The comments from my last hub are the reason for this one. You can catch up here. But for a quick review, I wrote about the historicity of the bible, or the lack thereof. I stated that the bible was not, in fact, a historical document that could be relied on. Instead, I suggested that the bible was a hagiography, which is any writings on the life of holy people. While this document could be used as a primary source, depending on what it was that you were researching, it was not the best source for actual history of the time since the main purpose of the bible was to relate the history of the Christian god, a mythological figure, and his son, Jesus. Therefore, historians should proceed with caution when dealing with the bible.

There are historians, however, theologians, to be exact, that refer to the bible as a legitimate historical document and claim that the events related in the bible are proof in and of themselves that they actually happened. Why else would anyone want to write about events unless they actually happened? Well, I can think of several. Legitimacy to rule or claim ownership over land is just one. And, the fact that this technique has been used frequently throughout history in other cultures leaves me wondering what makes the bible so special, so unique, that supposed students of history with an obligation to be forthcoming and honest, will ignore all other inaccurate historical claims and hold the bible up as solid proof of actual events. I am baffled.

I have, in the past, written comparisons between the "history" in the bible and "histories" related in other historical works to demonstrate that the bible is not, in fact, unique in its claims. There are countless historical documents that refer to supernatural events as "history." These documents are called hagiographies. They can contain very valuable historical information, but they are a mix of myth and history, so the trick is to be able to, and be honest enough, to keep the two separate. This can be harder for some than for others, especially when the historian in question has these pesky personal beliefs that keep getting in the way of honest, ethical historical scholarship.