. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, and finally the Romans all occupied the area for some time. That is historical fact, but did the events described in the bible actually happen that way? Again without evidence, likely not. Certainly none of the conquerors wrote of anything magical or mysterious caused by the Hebrews and their god.

I think that some of the bible is based on historical events, but embroidered and embellished to the point that it is extremely difficult to extract the grain of truth from all of the mythology. I think that it is necessary to look for corroboration from other sources, before one places any value on what is described in the bible.

Anyway that's my two cents, if worth that much. (John Hachmann #1782)

Well, there's a lot of things in the Bible that are obviously mythological. The creation story, the story of Noah's ark, and the story of the Tower of Bable are all clear examples of this.

There's also a lot in the Bible that isn't intended to be history (the laws, the Pslams, and so forth).

For the remainder, it's difficult to say. When you discount the miraculous (which was a common device used to spice up stories before the advent of modern history -- see Suetonius' history of _The Twelve Ceasars_ as a great example of this), much of it seems like a plausible account of Judaic history, although much of it clearly falls into the catagory of history written by the victors (e.g., the slaughter of the worshippers of Ba'al and the justification that the worshippers performed child sacrifice).

Unfortunately, it's largely impossible to be certain which parts are genuine history and which parts are folk tale (e.g., the story of Abraham has elements that sound plausible and elements that sound like embellishments, but no clear delineation between them), sans independent evidence. (Andrew Lias)

Not much, and what little there is, is in the old testament. The problem there is that some of it is obviously mythical and some is verifiable historic fact, but much of it is in that area where myth and history have merged. We don't have much room to criticize. When I was in school children were still taught that George Washington and the Cherry Tree was solemn fact, and a bit further on that there were a half-dozen causes of the Civil War and slavery really had nothing to do with it (the Southern apologist school is now ebbing, but it was in full flow in my day). (Lars Eighner)

History is such a hard concept to apply to the Bible. The serious efforts to record "history" as in the books of Genesis thru Ezra were nearly all mixed in with myths and oral legends - certainly there was no ability on the part of the writers to do "research" or "archeology" as we know them today.

Recent research and archeology show that *dependable* histical facts are few and far between in the Bible. I'd guess around 10% of the Protestant Bible is good, hard facts. Another 30% is just mixed-up legends, misrepresented, misinterpreted political posturings. The rest is myths and gibberish. At a guess. (Nemo #1331)

Click here to return to master question page.