What is the biblical basis for the historicity of the Bible?
That same professor who brought this question and this question is at it again. His claim is that the Bible doesn't claim to be a historical account because the thought that one can look to history as an accurate account of what happened doesn't come about until the Enlightenment.
The general argument is that the Bible is a vehicle for a theological message that may have used a historical detail here or there to make it more plausible. I'm investigating the specific claim that the Bible itself does not claim to be historically accurate. My question is what biblical basis there is to claim the Bible is an account of history. Does the Bible claim to be historically accurate (or is there something in the Bible that someone could reasonably interpret as a statement to that effect)?
A verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 would not work, as its claim isn't about anything more than theological and moral value:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
This question seems to embody everything I've found on this topic so far. Rather than addressing whether the Bible itself explicitly claims to be historically accurate, they go right to defending the historicity of Scripture with outside sources and textual analysis of the stories. Is there a claim to historicity in the Bible?
EDIT: In response to many comments, I think it's necessary to clarify that I asked this question to provide a response to a specific claim. That claim was that the notion of the Bible giving a critical account of facts didn't originate until the Enlightenment. My goal isn't to prove the historicity of scripture by saying "for the Bible tells me so." My goal is to refute that specific claim with evidence from Scripture.
biblical-basis apologetics historical-jesus
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
add a comment |
That same professor who brought this question and this question is at it again. His claim is that the Bible doesn't claim to be a historical account because the thought that one can look to history as an accurate account of what happened doesn't come about until the Enlightenment.
The general argument is that the Bible is a vehicle for a theological message that may have used a historical detail here or there to make it more plausible. I'm investigating the specific claim that the Bible itself does not claim to be historically accurate. My question is what biblical basis there is to claim the Bible is an account of history. Does the Bible claim to be historically accurate (or is there something in the Bible that someone could reasonably interpret as a statement to that effect)?
A verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 would not work, as its claim isn't about anything more than theological and moral value:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
This question seems to embody everything I've found on this topic so far. Rather than addressing whether the Bible itself explicitly claims to be historically accurate, they go right to defending the historicity of Scripture with outside sources and textual analysis of the stories. Is there a claim to historicity in the Bible?
EDIT: In response to many comments, I think it's necessary to clarify that I asked this question to provide a response to a specific claim. That claim was that the notion of the Bible giving a critical account of facts didn't originate until the Enlightenment. My goal isn't to prove the historicity of scripture by saying "for the Bible tells me so." My goal is to refute that specific claim with evidence from Scripture.
biblical-basis apologetics historical-jesus
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
What department/classes does this professor teach?
– Alex Strasser
13 hours ago
1
@AlexStrasser To put it briefly, he teaches history, but considers himself an expert on the Bible and also teaches a class on the Bible. He also incorporates the Bible into his other courses. I'd rather have this discussion in a chat room, as there's more to say on it than is appropriate for the comments section. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88376/…
– Zenon
13 hours ago
1
The Old Testament scriptures are an historical account. Nowhere does there need to be a 'claim' to truth. The whole account says what it says. One either accepts the truth of the account - or one disbelieves it. Your question is not valid.
– Nigel J
8 hours ago
@NigelJ I'm aware of that. This isn't an issue I have with the historicity of Scripture, it's an issue said professor has that I'm looking to argue against in a specific way.
– Zenon
2 hours ago
1
It has to be recalled that we can not tell whether a text is meant to be historically accurate, or to be a fiction, by its claims on its own historicity. In novels, claiming to be true is an important part of the fiction itself. So, of course, any issue about the historicity of the Bible can't be solved by any statement within the Bible, about its own historicity.
– Pietro Majer
1 hour ago
add a comment |
That same professor who brought this question and this question is at it again. His claim is that the Bible doesn't claim to be a historical account because the thought that one can look to history as an accurate account of what happened doesn't come about until the Enlightenment.
The general argument is that the Bible is a vehicle for a theological message that may have used a historical detail here or there to make it more plausible. I'm investigating the specific claim that the Bible itself does not claim to be historically accurate. My question is what biblical basis there is to claim the Bible is an account of history. Does the Bible claim to be historically accurate (or is there something in the Bible that someone could reasonably interpret as a statement to that effect)?
A verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 would not work, as its claim isn't about anything more than theological and moral value:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
This question seems to embody everything I've found on this topic so far. Rather than addressing whether the Bible itself explicitly claims to be historically accurate, they go right to defending the historicity of Scripture with outside sources and textual analysis of the stories. Is there a claim to historicity in the Bible?
EDIT: In response to many comments, I think it's necessary to clarify that I asked this question to provide a response to a specific claim. That claim was that the notion of the Bible giving a critical account of facts didn't originate until the Enlightenment. My goal isn't to prove the historicity of scripture by saying "for the Bible tells me so." My goal is to refute that specific claim with evidence from Scripture.
biblical-basis apologetics historical-jesus
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
That same professor who brought this question and this question is at it again. His claim is that the Bible doesn't claim to be a historical account because the thought that one can look to history as an accurate account of what happened doesn't come about until the Enlightenment.
The general argument is that the Bible is a vehicle for a theological message that may have used a historical detail here or there to make it more plausible. I'm investigating the specific claim that the Bible itself does not claim to be historically accurate. My question is what biblical basis there is to claim the Bible is an account of history. Does the Bible claim to be historically accurate (or is there something in the Bible that someone could reasonably interpret as a statement to that effect)?
A verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 would not work, as its claim isn't about anything more than theological and moral value:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
This question seems to embody everything I've found on this topic so far. Rather than addressing whether the Bible itself explicitly claims to be historically accurate, they go right to defending the historicity of Scripture with outside sources and textual analysis of the stories. Is there a claim to historicity in the Bible?
EDIT: In response to many comments, I think it's necessary to clarify that I asked this question to provide a response to a specific claim. That claim was that the notion of the Bible giving a critical account of facts didn't originate until the Enlightenment. My goal isn't to prove the historicity of scripture by saying "for the Bible tells me so." My goal is to refute that specific claim with evidence from Scripture.
biblical-basis apologetics historical-jesus
biblical-basis apologetics historical-jesus
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
edited 19 mins ago
Zenon
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
asked 15 hours ago
ZenonZenon
1,15311030
1,15311030
What department/classes does this professor teach?
– Alex Strasser
13 hours ago
1
@AlexStrasser To put it briefly, he teaches history, but considers himself an expert on the Bible and also teaches a class on the Bible. He also incorporates the Bible into his other courses. I'd rather have this discussion in a chat room, as there's more to say on it than is appropriate for the comments section. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88376/…
– Zenon
13 hours ago
1
The Old Testament scriptures are an historical account. Nowhere does there need to be a 'claim' to truth. The whole account says what it says. One either accepts the truth of the account - or one disbelieves it. Your question is not valid.
– Nigel J
8 hours ago
@NigelJ I'm aware of that. This isn't an issue I have with the historicity of Scripture, it's an issue said professor has that I'm looking to argue against in a specific way.
– Zenon
2 hours ago
1
It has to be recalled that we can not tell whether a text is meant to be historically accurate, or to be a fiction, by its claims on its own historicity. In novels, claiming to be true is an important part of the fiction itself. So, of course, any issue about the historicity of the Bible can't be solved by any statement within the Bible, about its own historicity.
– Pietro Majer
1 hour ago
add a comment |
What department/classes does this professor teach?
– Alex Strasser
13 hours ago
1
@AlexStrasser To put it briefly, he teaches history, but considers himself an expert on the Bible and also teaches a class on the Bible. He also incorporates the Bible into his other courses. I'd rather have this discussion in a chat room, as there's more to say on it than is appropriate for the comments section. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88376/…
– Zenon
13 hours ago
1
The Old Testament scriptures are an historical account. Nowhere does there need to be a 'claim' to truth. The whole account says what it says. One either accepts the truth of the account - or one disbelieves it. Your question is not valid.
– Nigel J
8 hours ago
@NigelJ I'm aware of that. This isn't an issue I have with the historicity of Scripture, it's an issue said professor has that I'm looking to argue against in a specific way.
– Zenon
2 hours ago
1
It has to be recalled that we can not tell whether a text is meant to be historically accurate, or to be a fiction, by its claims on its own historicity. In novels, claiming to be true is an important part of the fiction itself. So, of course, any issue about the historicity of the Bible can't be solved by any statement within the Bible, about its own historicity.
– Pietro Majer
1 hour ago
What department/classes does this professor teach?
– Alex Strasser
13 hours ago
What department/classes does this professor teach?
– Alex Strasser
13 hours ago
1
1
@AlexStrasser To put it briefly, he teaches history, but considers himself an expert on the Bible and also teaches a class on the Bible. He also incorporates the Bible into his other courses. I'd rather have this discussion in a chat room, as there's more to say on it than is appropriate for the comments section. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88376/…
– Zenon
13 hours ago
@AlexStrasser To put it briefly, he teaches history, but considers himself an expert on the Bible and also teaches a class on the Bible. He also incorporates the Bible into his other courses. I'd rather have this discussion in a chat room, as there's more to say on it than is appropriate for the comments section. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88376/…
– Zenon
13 hours ago
1
1
The Old Testament scriptures are an historical account. Nowhere does there need to be a 'claim' to truth. The whole account says what it says. One either accepts the truth of the account - or one disbelieves it. Your question is not valid.
– Nigel J
8 hours ago
The Old Testament scriptures are an historical account. Nowhere does there need to be a 'claim' to truth. The whole account says what it says. One either accepts the truth of the account - or one disbelieves it. Your question is not valid.
– Nigel J
8 hours ago
@NigelJ I'm aware of that. This isn't an issue I have with the historicity of Scripture, it's an issue said professor has that I'm looking to argue against in a specific way.
– Zenon
2 hours ago
@NigelJ I'm aware of that. This isn't an issue I have with the historicity of Scripture, it's an issue said professor has that I'm looking to argue against in a specific way.
– Zenon
2 hours ago
1
1
It has to be recalled that we can not tell whether a text is meant to be historically accurate, or to be a fiction, by its claims on its own historicity. In novels, claiming to be true is an important part of the fiction itself. So, of course, any issue about the historicity of the Bible can't be solved by any statement within the Bible, about its own historicity.
– Pietro Majer
1 hour ago
It has to be recalled that we can not tell whether a text is meant to be historically accurate, or to be a fiction, by its claims on its own historicity. In novels, claiming to be true is an important part of the fiction itself. So, of course, any issue about the historicity of the Bible can't be solved by any statement within the Bible, about its own historicity.
– Pietro Majer
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.
Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
5
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
1
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "304"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f68149%2fwhat-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-historicity-of-the-bible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.
Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
5
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
1
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
add a comment |
That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.
Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
5
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
1
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
add a comment |
That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.
Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.
Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
edited 13 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
answered 13 hours ago
Sola GratiaSola Gratia
3,211819
3,211819
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
5
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
1
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
add a comment |
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
5
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
1
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
I can't believe I forgot about that one. Thank you.
– Zenon
13 hours ago
5
5
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
However, this only refers to the New Testament. (and many atheist historians accept the New Testament as mostly historically accurate, while regarding the Old Testament as complete fiction)
– vsz
9 hours ago
1
1
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
How does that work, when Jesus is the physical descendant of King David, who is physically descended from Abraham, etc.? What sort of game is that. Insofar as Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and that He is a descendant of David, He gives no indication that the Old Testament is to be taken as anything other than history. Luke's genealogy back to Adam??
– Sola Gratia
35 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
@SolaGratia That's probably worth editing into your answer as support for the OT
– Zenon
23 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Christianity Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f68149%2fwhat-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-historicity-of-the-bible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What department/classes does this professor teach?
– Alex Strasser
13 hours ago
1
@AlexStrasser To put it briefly, he teaches history, but considers himself an expert on the Bible and also teaches a class on the Bible. He also incorporates the Bible into his other courses. I'd rather have this discussion in a chat room, as there's more to say on it than is appropriate for the comments section. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88376/…
– Zenon
13 hours ago
1
The Old Testament scriptures are an historical account. Nowhere does there need to be a 'claim' to truth. The whole account says what it says. One either accepts the truth of the account - or one disbelieves it. Your question is not valid.
– Nigel J
8 hours ago
@NigelJ I'm aware of that. This isn't an issue I have with the historicity of Scripture, it's an issue said professor has that I'm looking to argue against in a specific way.
– Zenon
2 hours ago
1
It has to be recalled that we can not tell whether a text is meant to be historically accurate, or to be a fiction, by its claims on its own historicity. In novels, claiming to be true is an important part of the fiction itself. So, of course, any issue about the historicity of the Bible can't be solved by any statement within the Bible, about its own historicity.
– Pietro Majer
1 hour ago