Reliable history in the Bible

I rhink that it is beign overly-skeptical to deny that there was some person behind the Biblical figure of Jesus. How closely the real person was a match for the Biblical stories is hard to say. There's no real doubt that the Gospels are highly partisan, and that there was significant time for legend-making between the events ansd the time they were written. It's all but certain that the Gospels include exaggerations and even fictions.

Why not go more authentic and call him Yeshua ?The question is why assume that he is a literary device. The name is not uncommon at the time (Josephus lists several others). While some aspects of the story could be taken from other people that would hardly change my point. Someone had to start the Ebionite church. Why not accept the likely possibility that there was a Galilean cult leader and would-be Messiah named Yeshua, who got himself crucified by the Romans before he could cause any real trouble ? I'd go further and suggest that other aspects are based on fact - for an example I consider it likely this Yeshua was a follower of John the Baptist who broke away to form his own following.The evidence is not good by thee standards of science. Perhaps not especially good even by the standards of ancient history - in some respects worse than that for Socrates (and the historical Socrates is a rather obscure figure). But I have yet to see a convincing case that the Gospels are pure fiction with no historical basis at all.

I'll disagree with you one one significant point. We have strogn circumstantial evidence that miracles do not happen. WHile there's nothing surprising about there being a (mildly) popular Galilean cult-leader named Yeshua, raising someone form the dead is vastly improbable. So in this case the circumstantial evidence outweighs the Gospel reports. Just as it does for non-Christian miracles.So, while the direct evidence is the same, the circumstantial evidence is vastly different. We have circumstantial evidence indicating that the name Yeshua was not improbable (it was a common name) and circumstantial evidence that raising a man from the dead is vastly improbable. By considering this factor we can accept that there was a person behind the Gospel stories, while rejecting the more improbable and unlikely elements.

You want strong circumstantial evidence against miracles ? How about the fact that there are no well documented and confirmed examples. You think we would have at least a few by now if they happened.Reuscitation procedures at hospitals are not equivalent to the supposed miracle. There are examples in the Bible where a primitive resuscitation procedure might be described, but shouting out "Lazarus, come forth!" doesn't qualify. Nor do hospital procedures work on someone who has been dead for four days.

quote:

---

if we are basing the argument on the reasonableness of the assumption implicit in accepting the text, isn't "lazarus wasn't totally dead" every bit as reasonable an assumption as "jesus existed, but not exactly as the bible says?"

---

Well you're now changing the argument by eliminating the miraculous element. However you are still making a different comparison. The basics are less likely to be fiction than any particular incident. Moeover this incident appears in only one Gospel, John and is therefore less likely to refer to a real incident than events reported in all four Gospels.

quote:

---

the argument above is, essentially, that the bible is based on kernals of truth which have been greatly exagerated.

---

No it isn't. The conclusion is that the central character of Jesus is based on a kernel of truth - surrounded by fictions and exaggerations (and maybe events that happened to others). So it's a conclusion - not an argument - and you've not fully understood even that.

quote:

---

the questions, "why not the miracles, also?"

---

They may or may not be. But to decide that we need to look at the evidence and not try to generalise from a conclusion based on a wider collection of evidence.

quote:

---

no more so than "jesus existed" eliminates the miraculous events. t

---

As I read it your initial point included the miraculous. Eliminating that aspect therefore changed your argument - significantly.

quote:

---

inductively, if all the particulars are irrelevent, isn't the whole argument?

---

That's like saying "an individual die is unlikely to come up 6, so if I roll twenty dice, none of them should come up 6". Saying that individual incidents are less likely to be historical than the core elements of the story doesn't imply that none of them are.

quote:

---

ok, pick something that is -- say jesus's own resurrection.

---

I think you need to be more explicit. The resurrection itself is "off-camera" in all four. Do you mean the Empty Tomb story ? The post-resurrection appearances ? Or what ?

quote:

---

ts hard to seperate the possiblity of there being a real person from the stuff the book says he did, like i have argued, just because theres a book about him doesn't make him real. people like to bring up how illogical it seems for men to make up a fake person to foster a religion, the problem is that people have shown over 6 thousand years that it is possible.

---

OK, I'm curious. So far as I can see i is entirely pluaisble that there was some person behind the stories. It is certainly true - as you point out - that legends tend to accumulate around significant figures. Perhaps more so when relgious belief is involved.But I'm not familiar with any close parallel to the supposed invention of Jesus. Yes, religious make up fake histories, puttign their roots in the distant past. Occult groups have claimed contact with people who it seems did not exist - but never as people present and active in their circles. Mark was likely written less than 40 years after Jesus's death. Can you provide an example of a close parallel in a similar timeframe ?

quote:

---

Judges had a battle between Israelites and Hazor around 1300BCE(perhaps another player was involved but not mentioned in scripture)and Hoffemier is talking about this 1300 battle (which he thinks was 1230)that included the destruction of stratum VII as from Joshuas time??!!

---

Hoffmeier is competent. Hazor is supposedly destroyed by fire by Joshua's invading army (Joshua 11:11-13). According to Judges 4-5 the Israelites fight and defeat the Canaanite ruler of Hazor, but there is no mention of the city being destroyed - or even attacked, let alone burnt.So what you seem to be arguing is that both Joshua and Judges are inaccurate. You say that the destruction that the Bible attributes to Joshua really belongs in Judges 4-5 (from which it is wrongly omitted). That may be so but I hardly think that you can call Hoffmeier incompetent for not taking such a view.

I wouldn't rely on Rohl's chronology - it has serious problems which is why it isn't accepted. Using it just undermines your case.I think we can agree that major fire damage is to be expected if a city is taken and burned, but it isn't very likely to be the result of a war where the city is not taken and probably not directly attacked at all. So I really don't see any way you can make a strong case that the damage is due to the conflict in Judges, because Judges doesn't mention anything that could account for it (and it's not something the writer would be likely to omit).

If you attribute a date to Rohl without further evidence then it's rather likely that it is part of his chronology. The only mention of a 1300 BC date in your whole post is a carbon date of a single olive pit but no indication of why that should be taken as giving the destruction date.

quote:

---

The Bible also mentions 2 kings named Jabin.In Joshua and Judges.Both ended in destruction by fire.

---

Please produce the Judges verses that say that Hazor was destroyed by fire in that period.

I think that you will find that the reason why some go for a 13th Century BC date is that it fits the Bible chronology better. (And probably they want there to be an Exodus).If Rohl gives a date without discussing the evidence then you can't assume that it has nothing to do with his chronology.

quote:

---

I showed you what Ben-Tor said (how much more does one need!).

---

What Ben-Tor SAID was that he suspected that the date was earlier than 1230 BC and that there was an olive pit dated from 1300 BC. So it should be obvious what more is needed - some solid support for your 1300 BC date.Your quotes from Silbermann don't provide any support for a 1300 BC date either.

quote:

---

In addition,however;the Amarna letters document that Joshua-Judges was historical due to the fact that 11 of the 12 Biblical cities from Joshua-Judges that have Canaanites holding power and fighting off the Israelites ARE ALSO SHOWN DURING AMARNA PERIOD TO HAVE CANAANITE RULERS!)

---

You post a lot, but it's full of misstatements and illogical arguments like this. So the cities have Canaanite rules - consistent with Judges - but also consistent with the idea that the Israelites aren't even there yet. Or has it escaped you notice that those cities had Canaanite rulers BEFORE Joshua's supposed conquest ?The Merenptah stele is probably best interpreted as evidence of the Judges period, but the Amarna letters simply show no clear sign of Israelite presence. In fact they speak of a fading Egyptian dominance of the area - and the Bible doesn't mention that.So the Judges period probably begins later, after the Egyptians are gone and continues until at least the time of Merenptah.

quote:

---

I dont mean to hamemr you, but I will have to show where the "illogical argument" actually has come from you

---

Well that should be fun, because I've already shown that your argument as quoted is illogical.

quote:

---

You forget the other powerful element involved: the issue of Israelite Conquered cities (specifically the ones that the Joshua-Judges book doesnt describe them as loosing)ALSO being checked as evidence.

---

No actually I didn't forget it. It simply wasn't part of your argument - read it. It only mentions cities that were not destroyed. So in fact this shows that your argument was illogical because it can only be defended by adding material. But to use one example, Lachish is one of those cities supposedly conquered by Joshua and it is mentioned in the Amarna letters as a significant city. Shechem was supposedly conquered by Israel - and your idea of Israelites as pastoral nomads doesn't let them hold it - but it too is in the Amarna letters. Joshua has the inhabitants of Gezer enslaved, but you woudn't know it from the Amarna letters.That's not a very good fit. Of the cities I can find with a fairly casual search Lacish and Shechem definitely contradict Judges/Joshua. Keilah also appears to be on the list of cities in Israelite posession according to Joshua, Judges and Joshua are in conflict over Gezer (and Joshua appears to be wrong). Megiddo and Jerusalem are not listed as conquered.So, out of seven we have four inconsistent with Joshua and three consistent with it (four consistent with Judges). But all seven are consistent with the situation prior to the supposed conquest. I think its obvious which is the better fit.

quote:

---

Since very few (infact only 1 out of the 12 Israelite Joshua-Judges cities I have counted as being mentioned in the Amarna Letters)are shown to have Canaanite rulers, then that also combines to provide a powerful witness for the historical accuracy of the Joshua-Judges period

---

That's just confused. Firstly you claim 11 out of 12 have Canaanite rulers now you say only 1. Make your mind up !And have you noticed how much of your argument is an argument from silence. Do we really have to agree with your opinions in the absence of evidence ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

According to Joshua Shechem is the nearest thing Israel had to a capital - the leaders meet there and bury Joseph's remains there (Joshua 24). It's a City of Refuge, too. In Judges 9 Gideon's son Abimelech takes control of Israel for a few years, from Shechem. Where is the reference to Shechem being a Canaanite city after the conquest ?Joshua has Gezer enslaved, and there is no mention of it regainign ti's freedom, let alone being subject to the Egyptians instead of the Isrealites. Judges at least doesn't refer to the suppsoed enslavement - but if you reject that aspect you have to reject Joshua. And if the city was enslaved, the Canaanites didn't control it - the Israelites did.So it seems that Shechem and Gezer are contradictions.There's no need to dig deep on Lachish, either. It's clearly conquered in Joshua 10. It's clearly an important city in the Amarna period - by Canaanite standards. QED.

quote:

---

Yes, you are correct.I did make a complete mistake here while typing. I meant that of the cities mentioned, only 1 that the Israelites are describes as conquering was not held by them during the Amarna period.

---

You still have problems with logic, don't you ? That simply isn't a valid argument. How about the fact that not one city supposedly conquered by the Israelites is listed as being held by them. Even though they supposedly controlled Shechem and Gezer according to Joshua - and even Judges puts Shechem in Israelite hands.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

When does it say that Canaanites lived in Shechem ? Shechem appears in Genesis - there are Canaanites there THEN. But that isn't the Judges period.

quote:

---

Just because a place was Conquered in the 1550 Conquest (or 1450-whenever the MBA ended) doesnt mean it stayed that way.

---

That's essentially an excuse to discount the evidence because it doesn't point in the direction you want. You're the one claiming support form the Amarna Letters - the fact that they better fit the pre-conquest situation is therefore relevant no matter how many 'might-be's you come up with.

quote:

---

Abraham had good relations with Hebron. Did the Israelites control that during the 215-430 years in Egypt? He (and other patriarchs)was even buried in Canaanite towns that later the Israelites would have to conquer.

---

Abraham wasn't a conqueror or leader of a nation, so your whole arguemnt is a non-sequitor. Nor does your supposed comparison deal with the Judges references.

quote:

---

Lachish is a city you have a point(a very very VERY *VERY* small point)on, but not because of the Joshua 10 reference.Joshua 10 was during the early battles.You can win a battle and loose the war in the same year.And you sure as hell can loose something you once have gained,especially after & during a period of a few-hundred years.

---

It's a rather bigger point that your cities that weren't conquered having Canaanite rulers was. Besides you've only allowed yourself one conquered city in the entire list - and as soon as you accept Lachish as that one the others become more relevant.

quote:

---

Why people cant understand this, I have no idea.Is the kindergarten or EVC? It reminds me of 4 year olds saying "I saw that first across the room, its belongs to me". We are talking tribal wars here.You cant just say "I won this battle, their land is ALWAYS ours".

---

No, that's not the problem. YOu claim that the evidence supports you. When it turns out that you have no argument you start the insulting comments to cover up your evasions.You claimed that only 1 city conquered by the Israelites showed up as under Canaanite control in the Amarna Letters. I have four - Lachish, Shechem, Gezer and Keilah - from a casual search. And you just start yelling they they don't count. The fact is that you were wrong.

quote:

---

The Israelites didnt control hardly anything at any time during Judges

---

They controlled Shechem according to Judges 9. I guess you didn't read that, even though I quoted it.Judges 20:8 just says

quote:

---

8Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house.

---

Nothing about being subservient and clearly not all live in tents.Of course if you read the other verses in the chapter you see that they controlled Gibeah and Bethel. The Benjaminites drew 26,000 men from their cities.

quote:

---

14The sons of Benjamin gathered from the cities to Gibeah, to go out to battle against the sons of Israel.

​

15From the cities on that day the sons of Benjamin were numbered, 26,000 men who draw the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah who were numbered, 700 choice men.

---

1 Samuel 4:10

quote:

---

10So the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent; and the slaughter was very great, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers.

---

Obviously not so subservient that they didn't fight the Philistines on their own account. Perhaps you meant 4:9 which just said that the Israelites had been subservient to the Philistines at some time in the past ? The problem, of course with that is that - once again - you are just making excuses to explain away the lack of evidence. You can't build a positive case by doing that. So where is your positive case from the Amarna letters ?1 Samuel 13:2

quote:

---

Now Saul chose for himself 3,000 men of Israel, of which 2,000 were with Saul in Michmash and in the hill country of Bethel, while 1,000 were with Jonathan at Gibeah of Benjamin. But he sent away the rest of the people, each to his tent.

---

I suppouse you read that as saying that the Israelites only lived in tents. However we've already seen that Judges 20:8 contradicts that so no point there.