No, discussion about the historicity of the bible is not meaningless and
has
been a controversial issue for about 200 years since German critics
questioned the historical reliability of the Bible.
In Seminaries students have to deal with scholars who question all or some
of the historicity. Take Thompson who a few years ago argued there was no
historical content in any of the OT. There are other scholars (including
those who would call themselves conservative) who reckon that there is much
theological reflection on a historical core and possibly some
non-historical
midrash.
Then there are questions whether some books are non-historical. Now I hold
Job and Jonah to be definitely non-historical - and some orthodox scholars
have held this for 200 years. And then is Daniel historical?
Then if we ask of the biblical material if it has any historical info which
can be tested , we find it often can for the NT and part of the old T. But
what historical/archaeological evidence is there to support Moses or
Abraham. The best there is is to say that these stories fit in with the
time
claimed but no one has found a Telabanana tablet or something similar
mentioned Moses or Abraham. I dont think that is discrediting the bible but
> is saying that supporting evidence is not there.
>
> Over the years I have done a lot of historical research on Darwin and have
> found that his Autobiography contains several mistakes especially on event
s
> of the 1820 to 1842 due to his writing it down from memory in 1878. A lot
> of biographers have not checked out the reliability of his auto and some
get
> ratty when you say it contains mistakes - as it does when you check it out
> against his letters and notebooks of the period. One of my gags is to say
> this disproves the historicity of Darwin and thus he never lived. If one
> adopts the arguments of the Jesus Seminar and applies them to Darwin one
has
> to have severe doubts that he ever lived.
>
> Now if what passes for American history is like the English counterpart it
> contains a lot of myths, and I doubt a lot of what passes for history of
> science and the church.
>
> However one must ask historical questions of the bible even if it makes
> people uncomfortable. It is not an easy question.
>
> Enough I am going to bed
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Cc: "Don Munro" <don@asa3.org>; <phseely@aol.com>; <shuanr@boo.net>;
"Peter
> Ruest" <pruest@dplanet.ch>; "Walter Chang" <walterychang@yahoo.com>; "Sue
> Gosnell" <scout0701@juno.com>; "Jeff Geraci" <jeffg99@comcast.net>; "Curt
> Balch" <curtbalch@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:44 AM
> Subject: Historicity
>
>
> >
> > We routinely go back and forth about the historicity of the Bible.
> >
> > Is this a meaningless discussion?
> >
> > Let's take a look at the United States.
> >
> > What if, tomorrow, someone told you George Washington was fictional?
> >
> > What would that do to the credibility of the school system?
> >
> > What if, tomorrow, someone told you that Abraham Lincoln was a
> > "polemic" against slavery?
> >
> > Would you still believe Civil War books were trustworthy?
> >
> > I want to go on record as saying that I find discrediting the
> > historicity of the Bible offensive, as a Christian.
> >
> > Jim Eisele
> > Genesis in Question
> > http://genesisinquestion.org
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 12:31:47 EDT