The Bible and the Historical Provenance of Christianity

The Dead Sea Scrolls on display at the caves of Qumran that located on the edge of the Dead Sea in Israel.

Many people say they “do not believe” the Bible. But, what does that mean? The Bible is an ancient document that has been around in virtually the same form for centuries. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the Old Testament has changed very little since well before the tie of Jesus. Less than 1% of the substance of the Bible has changed since the time of Jesus.

Some people argue over which writings should be included or not included in the canon that we call the Bible. The writings that are included in the current iterations of the Bible have been established for at least 1600 years. They were largely settled by consensus for at least a couple hundred years before that,

The Bible is an historical record of people and places. Many of those people and places and some events have been cross referenced by other sources, including Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Roman, and other sources. Archaeological finds have also verified many of the people and places in the Bible. People may argue whether every person and place referenced in the text is actual, accurate and factual, but few people seriously argue that it has no historical value.

The Bible is also a collection of stories, poems, songs, and sayings (wisdom literature). As literature, it is full of imagery, compelling stories and words of wisdom. It has great literary value. 

The Bible is a collection of writings covering a span of about 1600 years by many authors focusing on particular people group in a particular geographical area of the Middle East during a particular time period in history. Some of the writings purport to be relatively contemporaneous accounts, and others seem more like historical accounts when they were written.

The writings that comprise the Bible have been collected and preserved as sacred text. Scribes were carefully trained to copy the manuscripts. Those scribes devoted their lives to the careful transcription of the text from generation to generation.

What is most likely meant when people say they “do not believe the Bible” is that they do not believe the Bible is the “Word of God”. People do not believe it is divinely inspired. People do not believe that the Bible is the revelation of God to people.

When people say the do not believe the Bible, they most likely mean they do not believe the Bible can be taken at face value. At face value, the writings of the Bible purport to a collection of God’s communications with a certain group of people, in a particular region of the world, over a particular time span in history.

Various people have various theories about the Bible. I have even recently heard people say that the Bible was put together by Roman dictators to “control the people” by giving them something to believe in. There is little to no scholarly support for that position by the way, but this theory and other theories abound.

Most scholars agree that the Bible has cultural, sociological, literary, and other value. Though people disagree over the degree to which the Bible has historical value, it does have some historical value as any ancient text does.

Significantly, the evidence suggests that the Old Testament writings pre-date the first Century. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which pre-date the First Century, include manuscripts from every book in the Old Testament except for Esther. Among the manuscripts found in the Qumran caves that we call the Dead Sea Scrolls, was a complete scroll of the Book of Isaiah dating to at least 200 BC that is virtually the same as the “book of Isaiah” we have preserved in modern Bibles.

It is fact that the Bible is by far the most well-preserved and well-attested ancient text in the history of humankind. We have more ancient manuscripts of the Bible, by a large volume, than any other ancient text. The volume of New Testament manuscripts is stunning compared to any other ancient text.

Continue reading “The Bible and the Historical Provenance of Christianity”

Revisiting King Henry VIII

Henry VIII King of England
Depositphotos Image ID: 5598102 Copyright: georgios

I recently saw Shakespeare’s King Henry VIII at the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. The play, Shakespeare’s last one performed at the Globe Theater approximately 400 years ago, was very well done. The story line is not as compelling as most of Shakespeare’s works, but the interrelationship of church and state theme struck a chord with me, albeit a discordant one.

King Henry the VIII was born into aristocracy. Young Henry was appointed Constable of Dover Castle at age two, Earl Marshal of England and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at age three, inducted into the Order of the Bath soon after, and a day later he was made the Duke of York. A month or so after that, he was made the Warden of the Scottish Marches. He had the best education available from the best tutors, was fluent in Latin and French and was familiar with Italian.

For all of his privilege, he was not expected to become king. His brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, was the first born and heir to the throne, but Arthur died only 20 months after marrying Catherine of Aragon (daughter of the King and Queen of Spain). Henry VIII was only 10. (Wikipedia)

Henry became the Duke of Cornwall and assumed other figurehead duties. His father, the King Henry VII, made sure young Henry was strictly supervised, did not appear in public and was insulated from real authority. Henry VII quickly made a treaty with the King of Spain that included the marriage of his daughter, Catherine, to young Henry – yes the widow of recently deceased brother Arthur. (Wikipedia)

From this point begins a history of manipulation, abuse of power, shameless excess and rationalizations twisting biblical and religious notions to serve the king’s self-interest. This is a story that parallels the “marriage” of State and Church. The two are intertwined in an adulterous affair of blasphemous indiscretions.

Continue reading “Revisiting King Henry VIII”