Talk:List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources

Untitled
This page would be more useful if it included where the extrabiblical mentions were? Texts, inscriptions, monuments? Rmhermen 13:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely, this is just a stub so far. The plan:


 * Complete the list
 * Add info what the extra-Biblical sources are.
 * Info on where in the Bible they are mentioned, perhaps just a verse in the case of obscure minor figures.
 * Divide the list up according to type of source?
 * Cases of identification in archaeological evidence that prove a Biblical figures existence beyond doubt.
 * Cases where its pretty clear that an historical figure is intended but it is uncertain who as in the case of Ahasuerus of Esther identified with numerous Persian kings in different theories
 * Cases where it is definitely a Biblical figure being mentioned and the reference is not purely based on the Biblical account but where the extra-Biblical source does not carry any more historical weight than the Bible, e.g Moses in Artapanas.
 * Cases of tentative identifications like Marduka in Xerxes I court = Mordecai.
 * Cases of tentative identifications that even if correct are insufficient to prove historicity of a figure e.g David in the Tel Dan stele, land of Jacob, land of Joseph in Egyption inscriptions.

Kuratowski's Ghost 21:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say cases of a bulla saying "X son of Y" fall rather emphatically into the last category: "tentative identifications that even if correct are insufficient to prove historicity of a figure". Mere coincidence of names can surely not be ruled out for such tiny amounts of data. - Mustafaa 23:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this, not too certain in my own mind how definite such identifications are. Will chop the list up into categories soon (if someone else doesn't get to do it before me, I'm meant to be working, not editing wikipedia ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 23:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I'd put these in the second last category, as they would prove historicity if shown to be correct by other evidence. The last category would be more like the possible reading "field of Abraham" in the Shoshenq inscription. Even if it is correct, it is non-contemporary and so it does not prove the existence of Abraham, merely that a field was named after him regardless of whether he was mythical or historical. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biblical and Extra-Biblical
We also need to be clear on what constitutes "Biblical" vs "extra-Biblical". For "Biblical figures" I propose anyone mentioned in the Old Testament, New Testament as well as the deuterocanonicals as there are some interesting historical figures in the latter particularly in Maccabees. For "extra-Biblical" I would say anything other than "Biblical" but _excluding_ material which has the "Biblical" material as its source (e.g most of Josephus) or which is part of the body of traditions surrounding the "Biblical material" (i.e Talmud, Midrash, writings of the Church fathers, Koran, Roman references to Judaeo-Christian traditions e.g. Tacitus). Kuratowski's Ghost 01:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need to re-design this article
Posted on the talk page of Kuratowski's Ghost on 10 August 2006: Need to re-design the article "List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources"

In recognition of your diligent work on this fledgling article from the very beginning, Mr. Kuratowski's Ghost, I would like to at least describe to you the thorough re-design I would like to propose before doing anything about it. Here are a few points that come to mind at _prima vista_:

1. Your separation of Biblical figures who are unambiguously identified in contemporary sources from those who are only tentatively identified shows sensitivity to the gradations of strength or weakness of such identifications and _should_be_preserved_.

2. Provenanced materials excavated under controlled conditions must be treated separately from unprovenanced materials that have appeared on the antiquities market. This is simply to separate materials whose authenticity is generally beyond reproach from materials whose authenticity is unknown, i.e., potential forgeries. Possible forgery of unprovenanced materials has been arguably the hottest issue surrounding the study of inscriptions since about late 2002 or early 2003, with the filing of lawsuits against antiquities dealers in Israel. Of course, this issue also extends to fakery, i.e., modern alteration of ancient materials such as the modern inscribing of ancient-looking letters on a genuinely ancient potsherd to create a faked ostracon. (See the article that accepts the "three shekels" ostracon in _Biblical Archaeology Review_ (ca. 2002?), followed by the article on it in _Israel Exploration Journal_ in early 2005, which includes technical analysis demonstrating it to be faked.)

3. While the article still includes names that have not yet been placed into the appropriate category, such names should be listed (with their accompanying data) in a "yet to be classified" section, rather than left sitting in the list of the "unambiguously identified." It was easy to spot some that certainly do not meet the requirements of this category, e.g., Jezebel, King Ahab's queen, in an unprovenanced, carved stone seal that contains only the name, apparently without the initial _aleph_ in the Biblical spelling (unless it was chipped off). In the first place, it is relatively easy to forge a stone seal, and then, even if it were shown to be authentic, the name alone is insufficient evidence to establish an identification. There is no other identifying information beyond that found in the fact that it is a scaraboid and whatever can be learned from the letter shapes (approximate date and "nationality").

I have spent more than a decade working to evaluate potential identifications of Biblical figures in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ammonite, Moabite, and other inscriptions, using the original languages and the scripts found on the inscriptions themselves, as photographed or sketched, so I hope you will take this suggestion seriously (see under "Mykytiuk" in the "For further reading" section of the article on the "Mesha Stele") If I had not done this homework, I would probably have remained interested but silent. I sense that it might be against the Wiki-rules to mention my homework, but I mention it only to insure a serious hearing, rather than to deny that to anyone else. Lawrencemykytiuk 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Moving the unclassifieds to a separate section would be the first step. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, though this discussion is quite old, these issues are still not quite resolved. A major rewrite/reorganisation is necessary. I have started a page in my user-space to work on this article (anyone may contribute to this by the way). This list-article is, I think, quite different from most lists because much in this area is disputed, therefore every single item in the list should have at least one reference. I plan to do the following:
 * - Provide a reliable inline citation/source that confirms the identification in contemporary non-biblical sources for each person in this list.
 * - In case such a source cannot be found, the person will be deleted from the list, or, intitially, placed in an 'unclassifieds' section.
 * - I may add additional biblical figures, but only after I find a reliable source.
 * All help is welcome, including suggestions for people not yet included in this list. I noticed for instance that even David is not mentioned here and there may be many more. scrap that, Tel Dan and Mesha Stele are not contemporary Lindert (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the page with many references. 9 names were removed, and some were moved to different section. See page for details on removed names. Thus far I have only checked the 'Hebrew Bible' section. Considering that the 'New Testament' has exactly zero references, there is still some work to do.

"Hebrew Bible"
What specific scriptures is this supposed to be? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew Bible is in its contents identical to the Jewish Tanakh, these are also the books of the old testament as accepted by most protestants. As its name suggests, all were written in Hebrew or (partly) in a related language such as Aramaic or Chaldean. The names of the included books in English are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Lindert (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Citation in "New Testament"
The problematic citation:

Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., The Cambridge companion to Jesus, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 124 "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (...) seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score"

I find this citation to be grossly out of context, and its use to be purposefully misleading. By itself, it seems to be talking about more than one non-Christian source, but in fact, this is from a larger passage about the Testimonium Flavianum attributed to Josephus, and the "non-Christian evidence" supposedly referred to is merely the parts of the passage that aren't obvious Christian forgeries:

"This so-called Testimonium Flavianum has given rise to enormous debate (cf. also p. 89 above). There is little doubt that it cannot have been written by Josephus in its present form: the language is too explicitly Christian for that. Many have therefore argued that the whole paragraph is a secondary addition to the text of Josephus, added by Christian scribes. However, others have argued that, if one deletes the most obviously Christian phrases (those in italics above), then the rest of the passage can be plausibly read as stemming from Josephus. If so, the text may provide further evidence from a non-Christian source for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion under Pilate (along with the witness that he had a following and was credited with performing miracles).

"All this does at least render highly implausible any far-fetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score."

The author is claiming that, since the portions which aren't obvious Christian forgeries seem more believably non-Christian, they are likely authentic. That is the real significance of the last sentence, and its out-of-context use in the citation transforms it into something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueaster (talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, the "Non-Christian evidence" referred to here is not only the Testimonium Flavianum. On page 123, the author states: "There is a very small amount of Non-Christian evidence, and it is that which I will consider first". Immediately after, the section "Non-Christian evidence" begins. It briefly discusses three lines of evidence: Rabbinical evidence, Tacitus and Josephus. From Josephus not only the Testimonium Flavianum, but also the smaller passage mentioning 'James the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ'. Note that this passage, as well as Tacitus' and the rabbinical sources are not disputed. In context, the "all this" clearly refers to all three witnesses discussed in the preceding two pages, especially considering that it is the final statement in the section "Non-Christian evidence". -- Lindert (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On what the authentic 1st and 2nd century documents mention:

The cited portions of Levine (HJiC) and Stanton (GaJ) establish the scholarly conensus on Jesus' historicity, but aren't relevant to the content of the "historical documents" themselves. Bockmuehl (Cambridge Companion) does mention "Rabbinic evidence" but he admits they are late (4th century). He claims they "may preserve earlier traditions", but this is not relevant to what this source is being used to verify. I based my wording off of the summary given of Tacitus' mention of Jesus (which is more concerned with the name of his followers), along with Jospephus' mention of James as his brother, which also notes that Jesus was "called Christ"). I think framing the mention in a manner closer to the primary sources mentioned by this essay is appropriate for the context, which is concerning the documentary evidence. I must mention here that, so far, this source only mentions 1 first century document (Antiquities), and 1 second century document (Annals), and does not mention any other documents or sources, only "traditions" from this era. Which makes the numerical aspects of stating "some authentic first century and many second century writings exist" problematic. Blueaster (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with using Tacitus' terminology is that it ignores everything else. Josephus calls him 'Jesus, who is called Christ', then we have Paul and the authors of Hebrews and the synoptic Gospels, who use 'Jesus', 'Jesus Christ', 'Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus'. Peter, James and Jude, all of whom use 'Jesus Christ', then we have Clement, who uses 'Jesus Christ'
 * So far, I have listed 10 authors generally accepted to be from the first century, who use the name Jesus Christ, in which Christ is clearly a title, and Jesus the actual name. Then from the second century we have Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and many apocryphal works, all of whom also use 'Jesus Christ'. So the sentence is certainly right, 'some' is actually 10 or more, most of which are of course Christian works, but that does not exclude them from historical significance. From the second century, I think I could easily document a few dozen authors who mentioned Jesus, but including Tacitus and Suetonius I have now named 6. John may be first or second century. In addition we have many anonymous authors, e.g. of the Gospel of James, Gospel of Thomas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas etc. I'd say the terminology used is rather modest in describing the mountain of writings we have even from the first two centuries. -- Lindert (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct Punctuation
The words Biblical and Bible in every English country is spelt with a capital B. This article should reflect normal English usage. The koran/quran is respecte dhere with capitals, why does Wikipedia have a bias?
 * This isn't about punctuation, but never mind. When 'Bible' refers to the title of a book, we capitalise it. When it is just the word 'bible', we don't. In either case it's a noun. Biblical is not a noun, it's an adjective and we don't capitalise adjectives except of course where they are at the start of a sentence or part of a title. This is normal English usage and also part of our manual of style. You will find some usages of 'Biblical' that don't follow this, but I think many more that do. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Balaam
Is the Deir Alla Inscription enough to include Balaam from Numbers 22-24 in this list?96.35.87.67 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the current criteria for inclusion are that the person must be "unambiguously identified in contemporary sources". This requires 3 things:
 * 1) It must be clear that the source refers to the same person as the Bible does
 * 2) The source must be genuine (not a modern forgery)
 * 3) The source must come from the same time period as the Biblical person would have lived.
 * In the case of the Deir Alla Inscription, the first two criteria are satisfied, but the third is not. The inscription is dated to the 9th or 8th century BC, but Balaam in the Bible is contemporary with Moses, so he would have lived in the 15th century BC (or, according to some theories the 13th century BC). So there is a time gap of (at the very least) 400 years between Balaam and the Deir Alla Inscription. Nevertheless, it remains a fascinating discovery, particularly because the Deir Alla Inscription comes from a non-Jewish/Hebrew context. - Lindert (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Noah
The patriarch Noah is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon and Norse kings genealogies. --197.229.149.164 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: table format
I propose to change the format of this article to something like the above table, at least for the first two sections, because it would improve readability. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. - Lindert (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there's been no response in over a week I've decided to go ahead and implement the format change I proposed above. Feedback is still appreciated. - Lindert (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical characters
So far this article only includes characters from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in other words from the Protestant Bible. I think the article would be more complete if we also added characters from the Deuterocanonical books, as these are considered part of the Bible in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Christianity, and are also read by Protestants and Jews. I don't think a separate article for this exists, nor is one really necessary. So I've gone through some of the apocrypha, and 1 Maccabees in particular has a lot of people who qualify for this article. A preliminary list:

From 1 Maccabees:
 * Philip II of Macedon
 * Alexander the Great,
 * Darius III
 * Antiochus IV Epiphanes
 * Antiochus III
 * Ptolemy VI Philometor
 * Demetrius I Soter
 * Seleucus IV Philopator
 * Philip V of Macedon
 * Perseus of Macedon
 * Eumenes II
 * Alexander Balas
 * Cleopatra Thea
 * Demetrius II Nicator
 * Mithridates I of Parthia
 * Antiochus VII Sidetes
 * Attalus II Philadelphus
 * Ariarathes V of Cappadocia

From 2 Maccabees:
 * Antiochus V Eupator
 * Heliodorus
 * Aretas I

From Bel and the Dragon:
 * Astyages

From Tobit:
 * Cyaxares

I'm planning to add these and others if I find them, which is obviously going to take some work. Any help or feedback would be appreciated. EDIT: added three from 2 Maccabees. - Lindert (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant page
Lindert this is a fine piece of work. I am researching this area at the moment. When I asked an expert about where this information had been consolidated, he pointed me to this page Peter Damian (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

PS Could you check this please! Peter Damian (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Peter Damian! Many thanks for your kind words and for your edits. I've not kept up with wikipedia recently because of medical problems (I'm doing better now). I'll try find and add some references to support (or amend) the recently added material. - Lindert (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope you get better soon! Peter Damian (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Contemporary" and specifically Josephus but also others
I've removed Josephus as a source from a few listings, which at times meant removing those listings. If I've miscalculated where he can reasonably be considered a contemporary please fix. I don't think an overlap of a few years between someone's supposed date and Josephus's birth would make them contemporaries because, as I understand it, we mean living at the same time enough so that the person we use as a source might have been aware of that person when he was living. A child Josephus wouldn't qualify.

There are quite a few more problems where the source clearly isn't contemporary. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are definitely problems with using Josephus (and others) as a 'contemporary' source. I think you criterion that a source "might have been aware of that person when he was living" is reasonable, but there remain a lot of ambiguous cases. There's often uncertainty about the exact year someone was born/died, and how old does a source have to be (a few years is too short, but where to draw the line?)
 * About specific cases:


 * John the Baptist: this is a clear-cut case, I think everyone agrees he died before Josephus' lifetime, so Josephus isn't a contemporary source here.
 * Jesus: Same as above.
 * Herod the Great: Josephus clearly isn't contemporary, but coins issued by Herod clearly are, so he should be on the list. There are other contemporary sources too, for example those written by his personal friend Nicolaus of Damascus, born c. 64 BC (see here). One could argue that Josephus' account could still be mentioned as additional information, even if it doesn't by itself justify his place in the list.
 * Annas: There seems to be a small overlap in lifetimes here. If Annas died around 40 and Josephus was born in 37, the latter was just 3 when the former died. I agree this is stretching the normal understanding of 'contemporary', and so I can agree this is more like a near-contemporary source, assuming the death year of Annas in our WP article is correct.
 * Caiaphas: Here we get to an even more difficult case, because according to WP, Caiaphas died around 46 AD. At this time, Josephus was 9. If true, he was clearly still a child, but it is not unthinkable that he was aware of Caiaphas. The high-priesthood was the highest office in Judaism, and the death of a former/retired high priest could be news that even children would pick up. I know this is all very speculative, but I do think this is a rather grey area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindert (talk • contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks. For Herod the Great, we should clearly mention the coins. I think mentioning Josephus muddies the situation and might mislead new editors into thinking we can use it for additional information - that information belongs in his article, not this list IMHO. As for Caiphas, I take your point about his death. But the source is written around 93 or 94 according to our article, about half a century later. Is that relevant? How about the other uses of Josephus? Doug Weller  talk 12:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Too much detail
Many of these names have too much detail about the person that doesn't related to the contemporary source. That detail belongs in their articles, adding it here seems off-topic at best. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Erastus of Corinth
@User:Epinoia Why the revert of Erastus? Did you want the bible verses where he is mentioned? He is mentioned a little more than Joanna of Chuza, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory david baker (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Papias of Hierapolis
@User:Editor2020 Why Papias of Hierapolis is not a Reliable Source?(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)).
 * - while it is debated, the reliablility of Papias has been questioned since at least the time of Eusebius of Caesarea - Epinoia (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Papias was a Greek Apostolic Father and the Bishop of Hierapolis, so he obviously would assume that James the Just had existed. He is not a neutral, uninvolved source. Editor2020 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reconsidered and self-reverted. But we need to discuss the criteria for inclusion as a Reliable Source. Editor2020 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing, especially in the New Testament
Continuing a discussion begun in the previous section, we need to talk about sources here. The Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha sections rely exclusively on external sources to support them, such as documents from other, non-Judaic ANE writings.

The New Testament section does not. For Matthew, the citation given is Papias, whose reliability should always be taken with a grain of salt because of the fragmentary and ambiguous nature of his writings—the fragment cited about Matthew is widely argued about for these reasons (his page does a reasonable job of explaining the litany of issues). The article also conflates Matthew the Evangelist with Matthew the Apostle, which is traditional and not supported by the texts themselves, even if the conflation seems to be occurring in Papias (who, to be clear, says that the Matthew he speaks of wrote in Hebrew, which is not the language of the Gospel; who lived likely after the death of Matthew the Apostle; and whose life overlapped with the fairly secure date assigned to the writing of the Gospel (80-90 CE), suggesting the Evangelist and Apostle are not the same by his own standards). The most glaring reason this is poor sourcing, of course, is that Papias was Christian. Of course he would report and likely believe the traditions of Christianity. Why would he doubt the existence of the Apostle or Evangelist, same or separate? He is not simply unobjective, he is apologetic—to the point where his evidence ought to be disregarded here.

The same can be said of the Paul citation, whose only supporting sources are the Church Fathers. And, really, given that we have uncontested texts written by Paul, I don't think he ought to be here at all—just as the article does not need to defend the historical existence of Jesus, I don't think it needs to defend Paul, either).

The name of the article merely specifies "extra-biblical" sources, so these are not technically warranted for removal. However, this standard of evidence is poor, and if we extrapolated the use of Papias—a Christian source who has reason to believe the traditions passed on to him—then we can do the same for any biblical figure. Just cite the Talmud and voilà, you have an extra-biblical source for Adam and Eve. The standard and scope of the article, and thus maybe also the name, should be clarified to sources outside of the respective religious traditions. This doesn't seem to be an issue for the Hebrew figures—Hezekiah, for instance, is supported through archaeological finds and non-Judaic textual references. If the same can't be said for New Testament figures, like the apostles, then I think they should be removed.

(As an additional aside, I also find it misleading that attestation and notes are combined in a single column. For Ananias, we have "He held the office between c. 47 and 59 CE, as recorded by Josephus, and presided over the trial of Paul." Though the citation is placed after "Josephus," combining the evidence (the extra-Christian writings of Josephus that verify Ananias' existence) and the tradition (that he tried Paul) is misleading and still seems to imply that Josephus reported what is in Acts. This conflation is, again, an issue largely resigned to the New Testament sections. I don't know if there have been apologetic edits happening or what, but this problem is mostly with the Christian content)

—  anthologetes  ( talk • contribs ) 14:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks, but have you missed the key word "contemporary"? That's also been a major problem with this article, people ignoring that criterion. Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an additional problem, though I fail to see its relevance to the issues at hand, beyond my sarcastic comment about Adam Eve.  anthologetes  ( talk • contribs ) 14:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The Mesha stele is not a contemporary source for David
why are you adding sources that are not contemporary? Doug Weller talk 13:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * actually, it is: the Mesha Stele identifies the House of David, which was ruling Judah when the Stela was inscribed.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an article on "biblical figures", a dynasty is not a biblical figure. Doug Weller  talk 14:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * sigh, forgot to ping. Doug Weller  talk 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Gad
Should the Biblical figure of Gad be listed because the "men of Gad" are mentioned in the Mesha stele? 132.66.129.121 (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "men of Gad" is a very ambiguous thing so nah Temerarius (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)