Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events

[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I'm curious to know (and I've asked this in many discussions elsewhere without much luck) if anyone knows of historial writings or evidence which corroborates any of the events of the bible.

---

There's plenty of reputable work in this area. Of course,not all the events can be corroborated. [QUOTE][b]By corroboration I mean unequivecable corroboration.[/QUOTE][/b]You'll be lucky! I doubt if a single event in ancient history could be unequivocally corroborated. Ancient history is just too ancient!

quote:

---

I ask for this reason :: much of the conviction of creationists
against evolution, abiogenesis, etc. is founded in the belief
that the bible is a complete and accurate record of ancient
events.

---

Your problem here is sorting out what is an historical event from a mythical event or legend. It is not too difficult to find historical sources to corroborate much of Hebrew history as presented in the Bible. As you read about ancient near east history you will discover the Bible to be a reasonably reliable and quite comprehensive source.
[b] [QUOTE]I would like to know if this belief has a foundation in testable cross-corroboration, or is a matter of faith.[/b][/QUOTE]But what belief? The belief that the Bible is a good source of material for ancient history when used in conjunction with other historical methods? Sure - virtually every archaeologist in the world agrees with that. Or the belief that the Bible is inerrant in matters of all human and pre-human earthly history? That belief isn't based on the accuracy of the text, but on other theological considerations. If reasonable accuracy was the prime grounds for belief, we would all be as well worshipping Julius Caesar and reading his Gallic Wars for spiritual enlightenment.However, these web sites may be of interest to you. They present a reliable picture of ancient near east archaeology and history which accords reasonably well with the historical matter which can be gleaned from the historical, theological and poetic documents of the ancient Hebrews. http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/nepage.htm
http://archnet.asu.edu/
http://www.imj.org.il/archaeology/index.html

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AARD:
MP - I haven't had time to digest your sites yet.

---

Or my post apparently.[b] [QUOTE]But I found some inaccuracies in the first one. In general, the site appears to be taking the biblical account of the Hebrews and inserting that account into the actual verifiable history. Not very scholarly. If you read the sites I posted before, you will see what the archeology actually shows.[/b][/QUOTE]I think the sites I posted are quite good actually and certainly show the methodology in general use in ancient near east studies. I think your comment that the first one "inserts" the Biblical account into "actual verifiable history" is a bit odd to say the least. One has to wonder "actual verifiable history" means. A historian who did not take account of the laws, genealogies and legends compiled by the Hebrews would be very foolish indeed. The Bible at the least is a rich source of historical discourse - from it can be gleaned much of what the Hebrews "thought" their history was and this is of enormous value.
[b] [QUOTE]If you want to get into specifics, please present any evidence that the Hebrews were in Egypt, show the evidence that there was a King David or Solomon of Israel, etc.[/b][/QUOTE]I love getting into specifics, but I'm not sure why you are asking me this? I have no idea whether there was a David or Solomon. I think it most likely that there was, but whether David was a great king or a tribal guerilla leader from a rich traditional music background (like Radovan Karadic in Bosnia) I have no idea. I suspect the latter. Solomon, I imagine was a legendary king with his roots in a real character or a melding of characters: like King Arthur.
[b] [QUOTE]Here is one that is particularly devistating to the chronology of the bible and your first site. According to the bible, Abraham traded camels. The latest evidence for domesticated Camels in this region dates to about 1000 BC. Thus, the latest date you can give to Abraham is ~1000 BC, additional evidence puts it closer to 500 BC. Of course you still have to find some evidence that someone named Abraham was leading the Hebrews.[/b][/QUOTE]You're right, I'm devastated! And I always thought Abraham was a quasi-legendary founding figure onto whom was projected the aspirations and qualities of the age that wrote his story: you know, in the way that early philosophers appear in 15th century dress in renaissance paintings.BTW, when you are "refuting" references and posts you should take some care to be accurate in your criticisms: the site I quoted does not mention camels in association with Abraham. Neither I nor the site in question is attempting to claim that the Bible is right in its details.I certainly would not claim that Abraham as a historical figure can be pinned down with the accuracy of, say, Herod Agrippa. But I do say that the Bible is reasonably correct as historical documents of its age and nature go.Your example was merely devastating to any facade of care, accuracy or objectivity you were attempting to erect.Oh by the way I looked at your sites from the other topic. One (at bidstrup.com) was amateurish and jumped to conclusions far too readily: the idenstification of the Hyksos with the Hebrews is an example of wishful thinking leaping over patchy evidence. I am however a great admirer of Ze'ev Herzog, though the web site you list is a somewhat polemical review of his work rather than a sound intruduction to near east history in context: he deserves much better representation than that. Visit his faculty site at Tel Aviv University for better links: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/
And your other site at BibleOrigins.net ... o dear! Clearly written by someone who thinks he's a very clever fellow to discover that an ancient document isn't accurate about what was already rather old history when it was compiled.I'm no fundamentalist - read my posts if you like to find out. But I do take the Bible seriously and I don't think polemics get you anywhere. The sites you quote all look at history in a very old fashioned way as if dates and personalities were all that mattered. No discussion of the Bible as text or as discourse or with any of the modern techniques of historical research.

quote:

---

No need to get nasty right away.

---

It's just a bit of sarcasm. I tend to be very sarcastic, but its not personal. So long as you neither intolerant or prejudiced I'm sure we'll get on just fine.First, let me explain my general position which underpins some of our misunderstanding. I find that too many posts on this board assume that one is either a fundamentalist who takes the Bible to be innerant in all details or that one is out to discredit the Bible. Yet, in fact, most people fall into neither category.Secondly, I guess I need to clear up what I mean by "reasonably accurate" as it is an inaccurate expression. Your concern seems to be with chronology. This, to me, is a rather narrow view of what history is about and tends to obscure more important aspects of historical study.There is a huge gulf at present between a traditionalist view of Biblical history and those who regard "Ancient Israel" as fictituous - "sprung out of the fantasy of Biblical historiographers and their modern paraphrasers" as Niels Lemche puts it. In Lemche's view (and Herzog's), Biblical chronology touches real events at certain points, Sennecaherib's campaign of 701 BCE for example, but the version of events is so elaborated that apart from these "points of contact" the history is virtually useless for constructing geo-political chronologies.My point, is that the Bible is reasonably accurate in that it does touch these points of contact, but what one makes of the details is something quite else. Sennacherib did indeed invade, Jerusalem was not conquered, but according to the Babylonian account this is because Hezekiah paid large amounts of tribute. Seeing through the fog of differing accounts which do not reconcile, requires us to filter out the polemics and understand the author's world view.In doing this, however, we must be aware that the modern historians and archaeologists also have a world view and can take a polemical stance and this also has to be included in our assessments.The article by Ze'ev Herzog you link to is a great example. This was written for and published in a left-wing Israeli newspaper (Ha'aretz) in 1999 at a time when the peace process was torn over concessions about Israeli and Paletinian control of territory. Ha'aretz supports the "land for peace" position, even today. This "world view" is relevant to the account by Herzog that "Ancient Israel" didn't exist as often believed and that the territory and kingdoms were relatively unimportant and volatile.Now, I'm not saying that Herzog is wrong - I'm saying that his discourse is also part of the history we must interpret.When we look at Biblical figures such as Abraham, we cannot tie them into other sources of history, but we can get a general idea of what the "world view" of Bible authors was as concerns their history. And this is of enormous value as it informs our assessment of their historical record and enables us to correlate it with other records - the Bablyonian archival annals for example and to understand how the various discourese of history in the near east interact.I guess if I can put it simply it would be this - the Biblical account is reasonmably accurate in that it is a useful resource when correlating historical accoutns which have points of contact. It is not an annal in the sense of the Babylonian archives, there is little inscriptional evidence (highly polemic) of the Egyptian sort, but it is important in its own role as a historical discourse.

And here is another excellent article on the various schools of thought on the relationship between archaeology and the Bible in Israel today. http://artemis.austinc.edu/acad/HWC22/Rome/Archaeology_vs._the_Bible.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
The problem with the Dead Sea Scrolls is that after independant translators released some of the original translations the RCC had to revise some of its stances partially resulting in Vatican 2. Since then the Vatican has obtained exlusive rights to the scrolls and only allows church translators to review and translate them. Leading to a very suspicious translations that cannot be verified by 3rd parties.

---

Rubbish! And malicious rubbish at that. The vatican has no exclusive right, and the scrolls are being published continually, in particualr through the Clarendon press series. And you do not need to rely on either translation or transcription - the scrolls are also being published in photographic form, so that all you need to is get yourself expert in early Hebrew language and palaeogrpahy. Difficult indeed, but not a barrier to verification by 3rd parties.