What historical evidence supports the Bible?

Answer 1

AnswerMost of our historical knowledge of biblical times comes from the archaeological record and the writings of Greek and Roman authors, as well as the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus. Undoubtedly, some of The Bible is historical, or at least based on what was known to be historical. This applies particularly to the monarchy of Judah and the Babylonian Exile, as well as the events following the return from Exile.

There is no historical evidence for any of the events or principal characters in the Book of Genesis. Furthermore, Professor Finkelstein said, "Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible, and about 50% agree that there was no powerful United Monarchy." Others who support the views expressed by Finkelstein include Ze'ev Herzog, "Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. "

One artefact has been found that appears to refer to the defeat of the "House of David", which means that at the time of the defeat, there had been a former King David, or at least Judahite tradition held that there once had been a King David.

There is some archaeological material that was thought to be consistent with the biblical accounts of a rich United Kingdom during the time attributed to Kings David and Solomon, but which some scholars now believe to belong to a later era, during the time of the divided kingdom. This is a case where the historical evidence does show that certain events took place, but over a century later than the Bible reports them happening. By placing them during the reigns of David and Solomon, the authors were placing them in the history of the United Monarchy and therefore in the line of Judahite kings, rather than giving credit to the Omrite kings of Israel.

The Book of Daniel ought to be supported by the historical record, since it describes events relatively late in history at a time for which a great deal of historical information has been accumulated. Yet scholars say that it was really written approximately 167 BCE, centuries after the events it purports to portray, and contains numerous historical errors.

The Book of Esther is similar to the Book of Daniel, in that it describes events that should be readily confirmed from the historical record, yet historians say that there is too much material that is entirely inconsistent with the historical record. There is no historical record of either Esther or her predecessor Vashti, and Queen Amestris is accepted by historians as Xerxes' only wife for the first several years of his reign.

The existence and mission of Paul is perhaps the most well-attested material in the whole Bible. However, there is no historical evidence for the three missionary journeys of Acts, which seem inconsistent with Paul's own account, and no extra-biblical evidence for the miracles performed by either Paul or Peter. In turn, Paul attests to the historical reality of James, 'brother of Jesus', and of Peter and John, although when he said (Galatians 2:9) they 'seemed' to be pillars of the church in Jerusalem, it suggests he was unaware that they had ever been close to Jesus. What we do not have historical evidence of is the gospel accounts of Jesus and the twelve apostles. When Paul wrote of Jesus, he could have been writing of a purely spiritual Jesus in heaven. And when he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus, it does appear that he thought of the resurrection as purely spiritual. His account of the risen Jesus appearing to Cephas, then the twelve, then to more than 500 (most of whom were still alive) then to James and all the apostles, implies that the appearances were all of the same nature as the appearance to himself, with no suggestion that any of those appearances somehow more real than the spiritual appearance he experienced. No contemporary wrote of Jesus, not even Philo of Alexandria who would no doubt have done so if he knew anything of Jesus' life. If the gospel account is true, this must be taken on faith, unsupported by any historical evidence.