Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 04-28-2006, 02:52 AM

So my recently resurrected creationist friend asked me the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon's creationist

Further to your remarks about Moses: who is the oldest Biblical person whose existence you would accept?

Well, dear BC&H folks: who is the earliest name in the babble we can say with reasonable probability was a real person?

FYI, here's my reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon

Oldest? Methuselah? Oh I see, 'earliest'...

'Accept' in what sense? No, I'm not being difficult (well, not for the sake of it, at least ;-) ). The thing is, the further back into ancient history one goes, the fewer records we have... and so did the people of the time. So stories accrete to names. Take Homer for extreme example. There's a name, and all sorts of stories about him, and even sculpted busts of the guy... from several hundred years after he's supposed to have lived. But we know nothing concrete about him, and many scholars consider that, at best, it's the name of the man who compiled or first wrote down Iliad and Odyssey; it may well be that there were several 'Homers'. So if asked if I accept that there was a Homer, I'd say, quite possibly. Did he sit down and write Iliad and Odyssey? Possibly not, for these epics were part of an oral tradition, and the tales were recited (more accurately, sung). But someone sometime transcribed them, and we may as well call him 'Homer'.

So, we've got extremes on a continuum. We've got the real historical people, such as Paul, and at the other end, we've got the certainly mythical, like Adam. In between (especially at the early end), the two blur together -- kings, tribal leaders, and so on.

The entire Bible could be fiction, so we need cross-references from contemporary sources. Perikles could similarly be fiction, but there's an awful lot of ostraka (potsherds) from the right period demanding 'his' ostracism, for instance, which strongly suggests he was real.

So who was the first genuinely historical person mentioned in the Bible? I've no idea for sure. My guess is somewhere after 'Noah', when things settle down from the ludicrously fanciful (historically speaking).

I'll ask the experts at Infidels and report back.

Berthold · 04-28-2006, 03:26 AM

Considering that it has been found out by Israeli archaeologists that King Solomon must, at least, have been heavily embroidered on by the authors of Scripture, I would place my bets on some date none too early. Of someone named David (whoever he really was), an inscription of the right age has been found, if I recall correctly. But of Solomon, allegedly an internationally very active king, no mention in any of the neighbouring states is known. Some grand buildings were initially ascribed to him by their discoverers. It is now the general consensus, though, that they really belong to the North Kingdom (Israel), which is mentioned in the OT, usually not in a laudatory way.

04-28-2006, 03:31 AM

Hmm...

Tiglath Pileser III ?
Ahab and Jezebel?

Iasion

Benni72 · 04-28-2006, 03:34 AM

Would contemporary evidence qualify as a sufficient condition for (probable) historicity? Then I'd pick Jehu or Mesha of Moab. Nearly contemporary evidence (within several generations) is AFAIK available for Omri, and on some interpretations even for David, though he may have been just a minor chieftain in this case.

Some historians, even quite secular ones, tend to identify Amraphel with Hammurabi etc., but that seems much more dubious.

Ruhan · 04-28-2006, 03:35 AM

Would Rameses II count? I guess it depends on the context of your question. Are you referring to any referenced character or one of the main characters in the OT narrative. If it is the latter, then David would probably be the earliest character which could have been a real historical figure.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-28-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhan

I guess it depends on the context of your question. Are you referring to any referenced character or one of the main characters in the OT narrative.

The question he asked me is above. Make of it what you will!

I suspect he means main character, but (as usual) his question was rather less than rigorously defined

.

Dean Anderson · 04-28-2006, 03:53 AM

Well, there's no evidence for any of the people (or the events, for that matter) before King David. So Noah, Abraham, Lot, the Exodus, the Flood, Moses, and all that stuff is pure legend.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that King David is the oldest historically real person - but with the following caveat:

King David himself is of a status similar to the British King Arthur. We have the name, and there probably was someone with that name (there are a couple of references to the "House of David") - but the biography of that person and the references to them being a great king rather than a small tribal leader are about as historical as the biography of King Arthur and the references to his Round Table.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-28-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

Well, there's no evidence for any of the people (or the events, for that matter) before King David. So Noah, Abraham, Lot, the Exodus, the Flood, Moses, and all that stuff is pure legend.

Non sequitur (except for the Flood). Surely they might have existed, it's just their existence cannot be corroborated...? Obviously I agree with you, but just cos Achileus is only in the Iliad, it does not rule the existence of a famous warrior called that.

Just makes it improbable.

Bit like there being no evidence for god. It's a jump from that to saying it's the stuff of legend.

Chris Weimer · 04-28-2006, 05:07 AM

I would contend that Noah, Abraham, and Moses are as fake as Zeus, Hera, and Herakles - not only is there zero evidence for their existence, but there's rather good evidence against it. Abraham especially, who was the artificial father. Very likely his name is some sort of epithet - "The Father of Many", perhaps also having "The High Father". Unlike some people who later are changed to reflect their names, I would contend that Abraham started off this way.

Dean Anderson · 04-28-2006, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

Non sequitur (except for the Flood). Surely they might have existed, it's just their existence cannot be corroborated...? Obviously I agree with you, but just cos Achileus is only in the Iliad, it does not rule the existence of a famous warrior called that.

Just makes it improbable.

Bit like there being no evidence for god. It's a jump from that to saying it's the stuff of legend.

Hmm... I'm not sure this is a non-sequitur. Saying they are pure legend doesn't mean they cannot be true - only that they cannot be historically verified.

A Legend might be true (or have a kernel of truth behind it). It is, however, an uncorroborated (and possibly unverifiable) historical narrative.

So a lack of evidence does mean that the narratives are legends - this is not a non-sequitur - but being legends doesn't necessarily mean that they are not true.

Anyway, for most of these events (The Flood, The Exodus, Joseph's trip to Egypt, Abraham's journeying, The Conquest of Canaan) we don't just have a lack of evidence that they happened - we have actual archaeological evidence that shows they cannot have happened in the way the Bible says they did.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2006, 03:26 AM	#2
Berthold Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, AUSTRIA Posts: 6,147	Considering that it has been found out by Israeli archaeologists that King Solomon must, at least, have been heavily embroidered on by the authors of Scripture, I would place my bets on some date none too early. Of someone named David (whoever he really was), an inscription of the right age has been found, if I recall correctly. But of Solomon, allegedly an internationally very active king, no mention in any of the neighbouring states is known. Some grand buildings were initially ascribed to him by their discoverers. It is now the general consensus, though, that they really belong to the North Kingdom (Israel), which is mentioned in the OT, usually not in a laudatory way.

04-28-2006, 03:31 AM	#3
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Hmm... Tiglath Pileser III ? Ahab and Jezebel? Iasion

04-28-2006, 03:34 AM	#4
Benni72 Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Rostock, Germany Posts: 143	Would contemporary evidence qualify as a sufficient condition for (probable) historicity? Then I'd pick Jehu or Mesha of Moab. Nearly contemporary evidence (within several generations) is AFAIK available for Omri, and on some interpretations even for David, though he may have been just a minor chieftain in this case. Some historians, even quite secular ones, tend to identify Amraphel with Hammurabi etc., but that seems much more dubious.

04-28-2006, 03:35 AM	#5
Ruhan Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: London Posts: 176	Would Rameses II count? I guess it depends on the context of your question. Are you referring to any referenced character or one of the main characters in the OT narrative. If it is the latter, then David would probably be the earliest character which could have been a real historical figure.

04-28-2006, 03:53 AM	#7
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Well, there's no evidence for any of the people (or the events, for that matter) before King David. So Noah, Abraham, Lot, the Exodus, the Flood, Moses, and all that stuff is pure legend. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that King David is the oldest historically real person - but with the following caveat: King David himself is of a status similar to the British King Arthur. We have the name, and there probably was someone with that name (there are a couple of references to the "House of David") - but the biography of that person and the references to them being a great king rather than a small tribal leader are about as historical as the biography of King Arthur and the references to his Round Table.

04-28-2006, 05:07 AM	#9
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I would contend that Noah, Abraham, and Moses are as fake as Zeus, Hera, and Herakles - not only is there zero evidence for their existence, but there's rather good evidence against it. Abraham especially, who was the artificial father. Very likely his name is some sort of epithet - "The Father of Many", perhaps also having "The High Father". Unlike some people who later are changed to reflect their names, I would contend that Abraham started off this way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.