Historicidad de la Biblia

La historicidad de la Biblia es la relación entre los eventos históricos y los relatos bíblicos. Es un tema conflictivo que enfrenta a distintas tendencias enfrentadas entre los eruditos estudiosos de la Biblia, acerca de su historicidad, no necesariamente a creyentes y no creyentes. En términos de Thomas L. Thompson,[1]​ es la cuestión de su "aceptabilidad como historia".[2]​ Puede extenderse tanto a la Biblia hebrea (Antiguo Testamento) como al Nuevo Testamento cristiano (cuestiones del Jesús histórico y la era apostólica).

Entre los muchos campos de estudio utilizados para dilucidar la cuestión están la historia de las religiones (historia del judaísmo, historia del cristianismo), la arqueología (arqueología bíblica), la cronología (cronología bíblica), la astronomía, la lingüística (lenguas orientales bíblicas, lengua griega), la literatura comparada, etc. Los eruditos en estudios bíblicos examinan el contexto histórico del texto bíblico, la atribución de autoría de cada uno de los libros y el contraste entre la narración bíblica y las evidencias externas.

Los descubrimientos arqueológicos en ámbito bíblico[3]​ de los siglos XIX y XX han sido ambivalentes: mientras que unos parecen confirmar la narrativa del Antiguo Testamento, otros la ponen en cuestión.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

  1. en:Thomas L. Thompson
  2. Thompson, 2014, p. 164.
  3. List of artifacts in biblical archaeology
  4. Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship, January 10, 2013. Quote: "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel’s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it."
  5. Error en la cita: Etiqueta <ref> no válida; no se ha definido el contenido de las referencias llamadas allminimalistsnow
  6. Error en la cita: Etiqueta <ref> no válida; no se ha definido el contenido de las referencias llamadas realunitedmonarchy
  7. "Let me reinforce this claim in respect to my own work. The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape. I thus find attempts to push me out onto the margin of scholarship laughable." —Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism
  8. "He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging." —Jennifer Wallace, „Shifting Ground in the Holy Land”, Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006
  9. "So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another." —Jonathan Michael Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: new perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 275
  10. Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, Proceedings of the British Academy, October 2007

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search