Biblical Figures' Historicity Confirmed by Extra-Biblical Sources - Do you care?

[smac97]

Discoveries That Confirm Parts of the Bible

37 Bible Characters Found Through Archaeology

28 Historical Figures Mentioned in the New Testament

 

For those who believe in the Bible, does any of the information such as what is shown above, extra-biblical confirmation of the historicity of some figures referenced in the Bible, move the needle for you?  One way or another?

Same question for those who do not believe in the Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

Move what needle? To what point?

Edited November 20, 2024 by Rain

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Discoveries That Confirm Parts of the Bible

37 Bible Characters Found Through Archaeology

28 Historical Figures Mentioned in the New Testament

 

For those who believe in the Bible, does any of the information such as what is shown above, extra-biblical confirmation of the historicity of some figures referenced in the Bible, move the needle for you?  One way or another?

Same question for those who do not believe in the Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

I haven't watched the videos but I think it mostly depends on what the extra-biblical sources were confirming.  For example, it was really cool when they discovered the city of Troy after everyone was certain that the place was just a myth, but that discovery doesn't impact at all whether or not the Apollo is a sun god or Achilles was a demigod with one small spot on heel where he was vulnerable to attack.  There's no shortage of fiction written about real places and real people.

Confirmation (or lack thereof) of biblical characters or places outside of the bible is great, but doesn't swing the needle for me in any direction as far as the truth claims of the Bible go.  

(I think that changes in regards to the Book of Mormon though, because of the nature of the coming forth of the book.  Any extra-scriptural confirmation of events in the BOM would be profound because of what that would mean about Joseph Smith)

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

Move what needle? To what point?

Does extra-biblical evidence confirming the historicity of some figures referenced in The Bible increase your religious faith in that book?  Decrease it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

I haven't watched the videos but I think it mostly depends on what the extra-biblical sources were confirming.

The historicity of some figures referenced in The Bible.

Just now, bluebell said:

For example, it was really cool when they discovered the city of Troy after everyone was certain that the place was just a myth, but that discovery doesn't impact at all whether or not the Apollo is a sun god or Achilles was a demigod with one small spot on heel where he was vulnerable to attack. 

I agree.  

Just now, bluebell said:

There's no shortage of fiction written about real places and real people.

Agreed.  

Just now, bluebell said:

Confirmation (or lack thereof) of biblical characters or places outside of the bible is great, but doesn't swing the needle for me in any direction as far as the truth claims of the Bible go.

It moves the needle for me a little, but not much.

Just now, bluebell said:

(I think that changes in regards to the Book of Mormon though, because of the nature of the coming forth of the book.  Any extra-scriptural confirmation of events in the BOM would be profound because of what that would mean about Joseph Smith)

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Does extra-biblical evidence confirming the historicity of some figures referenced in The Bible increase your religious faith in that book?  Decrease it?

Thanks,

-Smac

It does nothing to my faith. As far as I'm aware the bible has always had historical figures and places.  That is nothing new to me so it doesn't change anything. The only thing that might change my faith as far as historicity goes is proving God’s hand in those events which would be quite something. 

[Calm]

Historical fiction would just have a longer, more detailed pedigree.

[manol]

My personal interest is in what Simon Peter described as "the words of eternal life".

Imo historicity can be interesting but it is not a part of the foundation upon which I hope to build my house, so to speak.

Edited November 20, 2024 by manol

[CV75]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Discoveries That Confirm Parts of the Bible

37 Bible Characters Found Through Archaeology

28 Historical Figures Mentioned in the New Testament

 

For those who believe in the Bible, does any of the information such as what is shown above, extra-biblical confirmation of the historicity of some figures referenced in the Bible, move the needle for you?  One way or another?

Same question for those who do not believe in the Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure if it would increase my faith in "The Bible" or the teachings in it, but it would increase my knowledge. Learning something new about biblical people and places, from welcome and reliable sources, might spark an added measure of appreciation, reflection, and motivation to as we apply the scriptures, in much the same way family history does.

[Vanguard]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

The only thing that might change my faith as far as historicity goes is proving God’s hand in those events which would be quite something. 

I don't believe there is anything that will 'prove' God's hand in those events though William Lane Craig does a pretty good job at providing an evidentiary basis for them.

And no, these clips don't much move the needle for me either way. I believe Christ is largely accepted as an historical figure already - and he's the only one that matters. ; )

[Mfbnew]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Discoveries That Confirm Parts of the Bible

37 Bible Characters Found Through Archaeology

28 Historical Figures Mentioned in the New Testament

 

For those who believe in the Bible, does any of the information such as what is shown above, extra-biblical confirmation of the historicity of some figures referenced in the Bible, move the needle for you?  One way or another?

Same question for those who do not believe in the Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

What does being famous have to do with spirituality?

Should we be worshiping pop stars?

In 3,000 years will the name Trump prove our church  was "true"?

Omigosh.   What "needle" is this supposed to move?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

What does being famous have to do with spirituality?

Should we be worshiping pop stars?

In 3,000 years will the name Trump prove our church  was "true"?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

4 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Omigosh.   What "needle" is this supposed to move?

Not "supposed."  I was just asking if people feel that extra-biblical corroboration of the existence of some biblical figures affects their religious perspective on The Bible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was just asking if people feel that extra-biblical corroboration of the existence of some biblical figures affects their religious perspective on The Bible.

Why should it?  (Yes I know a lot of LDS folks still believe that it matters...)

Would that stand up in court, counselor, to prove that the Bible is "true"- whatever that means?

Or perhaps it might show that the Bible is "false"?

I think we have discussed the difference between historical hearsay and spiritual absolute truth far more than necessary.

Biblical spiritual "truth" cannot be determined by history anymore than biblical history can show me whom I should marry.

That's ok; I don't have time to get into this farther, I seldom respond to you and now I remember why.   For me, historical events CANNOT confirm or deny how I FEEL about testimonies and spiritual matters or subjective morality.

As to your question you ask above,  I vote "NO".    Have a good day.  😀

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Quote

I was just asking if people feel that extra-biblical corroboration of the existence of some biblical figures affects their religious perspective on The Bible.

Why should it?  (Yes I know a lot of LDS folks still believe that it matters...)

I have not said it "should."  Again, I was just asking.

5 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Would that stand up in court, counselor, to prove that the Bible is "true"- whatever that means?

No.

I don't understand your apparent irritation/hostility.  If it helps, I do not subscribe to the notion that extra-biblical corroboration of the existence of some biblical figures affects my religious perspective on The Bible.

5 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Or perhaps it might show that the Bible is "false"?

I think we have discussed the difference between historical hearsay and spiritual absolute truth far more than necessary.

Biblical spiritual "truth" cannot be determined by history anymore than biblical history can show me whom I should marry.

I agree.

5 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

That's ok; I don't have time to get into this farther, I seldom respond to you and now I remember why.   For me, historical events CANNOT confirm or deny how I FEEL about testimonies and spiritual matters or subjective morality.

As to your question you ask above,  I vote "NO".    Have a good day.  😀

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

....might spark an added measure of appreciation, reflection, and motivation to as we apply the scriptures, in much the same way family history does.

Aha!  THAT I can understand!  I sometimes look at the historical reasons why my ancestors came to this country and feel closer to them.  But of course that has nothing to do with my testimony or knowledge of their lives.

Poland may still be the "most Catholic" country in the world- I have not checked the stats recently- but the reason they left their homeland has nothing to do with my change from 1000 years of Polish Catholicism to "LDSism"

But my Catholic family still thinks I made a big mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/19/2024 at 6:52 PM, bluebell said:

I haven't watched the videos but I think it mostly depends on what the extra-biblical sources were confirming.  For example, it was really cool when they discovered the city of Troy after everyone was certain that the place was just a myth, but that discovery doesn't impact at all whether or not the Apollo is a sun god or Achilles was a demigod with one small spot on heel where he was vulnerable to attack.  There's no shortage of fiction written about real places and real people.

I haven't watched the videos either, but your point about the religious content of Homeric Epic is well taken.  Homer's poetry does, however, capture the nature and details of the heroic Mycenean age, and historians love that sort of thing.

On 11/19/2024 at 6:52 PM, bluebell said:

Confirmation (or lack thereof) of biblical characters or places outside of the bible is great, but doesn't swing the needle for me in any direction as far as the truth claims of the Bible go.

For a couple of centuries now, serious scholars have been uncovering and interpreting ancient Near Eastern history and archeology, and some evangelical apologists have mistakenly thought that this "proved" the Bible "true."   What it actually did was to put meat on the bones of ancient history, which is its true value for understanding the Bible.  I even wrote an article in 1984 systematically demonstrating that application to the Bible:   “Book of Mormon Event Structure: Ancient Near East,” FARMS Preliminary Report/Study Aid, SMI-84 (Provo: FARMS, 1985/ 1986); published in JBMS, 5/2 (1996):98-147, online at http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol5/iss2/5/ .

On 11/19/2024 at 6:52 PM, bluebell said:

(I think that changes in regards to the Book of Mormon though, because of the nature of the coming forth of the book.  Any extra-scriptural confirmation of events in the BOM would be profound because of what that would mean about Joseph Smith)

A correct assumption.  A good example (from my above article) is the cuneiform document providing the exact date of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon.  Jack Finegan, the eminent scholar who wrote the book on the subject of biblical chronology, says that 2 Addaru in King Nebuchadrezzer's 7^th year = 16 March 597 BC Julian "is the most exact information to come from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible, and gives us a precise day for the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of Jehoiachin."[1]  Shortly thereafter, most likely on 10 Nisannu (= 22 April 597 BC Julian), Zedekiah, the new King of Judah, took office and began the first year of his reign -- giving us a firm terminus post quem for Lehi's call as a prophet (I Ne 1:4-5).  That in itself, of course, proves nothing.  Just a nice synchronism.  However, the Book of Mormon claims a 600-year prophecy of Jesus' birth (600 years after the first year of Zedekiah), which proves to fit exactly with the scholarly consensus on the possible years of Jesus' birth (5 & 6 BC), and even fits the best date for the Crucifixion of Jesus 33 years and 3 days after his birth (III Ne 8:5).  A pretty astonishing coincidence.  Just one among several which I have written about which deal with hard archeological evidence of the sort which lawyers present in courts of law.  Such forensic evidence is indeed "profound."

---

 [1] Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd ed., section 437, citing A. Green, "The Last Days of Judah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 101 (1982):68-73.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

 

(I think that changes in regards to the Book of Mormon though, because of the nature of the coming forth of the book.  Any extra-scriptural confirmation of events in the BOM would be profound because of what that would mean about Joseph Smith)

 

A correct assumption.  A good example (from my above article) is the cuneiform document providing the exact date of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon.  Jack Finegan, the eminent scholar who wrote the book on the subject of biblical chronology, says that 2 Addaru in King Nebuchadrezzer's 7^th year = 16 March 597 BC Julian "is the most exact information to come from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible, and gives us a precise day for the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of Jehoiachin."[1]  Shortly thereafter, most likely on 10 Nisannu (= 22 April 597 BC Julian), Zedekiah, the new King of Judah, took office and began the first year of his reign -- giving us a firm terminus post quem for Lehi's call as a prophet (I Ne 1:4-5).  That in itself, of course, proves nothing.  Just a nice synchronism.  However, the Book of Mormon claims a 600-year prophecy of Jesus' birth (600 years after the first year of Zedekiah), which proves to fit exactly with the scholarly consensus on the possible years of Jesus' birth (5 & 6 BC), and even fits the best date for the Crucifixion of Jesus 33 years and 3 days after his birth (III Ne 8:5).  A pretty astonishing coincidence.  Just one among several which I have written about which deal with hard archeological evidence of the sort which lawyers present in courts of law.  Such forensic evidence is indeed "profound."

---

 [1] Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd ed., section 437, citing A. Green, "The Last Days of Judah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 101 (1982):68-73.

I came to the realization Bluebell expresses above many years ago.  At the time I was impressed with my own analysis and acumen in differentiating between, in Bluebell's words, "extra-scriptural confirmation of events in the BOM" versus extra-scriptural confirmation of events in The Bible.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.

...

William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

Quote

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

I wonder, though, if this argument yields the same result for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible.

The distinction I see between the two is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Hamblin noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

...

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

And here:

Quote

Quote

I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between "blind faith" such as one might put in the Bible, which reports miracles but was itself transmitted by natural means, and the different kind of faith that you think the Book of Mormon requires because it came from miraculously conveyed relic plates.

Here are my thoughts:

Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon).  This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events.  After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification.  This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.  As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud."
 
In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible.  There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr.  This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity.   Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of The Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.
 
Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may  simultaneously be evidence of the latter.

In hindsight, I belabored a point that Bluebell was able to express in one sentence, a point that now seems pretty obvious.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For a couple of centuries now, serious scholars have been uncovering and interpreting ancient Near Eastern history and archeology, and some evangelical apologists have mistakenly thought that this "proved" the Bible "true."   What it actually did was to put meat on the bones of ancient history, which is its true value for understanding the Bible. 

Good to "see" you back!  

Agree totally- and we must always remember, as you affirm, that for those of us who have taken upon ourselves a path focused on Godliness, the spiritual stories in the Bible need to be seen AS spiritual stories which can only be "proven" by testimony and their functional usefulness is best manifested in living a spiritual life.

 

[smac97]

From Dan McClellan:

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

I just cannot, for the life of me, see why some believe the study of the historical past has anything whatsoever to do with finding spiritual truth which comes from God's communication within my spirit.

Let's just argue about how far George Washington threw that dollar.   I mean stretching a dollar is very important in these days of inflation.

I guess my problem is that I meditate too much.     Mindfulness.  It helps me see what is relevant to changing my life and what is not, and history jest ain't winning the battle.

The BOM was a REVELATION from a prophet of the Lord.   What does history have to do with my spiritual path?  Maybe LDS folks should study just a little Hinduism.

We can either place our faith around what God is telling us today- RIGHT NOW- to help us INDIVIDUALLY to become more like HIM as opposed to putting your faith around  what happened or did not happen 3 thousand years ago?   I just don't get it.

I KNOW God lives because I talk to him.  And I feel his answers in my heart.  And supposedly every other member of the church has had a Moroni 10:4 experience or else why be in the church- meaning that they also have had a spiritual experience!

Here's a little Wittgenstein:

 

Rabbit or duck?  Which truth do YOU believe?  History or the Spirit?   Can you see both at the same time?  Which "dominates" the other?

Edited November 21, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

.....................

Agree totally- and we must always remember, as you affirm, that for those of us who have taken upon ourselves a path focused on Godliness, the spiritual stories in the Bible need to be seen AS spiritual stories which can only be "proven" by testimony and their functional usefulness is best manifested in living a spiritual life.

Yes, and even more importantly, many of those "stories" are meant to be taken as liturgical -- part of formal worship -- not as literal.  However, aside from that and the Levitical poetry of Psalms, there is yet much actual history in the Bible, as in the Book of Mormon.  That history does become controversial when we hold it to the high standards of modern historiography.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I came to the realization Bluebell expresses above many years ago.  At the time I was impressed with my own analysis and acumen in differentiating between, in Bluebell's words, "extra-scriptural confirmation of events in the BOM" versus extra-scriptural confirmation of events in The Bible.  See, e.g., here:

............................

Yes, that is the key distinction to be made, and it is one I also made in my August 8, 2014 FAIR lecture in Provo, http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  All the more value to the BofM as a second witness.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

I just cannot, for the life of me, see why some believe the study of the historical past has anything whatsoever to do with finding spiritual truth which comes from God's communication within my spirit.

.................................

I KNOW God lives because I talk to him.  And I feel his answers in my heart.  And supposedly every other member of the church has had a Moroni 10:4 experience or else why be in the church- meaning that they also have had a spiritual experience!

Some of us have never sought such confirmation via the Holy Spirit simply because we have always believed (a gift perhaps).  Others have sought the epistemology offered in Alma 32:26-43.  And we should not begrudge Doubting Thomas' need to see and feel the marks in the body of our resurrected Lord.

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

........................

Which truth do YOU believe?  History or the Spirit?   Can you see both at the same time?  Which "dominates" the other?

Not everyone does crime-scene investigation, nor are all of us expected to do autopsies, but we have specialists who do just that for both ancient and modern crimes or events.  Many of us are fascinated by the results of archeological digs and the translations of ancient documents.  Family history research and DNA testing often discloses very important relationships and events.  We don't have to do all that, but some people prefer to examine the full spectrum of reasons for belief or non-belief.  Think of life as a cafeteria or grand buffet.  Some people are only happy when they have sampled a little bit of everything in their immediate information environment.

[Mfbnew]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some people are only happy when they have sampled a little bit of everything in their immediate information environment.

Apparently regardless of if it is irrelevant to the question at hand.  I mean have we checked the horoscopes of those involved?  Where does one draw the line about what is and what is not relevant?   For me, worrying about the history of what may be total mythology is about as relevant as worrying about horoscopes.

If it IS mythology- if none of it "really happened"- whatever that means- it still can teach us valuable information about our own spiritual growth, as ALL the 20 or so parables Christ himself told for that purpose.

Suppose the BOM is all "mythology"?  For me, that is an irrelevant question as much as worrying about the exact location of the prodigal son's zip code.   OR if the prodigal son's horoscope caused him to leave home in the first place.

"Hope for things unseen" covers a lot of room for things which will NEVER be seen, and their possible value.  

Look at the placebo effect and ponder on how the simple belief in a fake pill can actually HEAL people!   Suppose belief in some religious text can do the same thing?  Is it suddenly evil even if it has positive results?

Quote

 

Alma 32:30

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Dario_M]

I don't really care about those extra-bibles. My interest goes mainly to the book of mormon.