Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events

I thought that it was generally agreed knowledge that various parts of the Old Testament refer to historical events (generally from the perspective of the Hebrews, of course). Much of the pressure for Egyptian archaeology in Victorian times was from organisations anxious to uncover biblical events.The obvious reference for all this is David Rohl and his New Chronology (a controversial proposal involving altering of Egyptian dates by a few hundred years, which brings a number of archaeological discoveries into syncronisation with biblical stories. In his book 'Test of Time' he argues that he has found a statue of Jacob, and a clay tablet mentioning Saul, David and Jesse. Is this what you mean by 'proving' incidents and persons in the bible? Here are a few urls; I am sure you could find out a lot more just by looking for 'David Rohl'http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/White/antiquity/new.htmlhttp://www.nunki.net/Stijlvol interieur in Scandinavisch design BGA.NLNote that he attracts a lot of flak from Egyptologists who disagree with his dating proposals. These are not Creationist inspired (afaik), but do contradict established opinion in the field, and Rohl's tendency to go on television to present his work also annoys other researchers. So do not be surprised at the controversy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Little confused here .... according to the new chronology
the 1st dynasty started in 2781BC ... that is 4783 years ago ...
but the great flood is supposed to have happened 4500 years ago.

​

How does that help biblical chronology ?

---

Ah, Peter, our rock -You have found out one of the features of the bible - it is not a single piece of writing, but composed of many works, some fragmentary, some historical, some didactic stories, some myths and legends, some erotic poetry, and much else. You must have seen earlier posts pointing this out.Briefly, current belief is that the biblical flood story is a legend, a copy of an earlier telling of that legend in other cultures, Assyrian, I think, though I am sure someone will correct me. The legend may have had its origin in a real happening, and some paeleo-archaeologists have proposed more or less likely incidents - floods between 10,000 and 5000 bc which might have started stories. This is all speculation, however, and we are unlikely ever to get any proof. The flood disasters, such as the inundation of the Black Sea, may have happened, but we cannot attach the details of the Noah story to them.Incidentally, no archaeologist claims that the world was entirely under water. All proposed disasters for which there is evidence are large, but localised. I wonder if the original biblical writer ever meant 'the world' anyway - he could have been using a generalism like 'everywhere', meaning over a wide area. The French word for everyone is 'tout le monde' - it could have been that kind of use.Other parts of the bible are not thought to be legend, but history. So figures like Saul, Jonathan and David might have existed. Like all history you have to take it with a pinch of salt - this would be history from the Hebrew point of view, for instance. But items of this kind might be testable by reference to records from other cultures around the area at the time. Typically, we are talking about battles and conquest here, since this sort of thing leaves good archaeological evidence. And in these areas, we can find some agreement between cultural records.So parts of the bible are believed to be true, and parts not. A bit like the curate's egg. If you can specify the bits you are interested in, we can look for the corroboration you desire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Me

​

Respectfully, you are plain wrong.

​

There are actaully TWO ways to do it:

​

1. Take it with pinches of salt when you can't believe it
or
2. Take it literally and believe that when it sounds like a bizaree event the Bible is, indeed, discussing a bizaree event.

---

I am not sure we are placing the same meaning on the phrase 'pinch of salt'. What I meant was 'examine critically', rather than 'disbelieve', and I should have made this clearer. I presume you would not object to such examination? I have no trouble with accepting a bizarre event in history - they occasionally occur, but the more an event verges from what a reasonable person might expect, the more I look for strong corroboration and independent evidence, or other explanations which avoid the need for this level of proof.The miracles are good examples of this. Where an apparent breach of Physics is asserted, I will look for very strong proof, and that is usually non-existent.The point I have been trying to make throughout this thread, though, concerns to difficulty of deciding what a literal reading of a document like the bible is. I thought even Fundamentalists accepted that some parts of the bible were myths or parables - or do they believe that there had to really be seven wise and foolish virgins, and a labourer in a vinyard who was paid as much for an hours work as others were for a day? Not impossible, but most readings of these stories would say they were illustrative rather than real. Most Fundamentalist interpretations of the Song of Solomon I have seen treat it as an elaborate metaphor of the Churches' love of God, or vice versa.So I am unhappy with an assertion that I should take something literally. I don't believe I can, unless it is written in formal notation like mathematics. Otherwise I have to interpret it, and of course each persons interpretation will differ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^
Christ's parables were clearly parables. The writer of Hebrews praises David's, Moses', Abraham's and Noah's deeds but not those of any characters of the parables!

---

I see this as a critical issue, which goes to the heart of the argument. You are happy to accept that the bible contains parables; teaching stories which are not necessarily literally true, but which illustrate a deeper meaning. Are you happy to accept that the bible may also contain myths and legends?Acceptance of this point does not necessarily mean that the flood story is such a myth, of course. I consider the Genesis creation story to be a myth, while I suspect that the flood story is a legend - that is, a story passed down through the generations which may have originated with a real incident. For example, the story of Zeus visiting Danae in a shower of gold is a myth, while the Trojan story may be a legend.A critical point about a legend is that, while aspects of the story may have been true, other aspects added later may not be. The stories of Arthur and Robin of Locksley illustrate this well. We have historical evidence of an Arthur as a Dark Age war leader, a Duke, but not as a King, and most of the exploits associated with him are either complete fabrications, or happened to someone else and got attached to him.You will have seen earlier posts in which I drew attention to the assertion that the Genesis flood 'covered the world'. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that no floods ever occurred in biblical (or earlier) times. We are trying to argue that, as a legend, individual details are not necessarily accurate. Myself, I am not even sure that the many authors through which this story passed ever meant 'the whole world' in the first place. The words could easily be interpreted to mean 'a wide area', and, in the absence of orbital photography, it is hard to see how anyone could have known that the 'whole world' was covered. If a flood covers all the places I have ever been to in my life, I am very likely to think of the world as being flooded. What did the word 'world' mean, anyway, to a person who was unlikely to think of it as a sphere floating in space?

quote:

---

That arguement could be won by a grade six student in a primary school debate. Genesis clearly aims to describe the origin of things and a world wide flood that deluged the world.

​

We have a book claiming quite openly to be the revelation of God to man. Why not believe creation and the flood if one can belive in the resurrection of Christ?
Why should Christians doubt the flood? It is utterly, utterly ludicrous IMO.

---

I am not sure of the age of a grade six student, which I presume to be low, but I am impressed with your estimation of their capabilities. In this country most 6-8 year olds would have difficulty citing much of the basic research on physics, geology, literary criticism, history and the like which would undoubtedly be required in such an argument. Congratulations of your achievements in the field of education! Though I note that you also include the words 'in a primary school debate'. Does this mean that this argument could only be won in front of an uneducated audience?Mention of a 6 year old leads me to consider the issues of understanding. Many young people consider various legends to be true, as do many older persons, especially those who have been brought up in traditions which depend on them, or who have no apparatus for investigating them deeply. I can well believe that Jesus and Paul of Tarsus both believed that the flood legend was literally true - it would be part of their upbringing. So indications that they believed its accuracy are not proofs that it was true.Your later arguments seem to lack pith. You may be mistaking me for a Christian? The suggestion that if you can believe one apparently impossible thing you can believe any number of others is surely not what you intended to convey? It smacks of Lewis Caroll.Incidentally, could you indicate where the entire bible declares itself to be the revelation of God to Man? I am well aware that many humans claim this, but in my view the bible is a collection of many items, some of which have no obvious bearing on religious revelation. The Song of Solomon is a good example.In various places divine revelation is claimed (typically for passages dealing with Laws), but these claims only seem to refer to the local story, not the whole document. It is hard to see how even claims in one document which do refer to the whole bible can be evaluated unless we know exactly what the bible comprised at the time the document was written.[This message has been edited by Me, 08-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:

Mention of a 6 year old leads me to consider the issues of understanding.

---

​

A Grade 6 pupil is about 11-12 years old, not 6.

​

..when it comes to religion, most children simply repeat what they have heard others (whom they trust) saying, often without fully understanding the impact or implication of the argument or the assersion.

​

---

Sorry, I was guessing. British Public Schools often do not use a grade or year designator, but odd class names like Upper Bench, Shell, or Remove.I agree with your second point. Repeating what others have said without understanding (or investigation) is not confined to religion, nor, alas, to children. It is common everywhere, and seems to be particularly prevalent amongst the Press.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
I'm afraid David Rohl disagrees with you

---

I can see no disagreement. I said that the flood story was in current belief a legend which does NOT mean it is completely untrue. I say this in the next sentence! It means that it may have been based on a true incident but that additional stories have been added, and these may be true or untrue.I further stated that some archaeologists have proposed that the initial incident may have been 5-10k BC, mentioning the Black Sea inundation. So they have. I have not seen Rohl's evidence for 3k BC, and would love a cite, but unless he is able to prove that his flood is definitely the basis for the story, his is also just a guess. That is the nature of legends. If Rohl disagrees with anyone, it is William Ryan and Walter Pitman, but I suspect that they would just agree that either site might be possible. Here is a cite for you, but a simple search on Black Sea Inundation will turn up lots of data, including research suggesting that the Black Sea story might be incorrect. So it might!National Geographic - 404

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Which portions don't you believe are true?

---

Hmm. It is hard to divide a legend into definitely true and definitely false parts - most of it is a kind of grey. As I said before, noone has any trouble believing that floods happen - but there is no evidence that any particular flood is the one mentioned in the bible. Rohl is simply finding evidence for a flood (as many other archaeologists have done before), and suggesting that this might be the one. So it might. It is easy to suggest things which are incapable of proof.It is characteristic of legends, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that all sorts of other stories get associated with them. So the flood story is probably an amalgam of several stories. Rohl's flood could easily be one of them.The bits that seem to be false to my mind are:the concept that the flood was sent to punish the wicked.the concept that a boat could be built to carry all existing living things (except fishes!), breeding pairs of all these animals collected, and the whole vessel loaded, launched and operated by a few persons (7 or 8, I think). A few cows and sheep - yes.the concept that the entire world was inundated, including the tops of the mountains. I think that the original story mentions a water depth - was it 15 cubits? - which is insufficient to cover a small hill.the concept that the rainbow was invented as an indicator of an agreement that there should be no more world-wide floods.Does that cover your request?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]there may be aspects recorded within
the bible which bear relation to real events and persons.That doesn't make the entire bible literally true/correct.Since this discussion is about the orgin of diversity of
life I guess we should focus on the accuracy of Genesis.This largely comes down to verifying the Great Flood (which in
itself doesn't verify the whole of Genesis, but hey-ho!)B][/QUOTE]I think it is generally accepted that many parts of the bible refer to real persons and incidents. Quite a few Romans mentioned in the New Testament, for instance, are easily traceable through other sources.The Old Testament is much more of a mixture, comprising history, prophecy, and what can best be described as instructions for living. Of these, obviously only the history parts might contain references to real persons. A further problem is that some of the persons sound real - David and Solomon, for instance, while others, such as Cain and Abel, seem mythical. Genesis is a good example of such a mixture, starting with a myth but going on to believable history. The Straight Dope has a good thread which covers the development of the bible:http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible2.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.htmlAs far as verifying Genesis is concerned, I think that the creation story is entirely fictitious, the garden story is mainly fictitious, though early stories of easy living beside a great river might be based in reality, and the flood story could be based on one, or many real incidents of extensive flooding. All three stories are primarily explanatory myths. The creation story is the most useful, in that it explains all existence, while the garden story explains pain and suffering. I cannot see what the flood story explains, but it obviously made a great impact at the time. The stories are consistent with an oral tradition of a group living near a major waterway.Incidentally, the flood story, literally interpreted, seems to imply that all animal life on the planet should radiate from a single point, not just humans. I am always a little confused at creationist interpretations of genetic bottleneck theories - they sometimes see them as flood related and sometimes as garden related.Perhaps a useful test prediction of the flood would be the existence of a genetic bottleneck for all living animals at a similar time (but not for fishes). I will have a look for this on another thread.[This message has been edited by Me, 08-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Which Romans ? (Not saying you wrong I just would like to know )

​

---

Off the top of my head ....Herod the Great - died 4BC
Herod Agrippa - Jewish king, educated in Rome, friend of Caligula
Caesar Augustus - no introduction necessary?!
Quirinius - Governor of Syria
Pontius Pilate - Governor of JudaeaI am sure they can be checked in an Encyclopedia, History, or on the Web. There may be more - I am not a bible specialist.I am not sure why a mythic interpretation is not allowed, particularly given the lengths I have seen people go to to interpret the Song of Solomon as a religeous instruction![This message has been edited by Me, 08-28-2002]

The bible is quite a mixture, as I mentioned earlier.The more recent parts, typically New Testament, are more likely to be checkable than older bits - the Roman world around 100 AD had quite a lot of written records, and many have survived. So cross-connection is possible. The links I gave earlier can sometimes tell us who wrote various books of the bible.Before about 200 BC there was less tradition of recording things, and less items survive. So it is much harder to get comprehensive cross-checking and accurate dating. You may be lucky and find a reference to 'a great king' in a writing from a place neighbouring Israel, and if the dating seems right you could speculate that you had a reference to Solomon. So you might, but equally, you might not. Each people would have their own languages and names or references for foreigners, and a lot of discussion in this field is about whether one name really refers to a particular person. Note that our use of Christian Names and Surnames is really quite recent - it is hard for me to track my family name beyond about 1700By the time you get very far back, you have very little evidence, and speculation becomes much more possible. So evidence of a flood in 3000 BC, or 6000 Bc, or 12000 BC could easily be guessed to be that mentioned in the bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
Actually I believe there was quite a bit of recorded knowledge from pre-christian times. However they were stored at the Library in Alexandria which was destroyed, supposedly buy an early christian.

​

---

​

The Muslims had a whack at it as well. Much great literature and history were lost. It was a great crime. If it hadn't been destroyed its contents would have made those who are claiming so much for Christianity's history look like they had nothing at all.

---

My system must be playing up - I thought I had answered this one last night, and now I find I haven't!If you read the post you will find that I did not say 'before Christian times', I said 'before 200BC'. Actually, I was specifically thinking of the Alexandrian Library. AFAIK, the first mention of this was in 150BC, so I picked 200BC as a reasonable date - you can pick 300BC if you like, but I do not think you can go much further back than that.I did not mean that no writing was done before this period - a visit to the Brit Mus will easily disprove that - but that this period marked the start of a tendency to record lots of data. This dipped during the Dark Ages, but continued ever since, and has made the historians work of corroboration much easier (which was what the OP was about!).The stories of the destruction of the Library have become legendary, and are often used as accusations against one or more groups. I know of at least three incidents which caused more or less damage - the fire started by Caesar in 47BC, the Christian riot in around 380, and the siege and sacking by Omar, the Caliph of Bagdad, in about 642. Don't hold me tightly to the dates, they're just from memory.I suspect the main threat to the library was the same as the threat we are facing now - lack of official interest and support, followed by gradual deterioration of the structures, and sale/disposal of the books. There was quite a strong market for books (any books!) for collectors at various periods, eg the 11-1200s, and theft would have been rife. As would have been forgery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
I did not mean that no writing was done before this period - a visit to the Brit Mus will easily disprove that - but that this period marked the start of a tendency to record lots of data.

---

​

I have to disagree. The Egyptians 2000bc and earlier recorded huge amounts of information. So did the Babylonians, and the Sumerians. In the case of Egypt, there is even a find or two eqivalent of somebody's shopping list, so writing was very common.

​

Just a thought.

​

---

Thanks for the thought! I feel we may be wandering a bit far from the OP, but the point of obtaining corroboration from writings is obviously still germane. As you see from my quote I did not claim that writing was unknown in, say, 3000BC, just that there was a lot more in 200BC. I think you would have difficulty showing that writing was 'common' in 1000BC - common in certain circumstances, perhaps, such as with a scribe recording a tribute, but still a specialist activity.I may be digging myself into a bit of a hole here, as I was thinking partly of recorded surviving writings, and there are obviously more of these from clasical times than from very early periods. However, writing, particularly early writing, is primarily a function of economic activity (and so grows and shrinks depending on trade and taxation organisation). I was trying (struggling?) to express the concept that writing expanded with the Greeks from a few limited subjects (asset tracking, panegyrics of rulers, and religious texts) into a much richer stream of comment, which gave more hooks for a historian to cross refer to.I would be interested in a cite for the shopping list - I suspect it might be in Demotic or Coptic rather than Hieratic, which would make it Ptolomaic, and hence roughly in my proposed period of 300BC onwards. If you look on the web at the Mitchigan or Duke collections you will find that most of their stuff is 200BC onwards.In the end it all depends on what one means by 'lots of data'. As the Egyptian culture waxed and waned, through several long dynastic periods with intermediate periods of imperial breakdown, their written records would have grown and declined accordingly. I still suspect that a lot more was written after 200BC, but I have looked for a site which might estimate amounts of documentation from different cultures and time periods and failed to get a good one - perhaps you could do better?The question is an interesting one I would like to pursue. I hope it does not bore the others![This message has been edited by Me, 09-11-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.tourgypt.net/magazine/mag02012001/magf2.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.tourgypt.net/historicalessays/discwriting.htmIn the end it all depends on what one means by 'lots of data'The two articles I posted should give you some idea of what I mean by 'lots of data'. [/quote][/b]Thanks for the URLs. It took me some time to find the pages though - there is a letter missing!Though I can see that these sites indicate that writing was common in the Egyptian culture, I can see no references to back this assertion up. And the sites do not deal with the point at issue - the times at which different volumes of writings occurred. The sort of thing I am thinking about is covered in this web-site:Development of Western Civilization | Development of Western Civilization| Providence Collegewhere you can see that the majority of papyri are from the period 200BC onwards. To save you some clicking, here are two references to the Duke collection catalogue, the first covering collections in Hieratic (which is a cursive form of Hieroglyph, used from the 1st dynasty), and the second is the Demotic collection (about 500BC onwards - OK, I was thinking 200-300BC). You will see that the Demotic collection is much larger. I haven't checked all the dates, but I suspect that much is of a late period, say, 200AD?Hieratic
Demotic

quote:

---

I still suspect that a lot more was written after 200BC

---

If you are speaking of Egypt specifically, I'd say your wrong as it is well into decline. But with Rome at its height, the region probably had more writing than ever before.

quote:

---

The question is an interesting one I would like to pursue. I hope it does not bore the others!

---

I'm used to boring those around me.
[/B][/QUOTE]The political power of Egypt was in decline, true, but ports like Alexandria still passed a great deal of trade. While English speakers naturally look to northern Europe and the rise of Britain, France, Holland and Spain, it is worth remembering that the Byzantine Empire (arguably a continuation in the east of the Roman empire) was very powerful until about 1450. The rise of Rome did not mean that other cultures had to stop.I was trying to think of volumes of writing which might be used to cross-refer biblical 'events'. If you remember, the stress of my original post was that it would be easier to get documentary evidence from about 200BC onwards, and harder as we went earlier.Now I come to think of it, however, not getting evidence when we expect it is also evidence of a kind, or at least tends us to think that something didn't happen. Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if what written evidence there is shows no unusual reports when we would expect there to be some. For instance, I would expect civilisations to prepare lots of arks for a long time after the flood, in case it happened again!

Sorry for the delay - I am finding that a contractor needs to work on occasions! I will be rather busy for the next week. [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]Originally posted by Me:
Though I can see that these sites indicate that writing was common in the Egyptian culture, I can see no references to back this assertion up.
Oh sure... you want evidence! Geez! I'll have to do some more research. [/quote][/b]Just a ref to the 'shoping-list' would be appreciated, if you can find one. The use of writing in a mundane manner like that would go a long way towards revising my views of Egyptian script. It is not a tribute list for an official, is it?

quote:

---

Ok. Preservation being an issue. What I am not convinced of though is that later cultures recorded more information than did the ancient Egyptians who seemed to have been quite obsessive about record keeping. In other words, does Rome or Greece supply the level of 'common' writing that you propose? Do the later Islamic cultures display this?

---

It is so hard to extract what information on ancient cultures is really available from the reports we get, filtered through the press. There are at least four stages such information seems to go through:unearthing the raw data
the archeologists assembly of this into a paper
the archaeologists, or associated persons, interpretation into a theory
the journalists alteration of this into a storythe first two of these stages depend strongly on the raw data - the latter two seem to depend more on the imagination! I have tried on occasions to go back to original paper or raw data, and found that in many cases the data was too sparse to support the theory. It agreed with it, but there are limits to what you can prove with a single fragment. What you often get is the archeologists beliefs - they may be accurate, we may want to believe them, but we are not talking about proof here.As you say, preservation is a critical issue. Nontheless, I think I see a change in 'type' of writing after the Greeks, which I place at about 200BC. Egyptians certainly wrote well before this time, but almost all of this impresses me as a sort of inward-looking specialist technical kind of work. There were astronomical records kept for religious purposes, and tribute/tax/purchase lists, but not a lot else. There were messages to officials, few of which seem to exist, and a number of other fragments and stories. There are some religious dialogues and aide-memoires, like the Book of the Dead. Because I think that it was used in this limited way, I suspect that the total amount of writing was not great, and the archaeologists are building a lot on a little.The classics are probably the Eloquent Peasant and the Kety piece, both of which read to me like scribes teaching exercises. I am often suprised, as I said, by the wealth of interpretation which is placed on these few pieces. It is like writing about our civilisation from 0 to 2000 AD on the strength of a few items.My belief is that writing before the Greeks was a technical specialism used in a very narrow way, and not a method of conveying general information. It could do this, of course, and archeologists will often read a lot into a phrase, as I have indicated above. Later Greek and Roman work, by contrast, was often written intentionally for posterity, and describes all manner of things. We get Herodotus, the first historian, poets, and the lot!All of this is based on what little Egyptian I have struggled through. I know nothing about corresponding Sumarian and Babylonian cultures written works, and less about the Indus valley and Yellow River valley cultures! So I am simply working on the assumption that they are similar.