A weathered Bible lies open on a wooden table, juxtaposed with ancient manuscripts, archaeological tools, and historians deep in discussion, symbolizing the complex debate surrounding the Bible's historical validit

Why The Bible Is Not Considered A Historical Document

The Bible is one of the most influential books in human history, with over 5 billion copies sold. However, while it contains historical information, the Bible is not considered a historical document by scholars.

If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer: The Bible lacks key components that would classify it as an accurate, objective historical record – namely contemporary first-hand accounts, external corroborating evidence, and a critical analysis methodology.

In this comprehensive article, we will analyze the literary genre of the Bible, examine problems with its historical reliability and accuracy, look at the difference between theological truths and historical facts, and explain why modern historiography does not view the Bible as strict history.

The Bible is Not a Work of History But Rather a Literary Anthology

• It contains different genres like poetry, allegory, prophecy, and theology

The Bible is not simply a historical account but rather an anthology comprised of various literary styles, including poetry, allegories, prophecies, laws, proverbs, and theological teachings. This diversity of genre shows the Bible’s purpose is not just to record factual history but to convey spiritual truths.

For example, the Psalms are filled with emotional poetry and allegories meant to inspire worship of God. Prophetic books like Daniel and Revelation use vivid symbolism and metaphor. Evidently the biblical authors employed literary artistry with theological aims rather than just sterile history.

• Scripture written for spiritual purposes, not factual documentation

Unlike modern history textbooks or news reports, the Bible authors had no intention to produce an objective factual account of events. Rather, they crafted scriptures centered on spiritual themes like God’s relationship with mankind, the human struggle with sin and redemption through Christ.

Their purpose was to inspire faith, provide wisdom for righteous living, and point people to salvation (2 Tim. 3:16). So while biblical stories reference actual historical figures and places, the point was not documentation but proclamation of spiritual truths.

This is why the Bible freely intertwines historical accounts with allegories, poetry, miracles, and divine encounters without differentiation.

• Stories crafted to convey moral and spiritual truths

The Bible contains many stories that likely convey spiritual and moral lessons rather than factual history. Accounts like the Genesis creation story, Noah’s ark and the flood, the garden of Eden, Job’s sufferings, and Jonah surviving inside a large fish push the boundaries of credibility if interpreted literally.

More reasonably, these act as allegories and metaphors crafted to reveal theological truths about human nature, good and evil, faith in extreme adversity, God’s mercy and justice, and the disastrous fruits of disobedience.

Their historicity is secondary to the profound spiritual messages they impart. So while containing history, the Bible employs storytelling as a vehicle for divine revelation.

There Are Issues With the Bible’s Historical Reliability

Lack of contemporary first-hand eyewitness accounts

The Bible contains very few contemporary accounts of the events it describes. The Gospels were written 40-60 years after Jesus’s death by authors who likely never met Jesus in person. The earliest New Testament books, Paul’s letters, were written 20-30 years after Jesus’s death by an author who never met the living Jesus.

These time gaps raise questions about the accuracy of the accounts. Accounts based on eyewitness testimony long after the fact are considered less reliable.

Internal contradictions between biblical accounts

There are several internal contradictions between different biblical accounts of the same events. For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke give different versions of Jesus’s resurrection, making it difficult to reconcile the exact series of events.

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke also contradict each other. These inconsistencies suggest the biblical accounts may not be entirely historical.

External evidence does not corroborate major events

There is little archaelogical or historical evidence outside the Bible that confirms major biblical events like the worldwide Flood, the Exodus from Egypt, or the conquest of Canaan. While absence of evidence alone is not proof these events did not happen, one would expect more surviving records and archeological remains if events of such magnitude really occured.

The lack of corroborating evidence raises doubts about the Bible’s strict historical accuracy.

Supernatural claims are not historically verifiable

The Bible makes many supernatural claims that are not subject to empirical verification by historians. Claims surrounding demonic possession, faith healing, miracles, and other supernatural occurrences cannot be confirmed using standard historical methods.

Historians must rely on physical evidence and accounts judged probable given known natural laws. Therefore, biblical accounts involving overt miracles—while possibly true from a religious perspective—do not meet the high bar required to qualify as historically reliable.

Difference Between Theological Truths and Historical Facts

• Theological writings emphasize faith-based spiritual truths

Theological writings like the Bible often emphasize spiritual truths that require faith rather than factual historical evidence. Theological claims about the nature of God, the meaning of life, morality, and human purpose are based on faith in certain religious worldviews rather than scientific or historical analysis.

These faith-based claims may contain profound truths about the human condition but cannot be verified using the empirical methods of historians.

• Historians analyze factual evidence and verifiable events

In contrast to theology, history as an academic discipline deals with people, events, and evidence that can be empirically analyzed. Historians focus on discovering facts, uncovering primary sources, and verifying claims through critical analysis.

Unlike matters of faith, historical claims can be corroborated by tangible proofs like archaeological findings, written records from the time period, corroborating accounts, etc. Historians rely on evidence, not faith.

• Whether biblical events occurred is different from spiritual meaning

Many theologians acknowledge that demonstrating the factual, historical truth of every event described in the Bible is different than extracting profound spiritual meaning from biblical texts. For example, while the factual evidence for the resurrection of Jesus may be debatable, that does not negate the powerful spiritual significance of the resurrection story for Christians.

The spiritual meaning and theological truth conveyed through biblical texts often transcends whether each event can be historically verified.

• Possible to accept theological meaning while questioning historicity

When reading the Bible, it is perfectly reasonable for readers to accept deep theological truths and spiritual insights contained in the text while still questioning whether each event described historically occurred.

For instance, one may find great significance in the story of Jonah surviving three days inside a large fish while doubting its historical accuracy. Biblical texts can convey timeless spiritual truths without the need to verify every detail factually using historical methods of analysis.

Principles of Modern Historiography Exclude the Bible

• Emphasis on primary sources and verifying factual evidence

Modern historians place great importance on utilizing original texts and artifacts as primary source material. They seek to confirm facts through empirical evidence and credible eyewitness accounts rather than relying on secondary sources or hearsay.

This rigorous verification process contrasts with biblical texts, which lack sufficient corroborating sources.

• Seeking corroborating sources and objective investigation

Historians attempt to arrive at objective conclusions by gathering multiple, independent sources that can corroborate and confirm the reliability of information. The Bible lacks sufficient external references and independent sources that could validate the historicity of events described in it.

Historians treat biblical texts with skepticism since they originate from limited sources and viewpoints.

• Evaluating historical context and author bias

Understanding the social, political and cultural context in which a historical document was produced allows historians to account for author bias and perspective. Much of the Bible’s content reflects the prevailing beliefs and agendas of its anonymous authors.

Without knowing the context and motivations behind biblical texts, historians approach their fact claims cautiously.

• Applying consistent standards across documents

Legitimate historiography requires examining all texts and sources according to uniform benchmarks of reliability and accuracy. Biblical writings cannot withstand the same scrutiny and corroboration applied to non-religious historical documents and often rely on supernatural explanations.

Hence, the Bible fails to meet conventional standards for impartial, evidence-based history.


In summary, while the Bible contains passages of possible historical value, it does not meet the rigorous standards modern historians apply when attempting to reconstruct historical events. As a work of theological literature, Scripture gives us profound spiritual insight through its moral stories and visions.

But when it comes to documenting factual history, the Bible has significant limitations that prevent scholars from considering it a strictly historical document.

Similar Posts