Discuss.

what do you mean?

New testament should be read for how it influence the middle ages and the renaissance. That's about as far as you should go. Any solid historian should read it because just for how influential it was. The historicity itself is obviously completely subjective, and is not the history of a nation per say, but only of specific individuals living in a specific era. Creationism is a whole other debate and doesn't belong to history

The old testament on the other hand is interesting. By itself you can't really get the whole history. But combined with secular authority's it can be interesting if you like babylonian, assyrian and egyptian history.

Im not saying all in there is the truth, im just saying it can be helpful, just for the fact that reading it gives you the fundamental beliefs of 95% of europeans for at least a millenium.

The Bible is a phenomenal insight into how people in the Near East thought about themselves, the universe, and their place in it for hundreds of years (not thousands, since the first written copies of Hebrew scriptures date only about as far back as the Babylonian Captivity, which is where Judaism as a distinct faith from the ancestral Hebrew religion really began).

Reading it as Gospel (pardon the pun) isn't a good idea for a historian, but there are few sources that reach the level of detail and complexity about a culture's (several cultures', actually) beliefs and conceptions of their own history.

Do you have any opinions on the following claims?:

The Celto Anglo Saxon peoples are the Hebrews The British throne descends from David.

The German people descend from Ancient Assyria

The Babylonian peoples became the Romans

Yes, they are unequivocally false.

Hebrews and their language are Semitic; Anglo-Saxons and Celts (two very different peoples) are Indo-European. There is littleto no similarity between their language, architecture, or literature that would suggest a common heritage. Furthermore, there are well-established Celtic sites that predate any of the major Hebrew migrations out of the Mediterranean coast area.

German and Assyrian people are both Indo-European, but there is nothing to suggest that Assyrians ever settled as far as Germany, and again, there are few to any linguistic or archaeological traces that might tie the two.

The Babylonian-Roman connection is even more suspect, since we have well-established chronologies for peoples. The people who became Romans were pastoralists and proto-horticulturalists when the Babylonians were a mighty power in the Near East.

Most of these theories fall under the basic rubric of an ideology called British Israelism, and were not developed in detail until the 19th century. They were particularly popular at a high tide of racial theory, phrenology, and antisemitism in Western Europe. In part, it stems from a desire to tie current (and rather artificial) nationalities to several Old Testament events and by extension to what some consider prophecies about the future. Michael Barkun, Paul Boyer, and to some extent Bernard McGinn have books or essays on the subject.

Well it sounds like your convinced.

Zeno seems to be cramping my ability to provide links, using his "conspiracy", and "religious" cards, I mean.. you'd think I might get some leeway in this particular thread.

However I won't push the issue. I'd just like to say I personally reject some of the more outlandish ideas of that wikipedia link for the record fwiw, and think its a smear article in general.

Still, this might pass as a "valid" trail of history:

"One final note: In the Scottish National Library there is a Gaelic manuscript (by Dugald the Scot, son of McPhail, in A.D. 1467) containing the complete genealogies of the Scottish kings, showing their descent through the Irish kings by way of Judah, Jacob-Israel and Isaac back to Abraham.

In Windsor Castle there is also a genealogical table showing the descent of the British kings from David through the Irish and Scottish lines. Thus the Monarchy existed long before there was a British Nation." -Jacob's pillar by E. Raymond Capt p.55

Here is an interesting (non religious) site where you can see that manuscript yourself - http://www.1467manuscript.co.uk/

The problem with the genealogy lists is that very little of the material before the 11th century or so can be verified, and its sources are extremely suspect since they have no outside confirmation. We're thus left with the scrawlings of a Christianized Medieval aristocracy with a high level of interest in promoting its legitimacy and credentials. If we had significant documentation of Hebrew migrations, either written or archaeological, that occurred before the Christianizing of the British Isles, that would be a point in the theory's favor. The Wiki article is a limited introduction (as I said, you can reference other works on the phenomenon, and I generally dislike Wiki as anything other than an introductory reference), but I'd hardly characterize it as a "smear."

It is not the first time that a ruling elite invents a fictitious ancestry for propaganda purposes.

We have the famous example of the Aeneid which provides us with the founding myth of Rome as being in part descended from the Trojan prince Aeneas.

I think you can use the Bible has a history book if you want to know about Jewish history or the History of Israel.

...........and no I am not saying everything in the Bible is historically accurate.

name one historical source that is

they are all subjective, written from a certain perspective, with a certain goal etc. thats the tricky thing about sources, even contemporary ones.

bellum gallicum is a wonderful example for this.

You might find it interesting to read J.H. Allen's Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright. Online here:
http://www.giveshare.org/israel/judah/

Very interesting indeed. I've seen that book referenced a few times, thanks for the link.

I think the only reason to study the bible for history is for late antiquity-medieval-early modern period, so you get a good idea of the mentality of 80% of people. It helps you understand arts, social interaction, architecture and many other things.

But the Bible as history - history(mainly the old testament) is not very reliable and there's virtually 0 dates. Add to that the fact you will need to stop every minute to look up the various tribe names in the dictionary. Your better off with a recent book when it comes to near east history.

Early Christian history article:

The First One Hundred Years of Christianity in Jerusalem by Elizabeth McNamer
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mcnamer.shtml

One of the interesting things about the bible is how it is like the world. Bible history repeats itself just like history repeats itself.

Wait, how is the Bible like the world again?

It repeats itself.

How as the bible repeated itself?

It's more fun to spot the repeats on your own. If you read the bible alot then you'll probably start to see it.

I just finished the old testament and i was indeed striked by this fact. Very often i wondered if i had actually turned the page or i was still on the previous page(i read on an iPod).

The striking similarity of events in various books is indeed quite clear. Obviously, the most famous books of the bible(Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs, etc) are quite unique, while some of the minor prophets are incredibly similar. The book of Job was also quite different - it felt much more philosophical and witty - i definitely see why a lot of people say it comes from India or the Indus Valley.

You need to read "Holy Laughter" by Dean Burkley(and a couple other books I can't remember right now)


There is a lot of Humor, jokes, irony, wordplays, double entendres, puns and sarcasm in the bible. The name "Issac" means laughter in Hebrew. After reading the book and going back and reading some bible passages you will see the jokes.

There is a ton of sarcasm in the Old Testament.

Also check out this essay by Hershey H. Friedman Ph.D. called "Humor in the Hebrew Bible"
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/ec...n/bibhumor.htm

Nice post and nice avatar(RIP smoking joe)

Interesting line as well -

The bible could be much more poetic then it is, which would place it closer to something like Homer's work.

sry for my english, its not my main language.

Actually we have just finished a process where we focused on the bibles historical correctness. It was actually pretty fascinating because a lot of the stuff from the new testament can be used. But still it has been written by evangelist who tried to spread the words of Jesus Christ therefore a lot of the content is subjective.