2007-12-12 12:35:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Becuse it was written at the time the things it talks about where happening. (within a hundred years)
Barbara..... you dont read a lot do you?
Im not christian. Trust me this is not coming from a biased source.
Minus the miracles and the ressurection and other such things. It is known to generally be very accurate. As in if it says a city is in a certain place then the city is found in a certain place. (or very close nearby) It isnt perfect. there are examples of things being way out of whack. But most of those things are cross referenced inside the collection . (the bible is more then one book)
Also Sources and citations.... are only important if you are copying. At some point there is an article that is not cited simply becuse there is nothing to copy.
For instance you dont need to cite a source to say that your car is dirty. also there is no source to cite. You can photograph it, but there were no photographs, or fingerprints, or DNA, or anything of the sort back then. All you had was the faith that the person doing the writting was trying to be as accurate as possible.
2007-12-12 12:42:03 · answer #1 · answered by Viking Raider 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In what discipline?
Literature? Comparative religions? Anthropology? Classical music (opera, oratorios and other texts)? Art history? World history? Theatre and history of theatre? History of Government? Law and history of Law?
History of Western Civilization?
The Bible has been one of the key sources of material in each of these fields. Why should it - or any key resource - be censored among scholars?
Scholars want access to all the information available, not to have arbitrary limits on their access to information!
2007-12-12 20:46:21 · answer #2 · answered by Catherine V. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the topic is religious history, the history of Judaism or even Middle Eastern cultures, then it's obviously a valuable source, as it preserves the Exilic Jewish community's legacy of literature. Other than that, I have no idea.
Peace to you.
2007-12-12 20:45:01 · answer #3 · answered by Orpheus Rising 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should be a primary source for papers about religious topics......
Otherwise, I have no opinion on the matter as long as there are multiple sources cited......
2007-12-12 20:45:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anne Hatzakis 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should have my college American History book been considered such? The enormous amounts of research, maybe?
2007-12-12 20:43:34 · answer #5 · answered by Wired 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Secondary. There are no First Person accounts. But there will be an argument...
2007-12-12 20:42:01 · answer #6 · answered by Shawn B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It shouldn't be as you are talking about a book that has no footnotes, no citations, no bibliography and a very limited ability to cross reference itself against known historical fact.
2007-12-12 20:41:45 · answer #7 · answered by genaddt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋