Click here (NetTours) to learn more about the ambiguous and highly debated archaeology involving the ancient site of Jericho.
Click here (BiblePlaces) for some nice pics/links on the site (n.b.--this is a generally good and informative web site for Levantine Archaeology)...
If the Biblical story is not (entirely) historical, what reasons/motives do you think the author(s) might have had for writing it as they did?
3 comments:
Popular stories or interpretations could have been so strongly believed that they were assumed to be historically accurate. These probably made for a pretty good story or movie. Who wants to read something thats boring right? Just because some events dont match up with historical findings I assume that they are not entirely fabricated, embellished or false, but like many things we will have to wait and find out in the end.
-Taylor E.
Even if the Bible has exaggerated or stolen information (not saying that it does, but just on the chance that maybe) that doesn't mean it necessary happen to some extent.
Compiling stories such that were well known might make people more apt to pay attention to the Bible because it was known, comforting, and/or popular.
Good points, Taylor & Timi. Odds are that stories such as Jericho are not made up entirely out of whole cloth, and that they do indeed preserve at least some historical kernels. But there's almost certainly a good deal of embellishment, too. Why might the former attract the latter??
pdk
Post a Comment