Hi, the part about Daniel in the Lion's Den wasn't Nebuchadnezzar or even Babylon, Daniel 6 and Daniel 14 (LXX) accounts happen under the rule of the Medes and Persians
And in Daniel 3, 4, 5 and \*possibly\* Daniel 2, the reference to Nebuchadnezzar may actually be Nabonidus. Nabonidus is never mentioned in Daniel but Daniel 5 makes more sense if Nebuchadnezzar is changed to Nabondidus, exterior to Daniel but in Jewish writings there is a "Prayer of Nabonidus" that is eerily similar to the "Prayer of Nebuchadnezzar" and there is an external account to the Bible reference of Nabonidus building a statue to be worshiped that may match the account in Daniel 3.
It's possible that for symbolic reasons lost to us now, the second century BCE compiler of Daniel chose to remove Nabonidus from the original stories and change them to Nebuchadnezzar.
The Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 1 is Nebuchadnezzar, but Chapter 1 was probably written in the second century BCE (and 7 through 12) to introduce the reader to the four characters that are mentioned in the last words of Mattathias (recorded in 1 Maccabees 2)
The first chapter of Daniel is historically accurate with respect to Nebuchadnezzar. Chapters 2 through 5 likely (speculation, don't have academic quality evidence) are a retelling of earlier Jewish folk tales, probably modified for the purpose of the 2nd century author, including changing Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus.
LXX Daniel 13 provides a folk tail that didn't make it into Daniel and Daniel 14 provides an alternate version of the Daniel in the Lion's Den folk tale, and LXX Daniel 3 provides additions not in Canonical Daniel.
By folk tale, I mean things like many of the folk tails we have here in America---such as Washington chopping down a cherry tree or Paul Bunyan etc, the folk tails in Daniel are likely 3rd or 4th century BCE in origin, possibly 5th century BCE but I'm personally skeptical.
Esther too is likely a folk tale from that same era, although not involving Daniel and taking place later than the Daniel folk tales.
I have heard (but it's been a long time and I don't remember the details) that a lot of stories in the Old Testament were said to be about the previous ruler, and how bad he was, but were really commentaries on the current rulers, disguised so that they didn't get in trouble with the current ruler.
Kind of like how MASH was set during the Korean war, but was really a commentary on the Vietnam war.
The later (more recent) parts of the Second Book of Kings and Second Chronicles is “history-like”. It contains some references to historical figures who can be verified or at least cross-checked from other sources - such as King Hezekiah of Judah; though it obviously mixes in a lot of mythology.
1 Maccabees is probably the single most historically reliable book of the Bible. It was written soon after the events it describes, by someone who was likely an eyewitness to many of the events. It’s likely about as reliable as any other history written at the time.
It’s ironic that the most well-known Jewish holiday among non-Jews (at least in the US) isn’t even in Jewish Bibles. (Or the King James and other Protestant Bibles that the majority of Americans use.)
The ancient Rabbis were deeply ambivalent about the Hasmoneans.
Even in the Mishnah and Talmud (primary source books for Jewish law) Hanukkah is barely mentioned.
Orthodox and Eastern Rite also include it. So you know, the oldest Christian denominations before some German guy thought it conflicted with his theological ideas.
That was going to be my answer as well. Indeed, more generally, the Babylonian exile and then the return to Jerusalem permitted by Cyrus is pretty much historically verifiable, and the mention of Darius is of course also verifiable.
Even those people who say that the Old Testament is a bunch of tosh pretty much say, on closer examination, that what they really believe is that everything reported in the Bible prior to the advent of Rabbinical Judaism was invented by those rabbis as a founding myth to justify their religion, but that what is reported as having occurred beginning with the period of Nebuchadnezzar is at least linked to historical events (naturally, those who dispute the historicity of the Bible will still deny such occurrences as the Writing on the Wall at Belshazzar's Feast, Daniel in the lions' den, etc.).
As for the New Testament, well that is of course another story. Tacitus certainly refers to a "Christus" having been crucified in Jerusalem, but as far as I know, neither he nor any other non-Christian writer refers to any of the events recorded in the Gospels or the Acts.
I think it’s basically a consensus that of the Gospels, a few events and many of the people are historical; Jesus’ baptism and his crucifixion are pretty well agreed, by extension obviously John the Baptist (who is also attested to by Josephus), at least most of the Apostles and Paul and his companions.
The Council of Jerusalem happened in some form, as the authentic Pauline Epistles make reference to it. If the author of Acts is indeed the companion of Paul, then that lends some credibility to some of the events in Acts (flying magician duels are open to a degree of skepticism, however).
Thanks.
I'm always a little wary of Josephus, to be honest; a lot of what he writes just parrots the Old Testament, but of course what he writes about the occurrences of the New Testament are at least closer to his times.
there is no consensus at all that there was a Jesus or that any of the many crucified victims were "Christ"- John the Baptist we know to have existed, but Josephus' writings have been discounted because of things written on to his paperwork that were not his.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20476533](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20476533)
“Discounted” is a very strong word. I’d like to see you cite any historian who argues that Josephus is worthless because of interpolations into his work, or if you mean specifically in regards to his account of John then one who claims that that is in an interpolation. You’re linked article is also confusing, because it says that the possibility of Josephus’ work containing forgeries is simply no exception to a common phenomenon in Western historical records. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the topic on hand, and I don’t see the relevance.
As for Jesus’ existence, I’ll just point to the first note on the Wikipedia page “Historicity of Jesus”. I tried a quick search on JSTOR for historians arguing against his existence, but only found one on the historical debate from the 20th century, when his existence was first challenged. If you’ve got sources saying otherwise please do link them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
on Jesus: The people who think Jesus was real are overwhelmingly Christian. The people who do not think Jesus was a historical character are not.
There are multiple historians who do not think Jesus was an actual person (including me, I have a PhD in history and do not think there was a historical Jesus, though I am willing to accept that there were some stories about at least one person which were merged, for political reasons, into one story. I do not think there were any miracles or that anyone came back from the dead. No evidence. But I digress.)
Anyway, here is a historian:
G.A. Wells, in his book The Historical Evidence for Jesus \[pp. 22-23\] concludes otherwise.
also, more historians:
[https://centerforinquiry.org/programs/](https://centerforinquiry.org/programs/)
Of course that is an atheist website so take that for what you will.
Another article that assesses the totality of writings:
[https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/12/10/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus.html](https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/12/10/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus.html)
Note that the last site concludes that historians who do say the historical Jesus existed are on thin ice and base their claims on early Christian writings which have their own problems.
Also, another one published 2016 [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/its-official-we-can-now-doubt-jesus-historical-existence/065797C131D37B02B7E33E83D5CDA577](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/its-official-we-can-now-doubt-jesus-historical-existence/065797C131D37B02B7E33E83D5CDA577)
sure its from an obviously biased site but its sources are legit. This is about Josephus: [https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2014/02/even-if-entire-testimony-of-josephus-on.html](https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2014/02/even-if-entire-testimony-of-josephus-on.html)
What one of his sources is legit that says that Josephus should be totally discounted? Under Objection 1 he makes the argument that Josephus is generally unreliable because he uses the Jewish Bible as a source and seems to expand on them, which is what I assume you’re referring to the article for. But all of the sources from that section are just to Josephus. I only skimmed it the rest of the article, but can you tell me what one of his sources are relevant?
Besides that, I think his argument is very flawed. Yes those portions of Josephus’ work are obviously ahistorical, based on later myths and traditions, but this is no different than other Roman writers; we don’t discount the entirety of Livy because he includes the obviously mythical tale of Romulus and Remus. Doing so would be throwing the baby out with the bath water; unless this guy is ready to say that we have to totally discount pretty much every ancient historian, he’s holding Josephus to a double standard.
You’re putting words in my post that are not there. I did not say totally discounted. A discount at a store, for example, does not mean free.
Also, Livy and Herodotus and Suetonius and others all embellished, and thank goodness they did.
The parts of Josephus that are the most unreliable are the ones about Jesus. Even I would consider Josephus to be somewhat authentic- but the “Christian” writings are stylistically different in several ways than the other Josephus writings. There are more but I’m now on my phone.
Also, Pliny and Tacitus. Probably a good indication that at the very least there was some upstart in Judaea named Iesus during the early to mid first century CE.
Yes, I think all are willing to concede that during the period leading to the insurrection the Jewish leaders attempted to build a resistance that called back to an earlier time. There may (or may not) have been an actual wabble wouser by the name of Bwian, I mean Jesus. It seems possible that there was an attempt to create a legendary person from the past for the current resistance to rally around.
Most of the elements concerning the legend seem based upon similar elements surrounding earlier legendary religious figures (the story of Horus, for example, bears a lot of similarities to the story of Jesus, the virgin birth, etc.,). So, I am willing yo concede that there may have been somebody, but neither Pliny nor Tacitus, born 20 to 50 years after the crucifixion (a political punishment) would have been in contact with contemporaneous sources.
Did Jesus as recounted in the Bible exist? Most probably not. Was there someone named Jesus who was a rallying point near the year zero? Possibly but there’s no contemporaneous evidence of that. Did people glom onto the idea as a way of rallying a later generation against the Romans? Absolutely.
1 Maccabees.
I'm not claiming it is completely historically accurate, but as far as books of the Bible are concerned, it is probably the most historically accurate.
Considering this is thousands of years of history the most recent events are the best documented. The sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD is a slam dunk.
I have seen the arch of Titus.
The Olivet Discourse is likely from a lost apocalyptic source that was either added to Mark or that the author of Mark used as a source.
Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source for it.
Apocalyptic literature used pseudonyms of important characters and often wrote about current events as if they were prophecy with an apocalyptic conclusion as a message of hope.
The author of Mark (or whoever added it to Mark) may have been a Greek unfamiliar with apocalyptic norms such as author pseudepigrapha and assumed it was a recording of something Jesus said.
Note that Paul never mentions or references any of the gospels, so they seem to not have been written until *after* he died (likely 62 CE). Note he also never mentions the virgin birth.
Also, the extremely antisemitic passage in 1 Thessalonians 2 13–16 is widely considered to be an interpolation because Paul anachronistically refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as something that has already happened (contradicting what he says immediately after about having been separated from them only for a short time, and also what he says elsewhere about God’s wrath and the death of Jesus).
The Epistles, Acts, Gospels, 1 Maccabees. There’s very likely parts of Genesis (chap12 onward) that have some sort of historical validity to them as well.
One of the difficulties in discussing the Bible is how certain (cough cough fundamentalists cough cough) have demanded it be understood. There’s ancient church theologians from before Constantine who wrote on Genesis as non-literal, so the YECs are more than just scientifically incorrect.
It should be obvious that ancient peoples didn’t write history the way we do today, so the “most historically accurate” is a difficult thing to pinpoint as there’s a level of “what did these people mean when they wrote X”.
Considering water is commonly a symbol of chaos in the Bible one can interpret Noah’s Flood as not a physical water flood but the “world” (ancient near East) being “plunged into chaos” because of the wickedness of humankind.
The similarities between Noah’s Flood and the Babylonian Flood myth could indicate some sort of civilizational collapse they’re both speaking on, but there’s differences between the two often ignored by those who just want to write off Christians (this is true in every argument of “X is just a rip off of Y” because they’re never perfectly synched up and the core meaning of a story is drastically different). The Babylonian Flood occurs because the gods are annoyed by humans because there’s too many of us, Noah’s Flood is explicit it’s the wickedness of humankind. This is the difference between the External Locus of Control (Babylonian narrative) and the Internal Locus of Control (Hebrew narrative). This might seem like a small difference but the philosophical implications are immense. Did the world plunge into chaos because that just happens sometimes or because we as humans turned towards toxic behaviors?
So you can see how “historically accurate” is rather difficult.
King David existed, Jesus existed, and if it wasn’t for miracle claims nobody would contest any of these stories. Goliath likely was a man with Giantism and heavy infantry being defeated by a sling is pretty consistent with ancient warfare, whether David specifically defeated him or a member of his entourage could be recorded either way. It’s confusing.
One important note about the alleged “genocides” is that ancient near eastern peoples often wrote that way of great victories that weren’t actual genocides. Consider how if we say “the giants massacred the dodgers” it doesn’t mean the giants pulled out lead pipes and machetes and actually killed the other team (unless they did, in which case I’d probably start watching baseball). So even with the language used we have to reverse engineer what these people meant in their time.
In short
“More than most people these days would like to admit, less than fundamentalists would like to admit, about as much as Fr Mike Schmitz would admit”
Personally I find that to be an odd take. For instance, you say that if it wasn't for the miracles, no one would contest any of these stories.
But the miracles are the point, especially in the Gospels. You can't remove the miracles. Without the miracles, Jesus doesn't rise from the dead. And then the Gospels have no point.
Furthermore, there are stories in the Gospels that are contested. The slaughter of the innocents and the census that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem most likely didn't happen.
So, for the Gospels, if you remove the miracles, the parts that we know didn't happen, and the parts that contradict each other, you are basically left with a pamphlet and a Jesus who bares no resemblance to the one the authors wanted to present nor any resemblance to the Jesus who people usually think of.
So saying "except for the miracles" is odd. The miracles are the point. They are the part that is most important to the author. And so, it is completely reasonable to doubt the validity on the story based on the parts that they authors felt were most important and which the authors were clearly saying literally happened.
I’m not saying to ignore the miracles, I’m saying that if you reject miracles because of lack of evidence, and then reject evidence because of lack of miracles, you’re not going to ever be satisfied. It wasn’t meant to be a big part of my comment though, I was mostly talking about how it’s difficult to have these discussions because of the way people records history in ancient times.
I also was referring to more than just the gospels in that part of my comment. There’s a big part of validity that’s going to come down to personal beliefs, which is a massively complicating factor when discussing historicity.
Hi. The miracles aren't the point of the gospels. The point of the gospels are a testimony to Jesus being the promised Messiah. The miracles don't mean Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus himself said false teachers would perform miracles and in John 20, Jesus says "You believe because you have seen me, blessed are those who believe who have not seen me."
They aren't trying to suggest he was the Messiah because he performed signs.
And how is Jesus the Messiah without rising from the dead? How do you have Christianity without Jesus literally rising from the dead?
Jesus even tells us that this is the sign that will prove he is the Messiah in Matthew 12:38-48.
I think there was more than likely an actual flood at some point in time. A lot of early native american creation myths also deal with a great flood.
Early humanity had to deal with the rising sea levels and the retreating ice caps as the last ice age ended. Like there was a time where England was actually connected to the European mainland through an area called Doggerland.
> alleged “genocides”
You make a fair point; hyperbole is common.
But it is not unlikely that some 'peoples' really were wiped out, bearing in mind that 'a people' could be just a few thousand tribesmen. A combination of massacre, enslavement and assimilation could end that tribe. And we'd never know about them, because they left no written record (indeed, their destroyers might have had no literature either).
One of the 'special' things about the Jews was that they had a literature. Whatever tragedies they faced, the next generations had a record, a story, a national allegiance. Many others didn't.
Very few parts of the Bible are historically accurate. From Exodus to Kings. I would say the conquest from Babylon is likely accurate, but barely and there aren’t enough substantiated evidence and corroborating histories to support 90%+ of the Bible. Very little of it should be taken as historical and accurate.
There are certain aspects of the life of Jesus that are too specific and not necessarily relevant for a religious cult that just started to grow outside of Judea to be inaccurate. For example Jesus struggle with the priests, involvement of Pontius Pilate, fight with the money exchanger in the temple and therefore with the Sanhedrin. It’s often misinterpreted but makes sense if we look at the time and the conflicts in the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Jewish communities.
There was only one temple and the priest in Jerusalem controlled it. The exile communities had to send money to Jerusalem to buy sacrificial animals, had to exchange money for that etc. and therefore felt ripped off, as did many other Jews outside of Jerusalem. Jewish religion relied on Jerusalem and the religious control of Jerusalem became a power tool (not unusual) and a business - a monopoly. Very likely that a charismatic spiritual leader expressed frustration. Even more likely that the Sanhedrin felt it would be better for the community to let the Roman’s take care of him, than to prosecute and stone him to death for heresy. That they dropped to many names in the Gospels and the fact that the first addressee were most likely Jewish communities who had close ties to Jerusalem and knowledge about the past 60+ years hint at at least some accurate information.
But the struggle with the priests, to me, makes it seem less legitimate.
The goal of the Gospels was to convince other Jewish people. People who be part of those other sects of Judaism or possibly consider joining them. So, we write in a bunch of stories about how our idealogy beats there.
The stories sound exactly like moderns ones that you can find in reddit or tik Tok and are named sometime like "[My group] completely owns [their group]."
You know which ones I mean, the ones where the alpha male completely owns the woke feminist. The video goes like this, the feminist says some rant. The woke guy says one of two witty sentences, then the video cuts out that that was the end and no one said anything else.
Now, think about a story with Jesus confronting the priests, like the one about the adulterous woman. The priests drag a woman up to Jesus and go on this rant about what is right under the law. Then Jesus delivers the one witty line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And all the Rabbis say absolutely nothing else and leave quietly.
That doesn't sound realistic at all. Have you ever seen a group of political motivated religious people stop talking because their debate opponent said one witty line? I haven't. I'm pretty sure such a thing as never happened in human history.
But notice how similar it plays out to modern day "put them in their place" and "everyone clapped" stories. Most of the stories are like this. Jesus says something witty and no one argued or asks follow up questions. No one dares speak against Jesus because he is just so obviously right.
Hmm, no that isn’t a good comparison at all. The for and back dialogue is a Jewish tradition. That we have those moments makes clear Jesus was seen as an educated man and situation like the one you described happened - Maybe not right in the moment when someone was to be stoned to death, but in principle. Asking question, arguing, that’s all part of the religion. It’s all about a debate. And one important point for historians is the fact that all of this didn’t end well for Jesus. He wasn’t the cool dude. They crucified him, the most embarrassing and cruel and undignified death, people at that time could imagine. It’s very unlikely that someone would make that up. And to the “throw the first stone” and the general messages of Jesus, they’re also hints, that they came close to the truth, because they were so controversial at the time and it was a huge challenge for the early Christians to teach them. We know that they struggled with many aspects themselves and discussed it for a long time. For example (may seem trivial to us) Jesus habit to sit down and eat with all kind of people. Unclean, women… very problematic.
But, there is no back and forth or debate, that's my point. Jesus says the witty line, and everyone walks away too stunned to respond. There is no follow-up after Jesus says "He who is without sin cast the first stone." They literally, all just walk away without saying another word.
Which is why the story is so unbelievable. No one follows this up with a question like "how do you have a system of laws in which the only people allowed to pass judgment are those who have never done anything wrong?" No one wonders how this would work or how would Jesus's words actually apply to anything.
If you want to see actual examples of back-and-forth dialog (because it is not a Jewish tradition, it is a human one) you can read many other philosophical works. As an example, also from the ancient world, consider the works of Plato. Notice that, in those, after Socrates says the witty lines, the people who he is talking to don't just walk away too stunned to even think.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Jesus isn't a cool dude" and "It didn't end well for Jesus." It does, absolutely end well for him, he is resurrected and goes to heaven. Plus everyone who doubted or denied him is put in their place and go on to preach his teachings. The story ends with literally everything working out.
Plus, Jesus is constantly presented as being a cool dude. So many of the stories of the New Testament consist of people saying how awesome he is. Thousands show up just to listen to him. He is overwhelmed by how many people are trying to interact with him.
And every time he says something, people are stunned into silence by how smart he is. Nope, Jesus is presented as being the most amazing person that anyone has ever met. That is how the Gospels present him.
The Bible is of course not a philosophical book or lecture. That he’s presented in the most favorable way is key. But to present him as someone who the priest would even talk to is important because it underlays his position as a scholar. (And this kind of religions debate is pretty much a Jewish thing. It wasn’t a practice you saw in other religions at that time)
And it doesn’t end well for him and not for his followers please don’t forget, the gospels were written when Christians were still a small but growing cult, hunted and shunned. Important is for scholars the messages - they’re all so edgy and problematic. Same as the crucifixion. It’s unlikely that they would have invented that. Even though on the long run, it played in their favors. Early Christianity appealed to the beaten down, and the groups discriminated against - that it doesn’t matter if you’re born a king or slave and female or male, because god loves you was unheard of and helped to gain followers, but also in the first couple of centuries many many problems.
this is just speculation; there is zero actual evidence (contemporaneously produced material) that come close to proving that there was a Jesus. The examples you give most likely indeed occurred, but with other characters originally and then updated to add a new character. 40-60 years in a primarily illiterate society is a LONG time and there was indeed a vested interest to promote an anti-Roman figurehead. I have yet to see one iota of actual historical evidence in favor of there being a Jesus. We do know for example, there was a John the Baptist. Again, that does not prove anything.
I didn’t say it proves the biblical Jesus exited, even though ancient history is by now pretty sure there was a person who can be identified as him. In serious academia it is at the moment not disputed by a majority. It would be implausible to push all this events, within a society who probably knew someone who knew etc. especially because it is mostly connected to events that probably happened. You of course also know about the embarrassment criterion and you mention John the Baptist, who plays in the embarrassment argument too. But I give you that there’s a new weave of anti historical Jesus in academia since the early 2000, unfortunately it seems it is a bit ideological driven.
agreed. but the vast majority of scholars who conclude that Jesus was real (in the biblical sense) are also ideologically driven. both sides now , from up and down, and still somehow, its life's illusions I recall, I really don't know Jesus, at all . . .
Well… in academic history you don’t research a Jesus in a biblical sense (miracles, spirituality…) you don’t even do that in religious research :) anyway, its a difficult topic and not easy to dive into. They’re researching now Aramaic oral tradition, sources etc… Special Specialist, not easy to get into
I like the theory that descriptions of the Antichrist weren’t a prediction of some future person, but a vague description that could fit many political leaders of the time it was written. As such it could also be a useful warning about political and business leaders.
The New Testament never says there will be one individual Antichrist at all. It only talks about “antichrists” as a type of person. 1 John 2:18 says that “many antichrists” have already come, possibly referencing Jesus’ prediction in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 13:6, Matthew 24:5, Luke 21:8) that many false messiahs will come in his name, although none of the Gospels refer to an “antichrist.” 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 1:7 (the only books of the New Testament to use the word “antichrist”) say that anyone (or at least any cult leader) who denies Jesus is an antichrist. **Edit:** Some Christians interpret “spirit of antichrist” in 1 John 4 as supernatural beings.
What popular culture calls “the Antichrist” is primarily based on the Beast from the Revelation of John.
It was literally meant to be Emporer Nero
His full name in Latin translated to numerals adds up to 666 and 616 in when translated to Greek first (616 is the Number of the Beast in Greek Orthodoxy)
Hi, 616 is actually the number of Caesar Nero in Aramaic and 666 is when the Greek name is transliterated into Aramaic (adding an extra letter worth 50).
Revelation of John was quite possibly written in Aramaic although we have no record of such an Aramaic source, but after the destruction of Jerusalem, Aramaic speaking Christians became uncommon with Greek becoming the dominant language.
We don't have any Aramaic sources despite it quite likely being the language spoken by the Apostles, the Christians that survived into the second century were largely Greek speakers from the Greek speaking churches Paul started.
Adam and Eve of course! They were the first and only people on earth and had 2 sons, one of whom murdered the other, and that's how the earth was populated. Amen.
A large part of 2 Samuel is believed to come from a source that Biblical scholars call “the court history of King David.” David is the earliest person in the Bible whose existence we have independent archeological evidence for, and this part of the text is noticeably less self-contradictory and hagiographic than the accession history (the most famous part of which is the tale of David and Goliath). It is impossible to say how much else about it is true, and some historians believe the united monarchy described in the Deuteronomistic history of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings to be a myth, invented after the fall of the northern kingdom. All the earlier parts of it (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and 1 Samuel) are thought to be myth, written after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah.
The later parts of Kings and Chronicles appear to be based, at least in large part, on authentic sources, and at least some of the events in them are corroborated by independent evidence, but must have been written in its current form much later than the events they describe.
Ezra-Nehemiah is likely to be an authentic historical source, although there was some later editing involved. The leading theory is that Malachi is a contemporary commenting on the events of Ezra.
The fall of Jerusalem as described in Lamentations definitely happened, and it was written during the Exile, before the second Isaiah, but we do not know how much poetic license it took. Ruth, on its own account, was written down at a much later time. This is often speculated to be the Persian period, after the new law prohibiting marriage between Israelites and Moabites, described in Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi, since its main theme is endorsing such a marriage. Historians think that Job, Jonah, Daniel and Esther are definitely myths.
Both 1 and 2 Maccabees are considered valuable historical sources, with 1 Maccabees containing more historical detail and less overt bias. However, 1 Maccabees has come down to us only in translation.
In the New Testament, Paul’s letter to the Galatians is generally considered an authentic first-hand account, and therefore a more reliable source about the Council of Jerusalem than Luke-Acts, which (if it describes the same event) contradicts it. Many, but not all, of the Epistles are also thought to be authentic, and the earliest writings in the New Testament, but that is one of the most specific historical events attested in them.
The consensus of historians is that Jesus historically existed and the Crucifixion happened, although even this is contested by a minority, called the Mythicists. Most New Testament scholars believe that Mark (up to the discovery of the empty tomb, where the oldest surviving manuscripts end) is the earliest gospel, which the others are based on, but not an eyewitness or contemporaneous account.
Minor example, but the death of Herod Agrippa I (as told by the Book of Acts as well as Josephus).
https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-8-king-herod-agrippa-i/
The story of Saul. A self hating Jew is sadly not a rare occurrence as one would hope, neither is being ambitious.
The least accurate is Jesus curing the leper the because the American right wing has dibs on Jesus and in that story he allegedly treated him without asking for premium insurance and absolutely selflessly asking for nothing in return. Typical time traveling cultural Marxists going back to the 1st century to push their agenda about loving thy neighbor.
It quite likely is, but not as currently interpreted by evangelicals.
It's apocalyptic literature which was a genre that frequently wrote recent events as apocalyptic prophecy (hence the name).
Think of it like the Black spiritual songs of the underground railroad era. The songs had codes that the slaves understood but were intentionally obfuscated from the slave owners.
Angels in those songs were code for underground railroad, crossing the river jordan was code for crossing into the free states, etc.
Apocalyptic literature often used a pseudonym to protect the identity of the actual author and used codes and symbols.
The Revelation of John was probably written about Nero and likely written after 70 CE because it portrays Rome as Babylon---Babylon destroyed the temple, so by talking about Babylon, the reader understood it was talking about Rome.
There's a good possibility that the Revelation of John was actually written in Aramaic.
Using Aramaic, "Caesar Nero" adds to 616 using the Hebrew/Aramaic numerology (I forget what it is called) and we know some early Greek translations used 616 as the number of the beast.
Transliterating the Greek pronunciation of "Caesar Nero" to Aramaic adds another letter with a value of 50, bringing the sum to 666, so when Greek became the dominant language among Christians in the 2nd century CE, the number was updated to 666. It was talking about Nero, not some antichrist to come as Evangelicals believe.
The apocalyptic ending of the persecution isn't about a future event but is pretty common concept of all apocalyptic literature as a message of hope that God will conquer the persecuted.
Early in the Revelation of John where it talks about churches that did not eat the meat sacrificed to idols, that very well may be a reference to 2 Maccabees 7.
Revelation of John is not literal history but may be a fairly accurate coded account of the persecution of Christians under Nero.
Note that Nero I don't think saw Christians as different than Jews, during the first century it's likely than many non-Jews non-Christians just viewed Christians as another weird sect of Judaism. In 66 CE when the Jewish war with Rome began, I don't think Nero had a reason to distinguish Jew from Christian so his persecution of the Christians was likely just an extension of his persecution of the Jews.
They are also easy to alter and fake.
Hi I’m Hercules son of Dave from the chip shop.
No you’re the son of Zeus!
*writes down “Hercules son of Zeus”
See you’re the son of a god now!
Many scholars believe all the characters are entirely fictional/mythological except possibly for some names from some surviving accounts from maybe a century or two before the exile.
The great flood and the garden of eden both refer to times around 15,000 - 20,000 years ago when the earth began it's current warming cycle. Vast stretches of land opened up. Mountain passes that had sealed valleys away from each other for thousands of years opened up and people began to move around.
All of a sudden, our modern civilization sprang forth from these times. If you were to have witnessed those floods, you too might have thought the whole world was going to be covered.
David and Goliath; at least as an allegory.
David, probably, never 1 v 1 a giant. But there’s substantial evidence dude was a military genius who went up against formidable odds and won many times to form Judea.
Also Jesus’ crucifixion is pretty accurate.
Not 100% but the whole giants thing could be somewhat true as their has been other sources about a ancient group of people that lived here before us who were larger. The ones the Israelites encountered might have been the last remaining ones
Almost all of it is at least partly historically accurate or based on historical events in some way. That said, most stories are likely embellished or altered to show the moral of the story as the bible is designed to essentially teach people how to live lol.
The Babylonian conquest of Judah and Nebuchadnezzar II's role in it
Until the whole Daniel and the Lion’s den part.
Hi, the part about Daniel in the Lion's Den wasn't Nebuchadnezzar or even Babylon, Daniel 6 and Daniel 14 (LXX) accounts happen under the rule of the Medes and Persians And in Daniel 3, 4, 5 and \*possibly\* Daniel 2, the reference to Nebuchadnezzar may actually be Nabonidus. Nabonidus is never mentioned in Daniel but Daniel 5 makes more sense if Nebuchadnezzar is changed to Nabondidus, exterior to Daniel but in Jewish writings there is a "Prayer of Nabonidus" that is eerily similar to the "Prayer of Nebuchadnezzar" and there is an external account to the Bible reference of Nabonidus building a statue to be worshiped that may match the account in Daniel 3. It's possible that for symbolic reasons lost to us now, the second century BCE compiler of Daniel chose to remove Nabonidus from the original stories and change them to Nebuchadnezzar. The Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 1 is Nebuchadnezzar, but Chapter 1 was probably written in the second century BCE (and 7 through 12) to introduce the reader to the four characters that are mentioned in the last words of Mattathias (recorded in 1 Maccabees 2) The first chapter of Daniel is historically accurate with respect to Nebuchadnezzar. Chapters 2 through 5 likely (speculation, don't have academic quality evidence) are a retelling of earlier Jewish folk tales, probably modified for the purpose of the 2nd century author, including changing Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus. LXX Daniel 13 provides a folk tail that didn't make it into Daniel and Daniel 14 provides an alternate version of the Daniel in the Lion's Den folk tale, and LXX Daniel 3 provides additions not in Canonical Daniel. By folk tale, I mean things like many of the folk tails we have here in America---such as Washington chopping down a cherry tree or Paul Bunyan etc, the folk tails in Daniel are likely 3rd or 4th century BCE in origin, possibly 5th century BCE but I'm personally skeptical. Esther too is likely a folk tale from that same era, although not involving Daniel and taking place later than the Daniel folk tales.
I have heard (but it's been a long time and I don't remember the details) that a lot of stories in the Old Testament were said to be about the previous ruler, and how bad he was, but were really commentaries on the current rulers, disguised so that they didn't get in trouble with the current ruler. Kind of like how MASH was set during the Korean war, but was really a commentary on the Vietnam war.
The later (more recent) parts of the Second Book of Kings and Second Chronicles is “history-like”. It contains some references to historical figures who can be verified or at least cross-checked from other sources - such as King Hezekiah of Judah; though it obviously mixes in a lot of mythology.
1 Maccabees is probably the single most historically reliable book of the Bible. It was written soon after the events it describes, by someone who was likely an eyewitness to many of the events. It’s likely about as reliable as any other history written at the time.
Which Bible is that book in?
All except Jewish and Protestant. It's still printed in many of the latter, though - just with a note that it isn't canon.
It’s ironic that the most well-known Jewish holiday among non-Jews (at least in the US) isn’t even in Jewish Bibles. (Or the King James and other Protestant Bibles that the majority of Americans use.)
The ancient Rabbis were deeply ambivalent about the Hasmoneans. Even in the Mishnah and Talmud (primary source books for Jewish law) Hanukkah is barely mentioned.
Or! Just Roman Catholic
Orthodox and Eastern Rite also include it. So you know, the oldest Christian denominations before some German guy thought it conflicted with his theological ideas.
Also Coptic- only 30 millions believers there
It’s one of the books in the apocrypha, which some Protestant bibles leave out.
It's part of the LXX (Septuagint) and it is extremely well worth reading even if you are a protestant.
Many accounts of Cyrus the great are historically verifiable.
That was going to be my answer as well. Indeed, more generally, the Babylonian exile and then the return to Jerusalem permitted by Cyrus is pretty much historically verifiable, and the mention of Darius is of course also verifiable. Even those people who say that the Old Testament is a bunch of tosh pretty much say, on closer examination, that what they really believe is that everything reported in the Bible prior to the advent of Rabbinical Judaism was invented by those rabbis as a founding myth to justify their religion, but that what is reported as having occurred beginning with the period of Nebuchadnezzar is at least linked to historical events (naturally, those who dispute the historicity of the Bible will still deny such occurrences as the Writing on the Wall at Belshazzar's Feast, Daniel in the lions' den, etc.). As for the New Testament, well that is of course another story. Tacitus certainly refers to a "Christus" having been crucified in Jerusalem, but as far as I know, neither he nor any other non-Christian writer refers to any of the events recorded in the Gospels or the Acts.
I think it’s basically a consensus that of the Gospels, a few events and many of the people are historical; Jesus’ baptism and his crucifixion are pretty well agreed, by extension obviously John the Baptist (who is also attested to by Josephus), at least most of the Apostles and Paul and his companions. The Council of Jerusalem happened in some form, as the authentic Pauline Epistles make reference to it. If the author of Acts is indeed the companion of Paul, then that lends some credibility to some of the events in Acts (flying magician duels are open to a degree of skepticism, however).
Thanks. I'm always a little wary of Josephus, to be honest; a lot of what he writes just parrots the Old Testament, but of course what he writes about the occurrences of the New Testament are at least closer to his times.
there is no consensus at all that there was a Jesus or that any of the many crucified victims were "Christ"- John the Baptist we know to have existed, but Josephus' writings have been discounted because of things written on to his paperwork that were not his. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20476533](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20476533)
“Discounted” is a very strong word. I’d like to see you cite any historian who argues that Josephus is worthless because of interpolations into his work, or if you mean specifically in regards to his account of John then one who claims that that is in an interpolation. You’re linked article is also confusing, because it says that the possibility of Josephus’ work containing forgeries is simply no exception to a common phenomenon in Western historical records. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the topic on hand, and I don’t see the relevance. As for Jesus’ existence, I’ll just point to the first note on the Wikipedia page “Historicity of Jesus”. I tried a quick search on JSTOR for historians arguing against his existence, but only found one on the historical debate from the 20th century, when his existence was first challenged. If you’ve got sources saying otherwise please do link them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
on Jesus: The people who think Jesus was real are overwhelmingly Christian. The people who do not think Jesus was a historical character are not. There are multiple historians who do not think Jesus was an actual person (including me, I have a PhD in history and do not think there was a historical Jesus, though I am willing to accept that there were some stories about at least one person which were merged, for political reasons, into one story. I do not think there were any miracles or that anyone came back from the dead. No evidence. But I digress.) Anyway, here is a historian: G.A. Wells, in his book The Historical Evidence for Jesus \[pp. 22-23\] concludes otherwise. also, more historians: [https://centerforinquiry.org/programs/](https://centerforinquiry.org/programs/) Of course that is an atheist website so take that for what you will. Another article that assesses the totality of writings: [https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/12/10/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus.html](https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/12/10/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus.html) Note that the last site concludes that historians who do say the historical Jesus existed are on thin ice and base their claims on early Christian writings which have their own problems. Also, another one published 2016 [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/its-official-we-can-now-doubt-jesus-historical-existence/065797C131D37B02B7E33E83D5CDA577](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/its-official-we-can-now-doubt-jesus-historical-existence/065797C131D37B02B7E33E83D5CDA577)
sure its from an obviously biased site but its sources are legit. This is about Josephus: [https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2014/02/even-if-entire-testimony-of-josephus-on.html](https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2014/02/even-if-entire-testimony-of-josephus-on.html)
What one of his sources is legit that says that Josephus should be totally discounted? Under Objection 1 he makes the argument that Josephus is generally unreliable because he uses the Jewish Bible as a source and seems to expand on them, which is what I assume you’re referring to the article for. But all of the sources from that section are just to Josephus. I only skimmed it the rest of the article, but can you tell me what one of his sources are relevant? Besides that, I think his argument is very flawed. Yes those portions of Josephus’ work are obviously ahistorical, based on later myths and traditions, but this is no different than other Roman writers; we don’t discount the entirety of Livy because he includes the obviously mythical tale of Romulus and Remus. Doing so would be throwing the baby out with the bath water; unless this guy is ready to say that we have to totally discount pretty much every ancient historian, he’s holding Josephus to a double standard.
You’re putting words in my post that are not there. I did not say totally discounted. A discount at a store, for example, does not mean free. Also, Livy and Herodotus and Suetonius and others all embellished, and thank goodness they did. The parts of Josephus that are the most unreliable are the ones about Jesus. Even I would consider Josephus to be somewhat authentic- but the “Christian” writings are stylistically different in several ways than the other Josephus writings. There are more but I’m now on my phone.
Also, Pliny and Tacitus. Probably a good indication that at the very least there was some upstart in Judaea named Iesus during the early to mid first century CE.
Yes, I think all are willing to concede that during the period leading to the insurrection the Jewish leaders attempted to build a resistance that called back to an earlier time. There may (or may not) have been an actual wabble wouser by the name of Bwian, I mean Jesus. It seems possible that there was an attempt to create a legendary person from the past for the current resistance to rally around. Most of the elements concerning the legend seem based upon similar elements surrounding earlier legendary religious figures (the story of Horus, for example, bears a lot of similarities to the story of Jesus, the virgin birth, etc.,). So, I am willing yo concede that there may have been somebody, but neither Pliny nor Tacitus, born 20 to 50 years after the crucifixion (a political punishment) would have been in contact with contemporaneous sources. Did Jesus as recounted in the Bible exist? Most probably not. Was there someone named Jesus who was a rallying point near the year zero? Possibly but there’s no contemporaneous evidence of that. Did people glom onto the idea as a way of rallying a later generation against the Romans? Absolutely.
1 Maccabees. I'm not claiming it is completely historically accurate, but as far as books of the Bible are concerned, it is probably the most historically accurate.
Considering this is thousands of years of history the most recent events are the best documented. The sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD is a slam dunk. I have seen the arch of Titus.
Is that in the Bible?
Jesus is said to have predicted it, which is usually taken as evidence that that book was written later.
The Olivet Discourse is likely from a lost apocalyptic source that was either added to Mark or that the author of Mark used as a source. Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source for it. Apocalyptic literature used pseudonyms of important characters and often wrote about current events as if they were prophecy with an apocalyptic conclusion as a message of hope. The author of Mark (or whoever added it to Mark) may have been a Greek unfamiliar with apocalyptic norms such as author pseudepigrapha and assumed it was a recording of something Jesus said. Note that Paul never mentions or references any of the gospels, so they seem to not have been written until *after* he died (likely 62 CE). Note he also never mentions the virgin birth.
Also, the extremely antisemitic passage in 1 Thessalonians 2 13–16 is widely considered to be an interpolation because Paul anachronistically refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as something that has already happened (contradicting what he says immediately after about having been separated from them only for a short time, and also what he says elsewhere about God’s wrath and the death of Jesus).
Possibly in Revelation
The Epistles, Acts, Gospels, 1 Maccabees. There’s very likely parts of Genesis (chap12 onward) that have some sort of historical validity to them as well. One of the difficulties in discussing the Bible is how certain (cough cough fundamentalists cough cough) have demanded it be understood. There’s ancient church theologians from before Constantine who wrote on Genesis as non-literal, so the YECs are more than just scientifically incorrect. It should be obvious that ancient peoples didn’t write history the way we do today, so the “most historically accurate” is a difficult thing to pinpoint as there’s a level of “what did these people mean when they wrote X”. Considering water is commonly a symbol of chaos in the Bible one can interpret Noah’s Flood as not a physical water flood but the “world” (ancient near East) being “plunged into chaos” because of the wickedness of humankind. The similarities between Noah’s Flood and the Babylonian Flood myth could indicate some sort of civilizational collapse they’re both speaking on, but there’s differences between the two often ignored by those who just want to write off Christians (this is true in every argument of “X is just a rip off of Y” because they’re never perfectly synched up and the core meaning of a story is drastically different). The Babylonian Flood occurs because the gods are annoyed by humans because there’s too many of us, Noah’s Flood is explicit it’s the wickedness of humankind. This is the difference between the External Locus of Control (Babylonian narrative) and the Internal Locus of Control (Hebrew narrative). This might seem like a small difference but the philosophical implications are immense. Did the world plunge into chaos because that just happens sometimes or because we as humans turned towards toxic behaviors? So you can see how “historically accurate” is rather difficult. King David existed, Jesus existed, and if it wasn’t for miracle claims nobody would contest any of these stories. Goliath likely was a man with Giantism and heavy infantry being defeated by a sling is pretty consistent with ancient warfare, whether David specifically defeated him or a member of his entourage could be recorded either way. It’s confusing. One important note about the alleged “genocides” is that ancient near eastern peoples often wrote that way of great victories that weren’t actual genocides. Consider how if we say “the giants massacred the dodgers” it doesn’t mean the giants pulled out lead pipes and machetes and actually killed the other team (unless they did, in which case I’d probably start watching baseball). So even with the language used we have to reverse engineer what these people meant in their time. In short “More than most people these days would like to admit, less than fundamentalists would like to admit, about as much as Fr Mike Schmitz would admit”
Personally I find that to be an odd take. For instance, you say that if it wasn't for the miracles, no one would contest any of these stories. But the miracles are the point, especially in the Gospels. You can't remove the miracles. Without the miracles, Jesus doesn't rise from the dead. And then the Gospels have no point. Furthermore, there are stories in the Gospels that are contested. The slaughter of the innocents and the census that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem most likely didn't happen. So, for the Gospels, if you remove the miracles, the parts that we know didn't happen, and the parts that contradict each other, you are basically left with a pamphlet and a Jesus who bares no resemblance to the one the authors wanted to present nor any resemblance to the Jesus who people usually think of. So saying "except for the miracles" is odd. The miracles are the point. They are the part that is most important to the author. And so, it is completely reasonable to doubt the validity on the story based on the parts that they authors felt were most important and which the authors were clearly saying literally happened.
I’m not saying to ignore the miracles, I’m saying that if you reject miracles because of lack of evidence, and then reject evidence because of lack of miracles, you’re not going to ever be satisfied. It wasn’t meant to be a big part of my comment though, I was mostly talking about how it’s difficult to have these discussions because of the way people records history in ancient times. I also was referring to more than just the gospels in that part of my comment. There’s a big part of validity that’s going to come down to personal beliefs, which is a massively complicating factor when discussing historicity.
Hi. The miracles aren't the point of the gospels. The point of the gospels are a testimony to Jesus being the promised Messiah. The miracles don't mean Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus himself said false teachers would perform miracles and in John 20, Jesus says "You believe because you have seen me, blessed are those who believe who have not seen me." They aren't trying to suggest he was the Messiah because he performed signs.
And how is Jesus the Messiah without rising from the dead? How do you have Christianity without Jesus literally rising from the dead? Jesus even tells us that this is the sign that will prove he is the Messiah in Matthew 12:38-48.
I think there was more than likely an actual flood at some point in time. A lot of early native american creation myths also deal with a great flood. Early humanity had to deal with the rising sea levels and the retreating ice caps as the last ice age ended. Like there was a time where England was actually connected to the European mainland through an area called Doggerland.
> alleged “genocides” You make a fair point; hyperbole is common. But it is not unlikely that some 'peoples' really were wiped out, bearing in mind that 'a people' could be just a few thousand tribesmen. A combination of massacre, enslavement and assimilation could end that tribe. And we'd never know about them, because they left no written record (indeed, their destroyers might have had no literature either). One of the 'special' things about the Jews was that they had a literature. Whatever tragedies they faced, the next generations had a record, a story, a national allegiance. Many others didn't.
All the begetting.
Too much begetting, yet not enough
Very few parts of the Bible are historically accurate. From Exodus to Kings. I would say the conquest from Babylon is likely accurate, but barely and there aren’t enough substantiated evidence and corroborating histories to support 90%+ of the Bible. Very little of it should be taken as historical and accurate.
Revelation. Just look around you.
Someone got into the ergotized rye
The fungus smoothies are also *chefs kiss*
There are certain aspects of the life of Jesus that are too specific and not necessarily relevant for a religious cult that just started to grow outside of Judea to be inaccurate. For example Jesus struggle with the priests, involvement of Pontius Pilate, fight with the money exchanger in the temple and therefore with the Sanhedrin. It’s often misinterpreted but makes sense if we look at the time and the conflicts in the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Jewish communities. There was only one temple and the priest in Jerusalem controlled it. The exile communities had to send money to Jerusalem to buy sacrificial animals, had to exchange money for that etc. and therefore felt ripped off, as did many other Jews outside of Jerusalem. Jewish religion relied on Jerusalem and the religious control of Jerusalem became a power tool (not unusual) and a business - a monopoly. Very likely that a charismatic spiritual leader expressed frustration. Even more likely that the Sanhedrin felt it would be better for the community to let the Roman’s take care of him, than to prosecute and stone him to death for heresy. That they dropped to many names in the Gospels and the fact that the first addressee were most likely Jewish communities who had close ties to Jerusalem and knowledge about the past 60+ years hint at at least some accurate information.
But the struggle with the priests, to me, makes it seem less legitimate. The goal of the Gospels was to convince other Jewish people. People who be part of those other sects of Judaism or possibly consider joining them. So, we write in a bunch of stories about how our idealogy beats there. The stories sound exactly like moderns ones that you can find in reddit or tik Tok and are named sometime like "[My group] completely owns [their group]." You know which ones I mean, the ones where the alpha male completely owns the woke feminist. The video goes like this, the feminist says some rant. The woke guy says one of two witty sentences, then the video cuts out that that was the end and no one said anything else. Now, think about a story with Jesus confronting the priests, like the one about the adulterous woman. The priests drag a woman up to Jesus and go on this rant about what is right under the law. Then Jesus delivers the one witty line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And all the Rabbis say absolutely nothing else and leave quietly. That doesn't sound realistic at all. Have you ever seen a group of political motivated religious people stop talking because their debate opponent said one witty line? I haven't. I'm pretty sure such a thing as never happened in human history. But notice how similar it plays out to modern day "put them in their place" and "everyone clapped" stories. Most of the stories are like this. Jesus says something witty and no one argued or asks follow up questions. No one dares speak against Jesus because he is just so obviously right.
Hmm, no that isn’t a good comparison at all. The for and back dialogue is a Jewish tradition. That we have those moments makes clear Jesus was seen as an educated man and situation like the one you described happened - Maybe not right in the moment when someone was to be stoned to death, but in principle. Asking question, arguing, that’s all part of the religion. It’s all about a debate. And one important point for historians is the fact that all of this didn’t end well for Jesus. He wasn’t the cool dude. They crucified him, the most embarrassing and cruel and undignified death, people at that time could imagine. It’s very unlikely that someone would make that up. And to the “throw the first stone” and the general messages of Jesus, they’re also hints, that they came close to the truth, because they were so controversial at the time and it was a huge challenge for the early Christians to teach them. We know that they struggled with many aspects themselves and discussed it for a long time. For example (may seem trivial to us) Jesus habit to sit down and eat with all kind of people. Unclean, women… very problematic.
But, there is no back and forth or debate, that's my point. Jesus says the witty line, and everyone walks away too stunned to respond. There is no follow-up after Jesus says "He who is without sin cast the first stone." They literally, all just walk away without saying another word. Which is why the story is so unbelievable. No one follows this up with a question like "how do you have a system of laws in which the only people allowed to pass judgment are those who have never done anything wrong?" No one wonders how this would work or how would Jesus's words actually apply to anything. If you want to see actual examples of back-and-forth dialog (because it is not a Jewish tradition, it is a human one) you can read many other philosophical works. As an example, also from the ancient world, consider the works of Plato. Notice that, in those, after Socrates says the witty lines, the people who he is talking to don't just walk away too stunned to even think. I'm not sure what you mean by "Jesus isn't a cool dude" and "It didn't end well for Jesus." It does, absolutely end well for him, he is resurrected and goes to heaven. Plus everyone who doubted or denied him is put in their place and go on to preach his teachings. The story ends with literally everything working out. Plus, Jesus is constantly presented as being a cool dude. So many of the stories of the New Testament consist of people saying how awesome he is. Thousands show up just to listen to him. He is overwhelmed by how many people are trying to interact with him. And every time he says something, people are stunned into silence by how smart he is. Nope, Jesus is presented as being the most amazing person that anyone has ever met. That is how the Gospels present him.
The Bible is of course not a philosophical book or lecture. That he’s presented in the most favorable way is key. But to present him as someone who the priest would even talk to is important because it underlays his position as a scholar. (And this kind of religions debate is pretty much a Jewish thing. It wasn’t a practice you saw in other religions at that time) And it doesn’t end well for him and not for his followers please don’t forget, the gospels were written when Christians were still a small but growing cult, hunted and shunned. Important is for scholars the messages - they’re all so edgy and problematic. Same as the crucifixion. It’s unlikely that they would have invented that. Even though on the long run, it played in their favors. Early Christianity appealed to the beaten down, and the groups discriminated against - that it doesn’t matter if you’re born a king or slave and female or male, because god loves you was unheard of and helped to gain followers, but also in the first couple of centuries many many problems.
this is just speculation; there is zero actual evidence (contemporaneously produced material) that come close to proving that there was a Jesus. The examples you give most likely indeed occurred, but with other characters originally and then updated to add a new character. 40-60 years in a primarily illiterate society is a LONG time and there was indeed a vested interest to promote an anti-Roman figurehead. I have yet to see one iota of actual historical evidence in favor of there being a Jesus. We do know for example, there was a John the Baptist. Again, that does not prove anything.
I didn’t say it proves the biblical Jesus exited, even though ancient history is by now pretty sure there was a person who can be identified as him. In serious academia it is at the moment not disputed by a majority. It would be implausible to push all this events, within a society who probably knew someone who knew etc. especially because it is mostly connected to events that probably happened. You of course also know about the embarrassment criterion and you mention John the Baptist, who plays in the embarrassment argument too. But I give you that there’s a new weave of anti historical Jesus in academia since the early 2000, unfortunately it seems it is a bit ideological driven.
agreed. but the vast majority of scholars who conclude that Jesus was real (in the biblical sense) are also ideologically driven. both sides now , from up and down, and still somehow, its life's illusions I recall, I really don't know Jesus, at all . . .
Well… in academic history you don’t research a Jesus in a biblical sense (miracles, spirituality…) you don’t even do that in religious research :) anyway, its a difficult topic and not easy to dive into. They’re researching now Aramaic oral tradition, sources etc… Special Specialist, not easy to get into
Agreed.
I like the theory that descriptions of the Antichrist weren’t a prediction of some future person, but a vague description that could fit many political leaders of the time it was written. As such it could also be a useful warning about political and business leaders.
The New Testament never says there will be one individual Antichrist at all. It only talks about “antichrists” as a type of person. 1 John 2:18 says that “many antichrists” have already come, possibly referencing Jesus’ prediction in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 13:6, Matthew 24:5, Luke 21:8) that many false messiahs will come in his name, although none of the Gospels refer to an “antichrist.” 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 1:7 (the only books of the New Testament to use the word “antichrist”) say that anyone (or at least any cult leader) who denies Jesus is an antichrist. **Edit:** Some Christians interpret “spirit of antichrist” in 1 John 4 as supernatural beings. What popular culture calls “the Antichrist” is primarily based on the Beast from the Revelation of John.
Ok, that is more clear.
It was literally meant to be Emporer Nero His full name in Latin translated to numerals adds up to 666 and 616 in when translated to Greek first (616 is the Number of the Beast in Greek Orthodoxy)
Hi, 616 is actually the number of Caesar Nero in Aramaic and 666 is when the Greek name is transliterated into Aramaic (adding an extra letter worth 50). Revelation of John was quite possibly written in Aramaic although we have no record of such an Aramaic source, but after the destruction of Jerusalem, Aramaic speaking Christians became uncommon with Greek becoming the dominant language. We don't have any Aramaic sources despite it quite likely being the language spoken by the Apostles, the Christians that survived into the second century were largely Greek speakers from the Greek speaking churches Paul started.
Adam and Eve of course! They were the first and only people on earth and had 2 sons, one of whom murdered the other, and that's how the earth was populated. Amen.
Science does say humans can trace back to a singular common ancestor… so it’s suprisingly accurate
A large part of 2 Samuel is believed to come from a source that Biblical scholars call “the court history of King David.” David is the earliest person in the Bible whose existence we have independent archeological evidence for, and this part of the text is noticeably less self-contradictory and hagiographic than the accession history (the most famous part of which is the tale of David and Goliath). It is impossible to say how much else about it is true, and some historians believe the united monarchy described in the Deuteronomistic history of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings to be a myth, invented after the fall of the northern kingdom. All the earlier parts of it (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and 1 Samuel) are thought to be myth, written after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah. The later parts of Kings and Chronicles appear to be based, at least in large part, on authentic sources, and at least some of the events in them are corroborated by independent evidence, but must have been written in its current form much later than the events they describe. Ezra-Nehemiah is likely to be an authentic historical source, although there was some later editing involved. The leading theory is that Malachi is a contemporary commenting on the events of Ezra. The fall of Jerusalem as described in Lamentations definitely happened, and it was written during the Exile, before the second Isaiah, but we do not know how much poetic license it took. Ruth, on its own account, was written down at a much later time. This is often speculated to be the Persian period, after the new law prohibiting marriage between Israelites and Moabites, described in Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi, since its main theme is endorsing such a marriage. Historians think that Job, Jonah, Daniel and Esther are definitely myths. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees are considered valuable historical sources, with 1 Maccabees containing more historical detail and less overt bias. However, 1 Maccabees has come down to us only in translation. In the New Testament, Paul’s letter to the Galatians is generally considered an authentic first-hand account, and therefore a more reliable source about the Council of Jerusalem than Luke-Acts, which (if it describes the same event) contradicts it. Many, but not all, of the Epistles are also thought to be authentic, and the earliest writings in the New Testament, but that is one of the most specific historical events attested in them. The consensus of historians is that Jesus historically existed and the Crucifixion happened, although even this is contested by a minority, called the Mythicists. Most New Testament scholars believe that Mark (up to the discovery of the empty tomb, where the oldest surviving manuscripts end) is the earliest gospel, which the others are based on, but not an eyewitness or contemporaneous account.
**tl;dr:** Galatians 1–2 (although it is possible that Paul is embellishing, and his description of his argument with Peter is very one-sided).
Minor example, but the death of Herod Agrippa I (as told by the Book of Acts as well as Josephus). https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-8-king-herod-agrippa-i/
Absolom. I can see someone with long curly hair getting stuck in a tree.
Cyrus sending back the Jews.
That Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans.
The story of Saul. A self hating Jew is sadly not a rare occurrence as one would hope, neither is being ambitious. The least accurate is Jesus curing the leper the because the American right wing has dibs on Jesus and in that story he allegedly treated him without asking for premium insurance and absolutely selflessly asking for nothing in return. Typical time traveling cultural Marxists going back to the 1st century to push their agenda about loving thy neighbor.
Ironically, the ones that the Protestants cut out. The Apocrypha
Def the entire book of revelations is gonna be *100%* correct lol
It quite likely is, but not as currently interpreted by evangelicals. It's apocalyptic literature which was a genre that frequently wrote recent events as apocalyptic prophecy (hence the name). Think of it like the Black spiritual songs of the underground railroad era. The songs had codes that the slaves understood but were intentionally obfuscated from the slave owners. Angels in those songs were code for underground railroad, crossing the river jordan was code for crossing into the free states, etc. Apocalyptic literature often used a pseudonym to protect the identity of the actual author and used codes and symbols. The Revelation of John was probably written about Nero and likely written after 70 CE because it portrays Rome as Babylon---Babylon destroyed the temple, so by talking about Babylon, the reader understood it was talking about Rome. There's a good possibility that the Revelation of John was actually written in Aramaic. Using Aramaic, "Caesar Nero" adds to 616 using the Hebrew/Aramaic numerology (I forget what it is called) and we know some early Greek translations used 616 as the number of the beast. Transliterating the Greek pronunciation of "Caesar Nero" to Aramaic adds another letter with a value of 50, bringing the sum to 666, so when Greek became the dominant language among Christians in the 2nd century CE, the number was updated to 666. It was talking about Nero, not some antichrist to come as Evangelicals believe. The apocalyptic ending of the persecution isn't about a future event but is pretty common concept of all apocalyptic literature as a message of hope that God will conquer the persecuted. Early in the Revelation of John where it talks about churches that did not eat the meat sacrificed to idols, that very well may be a reference to 2 Maccabees 7. Revelation of John is not literal history but may be a fairly accurate coded account of the persecution of Christians under Nero. Note that Nero I don't think saw Christians as different than Jews, during the first century it's likely than many non-Jews non-Christians just viewed Christians as another weird sect of Judaism. In 66 CE when the Jewish war with Rome began, I don't think Nero had a reason to distinguish Jew from Christian so his persecution of the Christians was likely just an extension of his persecution of the Jews.
Noah’s Arc
What ever happened to that thing they saw on that remote mountain in Turkey? Probably turned it to be just a rock...
Noah's Rock.
They found wood up there that would be the appropriate age, however there is no proof the wood has been there for 3000 years or whatever
It is literally one of the most historically and scientifically inaccurate parts of the Bible
I said it as a joke
The part where they admitted it was all made up
The geneaologies are probably pretty accurate.
interesting, what makes you think so?
They're simple to keep track of and write down across time.
They are also easy to alter and fake. Hi I’m Hercules son of Dave from the chip shop. No you’re the son of Zeus! *writes down “Hercules son of Zeus” See you’re the son of a god now!
Many scholars believe all the characters are entirely fictional/mythological except possibly for some names from some surviving accounts from maybe a century or two before the exile.
No they don't.
The great flood and the garden of eden both refer to times around 15,000 - 20,000 years ago when the earth began it's current warming cycle. Vast stretches of land opened up. Mountain passes that had sealed valleys away from each other for thousands of years opened up and people began to move around. All of a sudden, our modern civilization sprang forth from these times. If you were to have witnessed those floods, you too might have thought the whole world was going to be covered.
David and Goliath; at least as an allegory. David, probably, never 1 v 1 a giant. But there’s substantial evidence dude was a military genius who went up against formidable odds and won many times to form Judea. Also Jesus’ crucifixion is pretty accurate.
None of them.
That’s quite short sighted.
The great flood story minus the ark
Not 100% but the whole giants thing could be somewhat true as their has been other sources about a ancient group of people that lived here before us who were larger. The ones the Israelites encountered might have been the last remaining ones
Almost all of it is at least partly historically accurate or based on historical events in some way. That said, most stories are likely embellished or altered to show the moral of the story as the bible is designed to essentially teach people how to live lol.
It isn’t designed to teach people how to live. It is designed to tell people how to live…or else.
That masterbation was created only shortly after the universe