History?Rather philosophy/mythology I would say.
No, because it is not.
But I want to leave the historical fiction of the Bible here, the main problem with the Bible as a history book is the perspective.
The region in which the Old Testament takes place is an important focal point of historical developments.The Bible outlines an image in which the Jews in it took a central place. Is it not Abraham who subjects the promised land-by means of massive Genocide, mind you! -Then the Jews do cause a gigantic economic crisis in Egypt by leaving more than two million people there. The Bible likes to outline a picture of mighty kings-for example David, but places it in periods that the real rulers in the region were alternately the Egyptians, Hittites, presses or Greeks.
It would give a wrong picture to tell the developments in this important period for world history and this important area through the eyes of the writers of the Bible.
I do think that the New Testament can be quite interesting because it tells a lot about the early development of Christianity.Of course with a historically critical perspective on the gospel.
No, certainly not.History scientific treatment must be subject to strict rules. For example, there are several battles that, depending on the source, were won by one or the other (read: the local rulers). There must therefore be sufficient material from different sources to be able to ascertain the true truth.
Any text must therefore be verifiable.This is true for the fact that a certain Jesus Christ walked around, because the Romans really had problems with that weird figure who was not satisfied with the acceptance of his God, but wanted them to impose the thought of one God. And they also wrote that down (I thought, but also read the reaction of Hendrik Daendels ).
The Bible is composed of several texts and with the aim to assist the Roman ruler of that moment.The correct texts were selected, unwanted discarded. In addition, we are already in the third generation of people after Christ. For subsequent translations and edits, the original text has also been modified. Imagine getting a document now created but showing what your over-grandfather has ever said. One has told the contents “caring” of generation on generation芒 鈧?娄
For all these reasons, the Bible is not to be trusted as a historical document.It gives at most an indication or reason for further searching in one direction. There are some nice stories in it, but I personally think that there are a lot of moralising and guiding intentions behind it. That doesn’t have to be negative, but that wasn’t your question.
That might well be a good idea in a society that is partly or completely shaped by Christianity, apart from whether or not the Bible is a historical book. Students may be able to gain insight into the formation of that society.