Do problems with the historocity of the Bible affect your faith (or lack of it)?

[ShadowRocket]

The historocity of the Bible is a topic that I've always been interested in. Most mainstream scholars would say that while the stories told in it may have various basis in fact, the Bible itself isn't an accurate account of the history of ancient Israel.  Views such as the Patriarchs not being historical figures, there never being a mass Israelite exodus from Egypt, and the United Monarchy being much more modest than the Bible's portrayal seems to be the majority view in academic circles. Not to mention that it seems that the Abrahamic God may've started out as just the chief god of the ancient Canaanite pantheon, El, with the name Yahweh being an epithet that came later.

That said, does this affect your faith, or contribute to the lack of it?  I mean, the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths is the idea of divine revelation as expressed in the Bible.  But if this is not true, does that invalidate those beliefs? Or does it not matter?

[Meursault]

My absence of faith is not predicated on any empirical truth-claim.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I'm pretty sure most of the historical aspects of the Bible are true. I mean people thought the Hittites were fictional because they were in the Bible and they were discovered to be real, and that statue in Daniel prophecy has been 100% accurate so far.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure I'm willing to bite the bullet and say that I think these sorts of questions are entirely irrelevant, but I'm really not that interested and don't care very much, so no.

[Sol]

I'm pretty sure most of the historical aspects of the Bible are true. I mean people thought the Hittites were fictional because they were in the Bible and they were discovered to be real, and that statue in Daniel prophecy has been 100% accurate so far.

Hittites are also very important in historical linguistics.

I'm not sure I'm willing to bite the bullet and say that I think these sorts of questions are entirely irrelevant, but I'm really not that interested and don't care very much, so no.

Just out of curiosity (and feel free to ignore me if you think this question is disrespectful, because I fear it may come off as such), would your rationale thusly be that God wanted the Bible to exist in its present form, and thus filtered out all the unnecessary bits?

[GaussLaw]

I believe in the Gospels pretty strongly, and if scholars could disprove (not just find no evidence for it, per se), that would shake my faith.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure I'm willing to bite the bullet and say that I think these sorts of questions are entirely irrelevant, but I'm really not that interested and don't care very much, so no.

Just out of curiosity (and feel free to ignore me if you think this question is disrespectful, because I fear it may come off as such), would your rationale thusly be that God wanted the Bible to exist in its present form, and thus filtered out all the unnecessary bits?

I don't find the question disrespectful but I'm not entirely sure exactly what it means. My rationale for what, precisely?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm pretty sure most of the historical aspects of the Bible are true. I mean people thought the Hittites were fictional because they were in the Bible and they were discovered to be real, and that statue in Daniel prophecy has been 100% accurate so far.

To be fair, it appears that the Old Testament tradition conflates two separate peoples with similar names, the Semitic Hethites of Canaan and the Indo-European Hittites of Anatolia. Considering that by the time the account was fixed in its current form some centuries after both Hethites and Hittites were essentially no more, it is not surprising.

[afleitch]

I think if someone does have a problem with the historical claims made in the bible and can't reconcile then, then it should affect you faith. Note that 'affect' doesn't necessarily equate with 'abandon'. Many of the metaphysical claims are historic in nature. If Matthew 27 is correct and an earthquake opened up the tombs of many of the godly men and women of Jerusalem so that they walked the streets again then that is an historical event, a physical event in a major local city of a population about 80,000-100,000. It is a throwaway passage with not so throw away problems.

In either event Christianity is very much like the Ship of Theseus; it has been deconstructed and reassembled with additions and omissions since the time of the original Jewish Christians (see the discussion we had way back on adoptionism for example) that we can't really be sure if it's the same ship (or more accurately given the divergent sects within the religion, which is the right ship) But like any counter-intuitive, Christianity has always been inventive. You can make the same appeals as thinkers like Celsus used to do back at the beginning but it doesn't diminish people's belief in an idea.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It's affected my faith in that it gives me flexibility in how Christianity should be understood, even when what is revealed turns out to be uncomfortable for those who've held onto certain beliefs all their lives.  For example, I recently discovered that the account of Jesus forgiving the prostitute is not in the original manuscripts but is instead an interpolation.  This has been known for centuries, but I only found this out from doing independent research.  Did it trouble me at first?  Yes, greatly.  But, theologians and ministers have known this and it hasn't caused them to abandon their faith because they consider the account authentic, nonetheless.  And, even if it didn't happen at all and was fabricated to simply create a better image of Jesus, that doesn't take away from the value of the story itself and that's why I don't think Christians should give it any less authority than they would any other passage.

The only thing that would make me seriously consider abandoning Christianity for another faith (notice I didn't say "abandon religion altogether") would be some kind of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus did not in fact walk the earth, all caveats about "proving a negative" aside.  But, most accredited scholars (some of faith, some not - no, people who are blatantly using scholarship to push an agenda, like Richard Carrier, don't count) accept that there was a physical Jesus.  We've only found better reason to accept this as time goes on.  The mere fact that we have Christianity is, in my opinion, reason enough to believe that there is one significant figure we can trace it all to, independent of whether or not the metaphysical claims are accurate.

[afleitch]

The only thing that would make me seriously consider abandoning Christianity for another faith (notice I didn't say "abandon religion altogether") would be some kind of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus did not in fact walk the earth

So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it? There is likely evidence for Buddha and Mohammed. There is of course irrefutable evidence that there was a Joseph Smith, and in the case of Emperor Haile Salassie and L. Ron Hubbard we even have them on tape. Would you accept at face value the spiritual and metaphysical claims that they made? The answer is of course no, but why does it not concern you about your own faith?

You've said that even if an addition or interpretation of an event is fabricated, then as long as it makes Jesus look better that's okay. You even said that those additions shouldn't be given any less authority than what is less likely to have been fabricated just because they don't happen to be true. Does that mean (and this is really what's coming across) that it doesn't matter if anything is true? Even when you yourself have sufficient evidence through your own investigation, to convince you that something you took at face value isn't true? Do you invest the same energy in evaluating the competing claims made by those who don't have any religious belief and those who believe in different gods?

[Cassius]

Of course not. It matters no one wit that much of the Bible is a little... shall we say, unbelievable. For me, there's no alternative to Christianity that I find attractive (okay, I may not be the most well-informed on other belief systems, but, oh well, what the heck), and I find that I like a lot of what Christianity has to say, whether it be from the Bible, or indeed from Christian philosophy or the Church itself.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The only thing that would make me seriously consider abandoning Christianity for another faith (notice I didn't say "abandon religion altogether") would be some kind of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus did not in fact walk the earth

So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it? There is likely evidence for Buddha and Mohammed. There is of course irrefutable evidence that there was a Joseph Smith, and in the case of Emperor Haile Salassie and L. Ron Hubbard we even have them on tape. Would you accept at face value the spiritual and metaphysical claims that they made? The answer is of course no, but why does it not concern you about your own faith?

What matters is if there's truth or value in what was said.  There's no reason to simply not preach or practice forgiveness because the aforementioned account didn't occur.  (In fact, the same message from that account can easily be found in other sayings of Jesus, so this particular example isn't really essential to understanding the moral teachings.)  If your only reason for being moral is so that you may please authority, it's not real morality.  If your only reason for believing is to avoid going to Hell, it's not real belief, it's cowardly pandering so that you can save your own metaphysical ass.  A lot of people do it, but everyone who does is completely neglecting the lesson of not doing things solely for personal gain.

And yes, there is evidence for a Buddha and a Mohammad.  Some of that evidence comes from the movements that they started.  As I was sure to mention in my last post, these proofs may not be evidence of their metaphysical claims, but they are evidence that someone must have been there to inspire them.  Even a myth must be somewhere grounded in truth.  Otherwise, "myth" would be a highly disingenuous term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strawman of the year award.

I specifically said that whether it was fabricated to improve Jesus' image or not does not take away from the the inherent value of the story itself.  In other words, forgiveness is a virtue whether or not it was preached from the mouth of a divine figure.  Forgiveness is a good idea because it's a good idea, not because we'll be punished by an omnipotent being if we don't forgive.  (And usually, you'll face the consequences for not having forgiveness in this life, anyway, because no one's life has improved as a result of grudges or vengeance.)  In other words, if you only treat another person well because you expect to be rewarded for it, then what does that say about the human condition in the first place?  Mankind must be more morally bankrupt than I thought!

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm a little bemused at your posts today.  You're a smart person.  This is rather intellectually lazy on your part...

[afleitch]

Strawman of the year award.

I specifically said that whether it was fabricated to improve Jesus' image or not does not take away from the the inherent value of the story itself.  In other words, forgiveness is a virtue whether or not it was preached from the mouth of a divine figure.  Forgiveness is a good idea because it's a good idea, not because we'll be punished by an omnipotent being if we don't forgive.  (And usually, you'll face the consequences for not having forgiveness in this life, anyway, because no one's life has improved as a result of grudges or vengeance.)  In other words, if you only treat another person well because you expect to be rewarded for it, then what does that say about the human condition in the first place?  Mankind must be more morally bankrupt than I thought!

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm a little bemused at your posts today.  You're a smart person.  This is rather intellectually lazy on your part...

You gave the example of a story in the New Testament that you, through your understanding and research, consider to be a fabrication. You then said;

'And, even if it didn't happen at all and was fabricated to simply create a better image of Jesus, that doesn't take away from the value of the story itself and that's why I don't think Christians should give it any less authority than they would any other passage.'

I then said; 'So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it?' I was referring of course to the fact that you have no issue with parts of  the book of your religion and the words of your god being a fabrication if it 'creates a better image of Jesus'. Or in short, attributing things to Jesus that he didn't say or do does not present to you as a problem when placed side by side with other key tenets of your faith. That's extraordinary. That's all I was trying say.

I don't disagree with you and I feel that you've probably misunderstood exactly what I was proposing. For example in all likelihood, it's 50/50 whether or not Socrates existed and if he didn't, it means he never said anything that was attributed to him. It doesn't detract from the wisdom imparted and that's okay because the destination of my soul doesn't depend on whether I believe Socrates existed.

You can't escape that. The whole point of Christianity is that you have to accept that Jesus is your saviour. He can't just be someone who said 'a lot of interesting things' if you don't take the next step because Jesus was one of many contemporaries or came after others who said exactly the same interesting things as he did. The rest of your post in reply is curiously agnostic. I can't dispute anything else you say with regards to forgiveness or morality because that's exactly the view that I hold. As I said what Jesus said on issues of morality or simply on the best way in which to conduct yourself are not unique.

What's problematic for me is that Jesus wants more than that. Seneca in his Epistulae Morales says; 'If you want to be loved, love.' and to 'Take care not to harm others, so others won't harm you.' These are universal truths that people have always reached regardless of what belief they hold or don't. Marcus Aurelius says; 'We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a citizen of the Universe.'

Jesus says these things too, but he also says 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' That's not necessary. As you say yourself, if your only reason for being moral is so that you may please authority, it's not real morality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You can't escape that. The whole point of Christianity is that you have to accept that Jesus is your saviour. He can't just be someone who said 'a lot of interesting things' if you don't take the next step because Jesus was one of many contemporaries or came after others who said exactly the same interesting things as he did. The rest of your post in reply is curiously agnostic. I can't dispute anything else you say with regards to forgiveness or morality because that's exactly the view that I hold. As I said what Jesus said on issues of morality or simply on the best way in which to conduct yourself are not unique.

What's problematic for me is that Jesus wants more than that. Seneca in his Epistulae Morales says; 'If you want to be loved, love.' and to 'Take care not to harm others, so others won't harm you.' These are universal truths that people have always reached regardless of what belief they hold or don't. Marcus Aurelius says; 'We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a citizen of the Universe.'

Jesus says these things too, but he also says 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' That's not necessary. As you say yourself, if your only reason for being moral is so that you may please authority, it's not real morality.

The problem you see only comes if one takes passages such as John 15:6 in an extremely literal way, which I grant is how fundamentalists tend to do.  But if one accepts that Jesus was a living embodiment of the Way, then what such passages indicate is that one needs to follow that Way to achieve salvation.  Passages such as Matthew 7:21-23 indicate that Christ did not come seeking homage as if he were but yet another earthly potentate.  It is indeed unfortunate that too many so called Christians call Jesus Lord of Lords yet do little to nothing about following the Way he exemplified.  Such people may call themselves Christians, yet they do not abide in Christ and they shall be cast forth.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Strawman of the year award.

I specifically said that whether it was fabricated to improve Jesus' image or not does not take away from the the inherent value of the story itself.  In other words, forgiveness is a virtue whether or not it was preached from the mouth of a divine figure.  Forgiveness is a good idea because it's a good idea, not because we'll be punished by an omnipotent being if we don't forgive.  (And usually, you'll face the consequences for not having forgiveness in this life, anyway, because no one's life has improved as a result of grudges or vengeance.)  In other words, if you only treat another person well because you expect to be rewarded for it, then what does that say about the human condition in the first place?  Mankind must be more morally bankrupt than I thought!

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm a little bemused at your posts today.  You're a smart person.  This is rather intellectually lazy on your part...

You gave the example of a story in the New Testament that you, through your understanding and research, consider to be a fabrication. You then said;

'And, even if it didn't happen at all and was fabricated to simply create a better image of Jesus, that doesn't take away from the value of the story itself and that's why I don't think Christians should give it any less authority than they would any other passage.'

I then said; 'So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it?' I was referring of course to the fact that you have no issue with parts of  the book of your religion and the words of your god being a fabrication if it 'creates a better image of Jesus'. Or in short, attributing things to Jesus that he didn't say or do does not present to you as a problem when placed side by side with other key tenets of your faith. That's extraordinary. That's all I was trying say.

(For the record, my point isn't that it's a complete fabrication; it was an interpolation.  It wasn't part of the original manuscripts, but whether or not such an event took place and was simply added to the text upon further investigation is another question.)

Your exact words were, "You've said that even if an addition or interpretation of an event is fabricated, then as long as it makes Jesus look better that's okay."  That totally misses the point.  My goal here isn't to make "Jesus look better," it's to apply a consistent understanding of his teachings.  I'd discourage present understanding of the text if it clearly departed from Jesus' philosophy, but image has nothing to do with it.  If you don't agree with my approach, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of saying things I never said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've explained, I mentioned forgiveness as an example to illustrate how certain virtues can be of relevance even if they were not explained the way the text professes.  Jesus could have met a woman caught in adultery, pardoned her for her wrongdoings, and challenged her persecutors.  Maybe he didn't.  But that particular account doesn't tell us anything about Jesus that we don't already know.  Forgiveness isn't a new lesson of his, but the story is a real-life example of how that lesson is applied.

The Scriptures indeed paint a portrait of a Jesus who wanted us to follow him as the savior and not just a moral exemplar.  But, with regard to the passage you cited, John 15:1-6 merely states that you are either a branch that bears good fruit or a branch that does not.  Jesus, in this case, was referring to the Jews as the branch; it doesn't teach that when you believe, you become a branch.  Now, I have no time or desire to go over every single passage of the New Testament that refers to Jesus as the Savior - that is a completely different discussion - but the main point is this: Jesus wanted people to have life, to live that life abundantly, to be whole, to be clean, and to be hopeful rather than fearful about what lies ahead for humanity.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I proclaim no certainty or special knowledge of what 'is.'  I know I've said this on a number of occasions here in one way or another.  The discussion is starting to go off track, though, so I'll leave you with this: the concept that establishes the doctrine of Jesus' morality is Logos; i.e. the Word of God.  It is essential that Jesus be separated by his physical entity and his spiritual entity - the entity that pointed people toward the Word rather than the physical manifestation of the Word that people have worshiped to the detriment of popular understanding.  Jesus didn't want a fanbase, he wanted enlightenment.  By following Logos, you are following Jesus, thus observing God.  As far as having to accept Jesus as your savior, that can go a number of ways.  Although, keep in mind that you're speaking to someone who understands "born again" as a process and not as something you decide to label yourself as one day.  I've explained before that I don't accept the idea that one has a set time for which to decide if they believe in God or not.  (As a people who are never on equal footing or start with what can truly be considered a blank slate, such expectations would be completely unreasonable.)

Sadly, I fear that you are trapped in the mindset that there is a single approach to Christian doctrine among believers.  Or, maybe you don't believe that, but your preconceptions of Christianity cause you to overlook those differences or downplay their importance.  It could very well be subconscious, too.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely.  In any event, I think that's why it's near impossible to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to everyone when you are forced to not approach things on your own terms.

[afleitch]

Sadly, I fear that you are trapped in the mindset that there is a single approach to Christian doctrine among believers.  Or, maybe you don't believe that, but your preconceptions of Christianity cause you to overlook those differences or downplay their importance.  It could very well be subconscious, too.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely.  In any event, I think that's why it's near impossible to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to everyone when you are forced to not approach things on your own terms.

I don't believe there is a single approach to Christian doctrine. I am aware there are 40,000 different Christian denominations and countless many interpretations folded into each of them. Many different views are expressed on this forum regularly. If I pick one to focus on I am not being purposely ignorant of the others You might forget that I was a practicing Christian until 2010 and was one of the banner bearers of liberal Christianity on this board until that point. I am not a Christian because I don't understand what people believe. It's because I 'get' the point with which I do not agree.

What I find surprising in many of your recent posts is a very classical agnostic approach to morality. You might not be comfortable with that inference (which is not by any means a slight) and at a point in my life neither was I, but I find it intriguing and the way in which you have been defensive of that is interesting That's all.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Sadly, I fear that you are trapped in the mindset that there is a single approach to Christian doctrine among believers.  Or, maybe you don't believe that, but your preconceptions of Christianity cause you to overlook those differences or downplay their importance.  It could very well be subconscious, too.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely.  In any event, I think that's why it's near impossible to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to everyone when you are forced to not approach things on your own terms.

I don't believe there is a single approach to Christian doctrine. I am aware there are 40,000 different Christian denominations and countless many interpretations folded into each of them. Many different views are expressed on this forum regularly. If I pick one to focus on I am not being purposely ignorant of the others You might forget that I was a practicing Christian until 2010 and was one of the banner bearers of liberal Christianity on this board until that point. I am not a Christian because I don't understand what people believe. It's because I 'get' the point with which I do not agree.

What I find surprising in many of your recent posts is a very classical agnostic approach to morality. You might not be comfortable with that inference (which is not by any means a slight) and at a point in my life neither was I, but I find it intriguing and the way in which you have been defensive of that is interesting That's all.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "agnostic."  If by "agnostic" you mean someone who doesn't claim to have all the answers in front of me, then yes, I suppose "agnostic" would be a fitting label (I think I even referred to myself as an "agnostic theist" some time last year), but in all honesty I hate that word as it's used in its most frequent context because I think everyone is agnostic in one way or another, even those who have convinced themselves they are not, so I find its use rather pretentious and redundant.  If I come off as defensive on that, I don't mean to.

As far as morals go, I believe morality is the same to humans regardless of time period but more and more of it is revealed to us as humanity progresses.  (To use a somewhat crude example, masturbation used to be regarded as immoral because it was believed that a man had a limited supply of semen and so wasting it would be detrimental to the human population.  Some even thought a man could die if he were to "run out."  It was absolutely proper to discourage masturbation and non-procreative sex back in those times, but now we know that none of these concerns hold weight, so discouraging them for nature-based reasons is no longer necessary.)  Gender equality is another strong example, but I think the one I described is best.

[The Mikado]

Caring whether Biblical tales actually happened or not is for Protestants and atheists who think Protestantism is the only thing worth interfacing with.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Caring whether Biblical tales actually happened or not is for Protestants and atheists who think Protestantism is the only thing worth interfacing with.

     It is perhaps one of the less fortunate results of the decision to reject the notion of the hidden sense of the Bible. I wonder if Luther thought about the problems that it would cause in terms of historical accuracy, or if people back then saw problems in that regard.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The historicity of the Bible doesn't have any "problems," at least not any real ones.  All of the historical evidence that's already been found has confirmed everything the Bible says, and none of it has proven anything to be wrong.  And besides, faith is, by definition, believing in something without having all the evidence.  In short, not much.

[Meursault]

Save that pi has never been three on the nose.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Save that pi has never been three on the nose.

That old canard.  Here's a fairly good explanation of why what most people know on this subject is likely wrong.  http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm  Once one takes into account the thickness of the molten sea, one gets a description of an approximation that for the era is about as accurate than any other known from that time. (The approximation 22/7 that some infer from the dimensions of the pyramids is more accurate. yet oddly later Egyptian writings use the less accurate value of (4/3)^4, tho that may have been because it was easier to physically measure when factors of 2 and 3 were involved instead of factors of 7 and 11 as with the inferred value of pi from the pyramids.

[Meursault]

I don't want near accuracy from the Living Word; "as good as any other estimate" does not cut it.

I suppose then that the Bible is as good as any other bit of sacred text.

[Meursault]

Or, to express it differently: because the Good News does not move my soul - because I do not find it as emotionally true as the Bhagavad-Gita, or as logical as the Law of Mani - it had better be more realistic than these.

But it isn't the history that bothers me. It's the little things, like getting pi wrong, or the exact weight of a talent. If G__ can sweat the small stuff like dietary laws, He can be exacting with His units of measurememt, not sloppy, like those filthy Baalists.