Editing Historicity of the Bible (section)

===Deuteronomistic history===
Many scholars believe that the [[Deuteronomist#Deuteronomistic history|Deuteronomistic history]] preserved elements of ancient texts and oral tradition, including geo-political and socio-economic realities and certain information about historical figures and events. However, large portions of it are legendary and it contains many anachronisms.<ref name=mazar/>

====The "conquest narrative" in Joshua and Judges====
A major issue in the historicity debate was the narrative of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, described in Joshua and Judges. The American Albright school asserted that the biblical narrative of conquest would be affirmed by archaeological record; and indeed for much of the 20th century archaeology appeared to support the biblical narrative, including excavations at [[Beitin]] (identified as Bethel), [[Tell ed-Duweir|Tel ed-Duweir]], (identified as Lachish), [[Tel Hazor|Hazor]], and [[Jericho]].<ref name=FinkelsteinSilberman2002/><ref name=OEANE>{{cite book |last=Holland |first=Thomas A.| title=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East | chapter=Jericho | publisher=Oxford University Press | editor=Eric M. Meyers | year=1997 | pages=220–224}}</ref>

However, flaws in the conquest narrative appeared. The most high-profile example was the "fall of [[Tell es-Sultan|Jericho]]", excavated by [[John Garstang]] in the 1930s.<ref name=FinkelsteinSilberman2002/> Garstang originally announced that he had found fallen walls dating to the time of the biblical [[Battle of Jericho]], but later revised the destruction to a much earlier period.<ref name=OEANE/> [[Kathleen Kenyon]] dated the destruction of the walled city to the middle of the 16th century ({{circa}} 1550 BCE), too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of her excavations in the early 1950s.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kenyon |first=Kathleen M.| title=Digging up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952–1956 | publisher=Praeger | place=New York | year=1957 | page=229}}</ref> The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bienkowski |first=Piotr| title=Jericho in the Late Bronze Age | publisher=Warminster | year=1986 | pages=120–125}}</ref> By the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.<ref name="FinkelsteinSilberman2002">{{cite book|author1=Israel Finkelstein|author2=Neil Asher Silberman|title=The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&pg=PA81|year=2001|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-0743223386|pages=81–82}}</ref>

The consensus for the conquest narrative was eventually abandoned in the late 20th century.<ref name="FinkelsteinSilberman2002" />

''[[Peake's Commentary on the Bible]]'' argues that the Book of Joshua conflates several independent battles between disparate groups over the centuries, and artificially attributes them to a single leader, Joshua.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Peake |editor1-first=A. S. |editor2-last=Grieve |editor2-first=A. J. |date=1919 |url=https://archive.org/details/commentaryonbibl00peak/page/n5 |title=A Commentary on the Bible |edition=1st |location=London |publisher=T.C. and E.C. Jack}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} However, there are a few cases where the biblical record is not contradicted by the archaeological record. For example, [[stratum]] {{which|date=June 2023}} in [[Tel Hazor]], found in a [[destruction layer]] from around 1200&nbsp;BCE, shows signs of catastrophic fire, and cuneiform tablets found at the site refer to monarchs named ''Ibni Addi'', where ''Ibni'' may be the [[etymology|etymological]] origin of ''Yavin'' (''Jabin''), the Canaanite leader referred to in the Hebrew Bible.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early%20History%20-%20Archaeology/Hatzor%20-%20The%20Head%20of%20all%20those%20Kingdoms|title=Hatzor – The Head of all those Kingdoms|access-date=2018-09-18}}</ref><ref name=Finkelstein>{{Harvnb|Finkelstein|Silberman|2001}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} The city also shows signs of having been a magnificent Canaanite city prior to its destruction, with great temples and opulent palaces,<ref name=Finkelstein/>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} split into an upper [[acropolis]] and lower city; the town evidently had been a major Canaanite city. [[Israel Finkelstein]] theorized that the destruction of Hazor was the result of civil strife, attacks by the [[Sea Peoples]] or a result of the [[Late Bronze Age collapse|general collapse]] of civilization across the whole eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age, rather than being caused by the Israelites.<ref name=Finkelstein/>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}}

Amnon Ben-Tor ([[Hebrew University of Jerusalem]]) believes that recently unearthed evidence of violent destruction by burning verifies the biblical account.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ben-tor |first=Amnon |date=2013-01-01 |title=Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor? |url=https://www.academia.edu/35948616 |journal=BAR}}</ref> In 2012, a team led by Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman discovered a scorched palace from the 13th century BC in whose storerooms they found 3,400-year-old ewers holding burned crops; however, Sharon Zuckerman did not agree with Ben-Tor's theory, and claimed that the burning was the result of the city's numerous factions opposing each other with excessive force.<ref>{{Cite news |title=A 3,400-year-old Mystery: Who Burned the Palace of Canaanite Hatzor? |language=en |work=Haaretz |url=https://www.haaretz.com/2012-07-23/ty-article/a-3-400-year-old-mystery-at-tel-hatzor/0000017f-e83f-d62c-a1ff-fc7f113a0000 |access-date=2023-05-11}}</ref> Biblical scholar [[Richard Elliott Friedman|Richard Elliot Friedman]] ([[University of Georgia]]) argues that the Israelites did destroy Hazor, but that such destruction fits better with the account of the [[Book of Judges]], in which the prophetess [[Deborah]] defeats the king of Hazor.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Friedman|first=Richard Elliott|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_sbADQAAQBAJ|title=The Exodus|date=2017-09-12|publisher=HarperCollins|isbn=978-0-06-256526-6|pages=80|language=en}}</ref>

====Books of Samuel====
The Books of Samuel are considered to be based on both historical and legendary sources, primarily serving to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events described in [[Deuteronomy]]. According to [[Donald Redford]], the Books of Samuel exhibit too many [[anachronisms]] to have been compiled in the 11th century BCE.<ref name="isbn0-691-00086-7"/> For example, there is mention of later armor ({{bibleverse|1 Samuel|17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13}}), use of [[camel]]s ({{bibleverse|1 Samuel|30:17}}), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry; {{bibleverse|1 Samuel|13:5}}, {{bibleverse|2 Samuel|1:6}}), iron picks and axes (as though they were common; {{bibleverse|2 Samuel|12:31}}), and sophisticated siege techniques ({{bibleverse|2 Samuel|20:15}}). There is a gargantuan troop called up ({{bibleverse|2 Samuel|17:1}}), a battle with 20,000 casualties ({{bibleverse|2 Samuel|18:7}}), and a reference to [[Kushite]] paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the [[26th Dynasty of Egypt]], the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.<ref name="isbn0-691-00086-7">{{cite book |last=Redford |first=Donald B. |title=Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in ancient times|url=https://archive.org/details/egyptcanaanisrae00redf |url-access=registration |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton, NJ |year=1992 |page=[https://archive.org/details/egyptcanaanisrae00redf/page/305 305] |isbn=978-0691000862}}</ref> [[Alan Millard]] argues that those elements of the Biblical narrative are not anachronistic.<ref>{{cite book |title=Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon |last=Millard |first=Alan |publisher=BRILL |year=2011 |isbn=978-90-04-21730-0 |pages=39–48 |editor-last=Khan |editor-first=Geoffrey |chapter=Are There Anachronisms in the Books of Samuel? |editor-last2=Lipton |editor-first2=Diana |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q6uJ1qgYabEC&pg=PA39}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=On Some Alleged Anachronisms in the Books of Samuel |journal=Tyndale Bulletin |last=Millard |first=Alan R. |issue=1 |volume=71 |pages=65–73 |doi=10.53751/001c.27735 |year=2020 |issn=2752-7042 |s2cid=239722609|doi-access=free }}</ref>

====United Monarchy====
{{Main|Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)}}
Much of the focus of modern criticism has been the historicity of the United Monarchy of Israel, which according to the Hebrew Bible ruled over both Judea and Samaria around the 10th century BCE.

The minimalist [[Thomas L. Thompson]] has written:

{{blockquote|There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough.{{sfn|Thompson|1999|pp=164–165}}}}

In Iron Age IIa (corresponding to the Early Monarchichal period) Judah seems to have been limited to small, mostly rural and unfortified settlements in the Judean hills.<ref name=mazar/> This contrasts to the upper [[Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)|Samaria]] which was becoming urbanized. This archaeological evidence as well as textual criticism has led many modern historians to treat Israel as arising separately from Judah and as distinct albeit related entities centered at [[Shechem]] and Jerusalem, respectively, and not as a united kingdom with a capital in Jerusalem.

Excavations at [[Khirbet Qeiyafa]], an Iron Age site located in Judah, support the biblical account of a United Monarchy. The [[Israel Antiquities Authority]] stated: "The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date."<ref>{{cite web|first1=Yossi|last1=Garfinkel|first2=Sa'ar |last2=Ganor|first3=Michael |last3= Hasel |date=19 April 2012|url=https://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1989|title=Journal 124: Khirbat Qeiyafa Preliminary Report|publisher=Hadashot-esi.org.il|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120516105045/http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1989|archive-date=16 May 2012}}</ref>

The status of Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE is a major subject of debate.<ref name=mazar>{{cite book|last1=Mazar|first1=Amihai|editor1-last=Kratz|editor1-first=Reinhard G.|editor2-last=Spieckermann|editor2-first=Hermann|editor3-last=Corzilius|editor3-first=Björn|editor4-last=Pilger|editor4-first=Tanja|title=One God – one cult – one nation archaeological and biblical perspectives|date=2010|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-110-22358-3|pages=29–58|chapter=Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy|doi=10.1515/9783110223583.29|s2cid=55562061|chapter-url=http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Mazar%20-%20The%20United%20%20Monarchy-BZAW2010.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170402220726/http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Mazar%20-%20The%20United%20%20Monarchy-BZAW2010.pdf|archive-date=2017-04-02}}</ref> The oldest part of Jerusalem and its original urban core is the [[City of David (historic)|City of David]], which does show evidence of significant Judean residential activity around the 10th century.{{sfn|Faust|2022|p=73}} Some unique administrative structures such as the [[Stepped Stone Structure]] and the [[Large Stone Structure]], which originally formed one structure, contain material culture dated to Iron I.<ref name=mazar/> On account of an alleged lack of settlement activity in the 10th century BCE, Israel Finkelstein argues that Jerusalem in the century was a small country village in the Judean hills, not a national capital, and Ussishkin argues that the city was entirely uninhabited. Amihai Mazar contends that if the Iron I/Iron IIa dating of administrative structures in the City of David are correct (as he believes), "Jerusalem was a rather small town with a mighty citadel, which could have been a center of a substantial regional polity."<ref name=mazar/> [[Avraham Faust]] and Zev Farber argue that Jerusalem was significantly large when compared with most highland sites in ancient Israel, and contained fortifications and public buildings.{{sfn|Faust|Farber|2025|p=83|ps=: "There is now no question that pottery from this period (Iron IIA) was found in practically every excavation area in the City of David, including down the (eastern) slopes toward the Kidron, as well as in the Ophel.<sup>52</sup> And since the Ophel was not only fortified but probably also had public buildings, the Temple Mount must have been incorporated within the boundaries of the city – otherwise the Ophel would be defenseless. This means that Jerusalem’s area was some 16.5 hectares, suggesting that it was very large when compared with other sites in Judah at the time. In fact, it was quite large in comparison to most highland sites in Israel throughout history.<sup>53</sup>"}}

It has been argued that recent archaeological discoveries at the [[City of David (archaeological site)|City of David]] and the [[Ophel#Jerusalem ophel|Ophel]] seem to indicate that Jerusalem was sufficiently developed as a city to be the capital of the United Monarchy in the 10th century BCE.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018 |last=Geva |first=Hillel |publisher=Israel Exploration Society |year=2019 |isbn=978-9-652-21124-8 |page=12 |chapter=Archaeological Research in Jerusalem from 1998 to 2018: Findings and Evaluations |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/42041200}}</ref>

Since the discovery of the [[Tel Dan Stele]] dated to the 9th or 8th century BCE containing ''bytdwd'', interpreted by many as a reference to the "House of [[David]]" as a monarchic dynasty in Judah<ref>{{cite journal |last=Schniedewind |first=W. M. |jstor=1357129 |year=1996 |title=Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt|journal=Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research|volume=302|issue=302 |pages=75–90|doi=10.2307/1357129|s2cid=163597208 }}</ref><ref>Dever, William G. (2002), ''[[What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?]]'' Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, {{ISBN|080282126X}}</ref> (another possible reference occurs in the [[Mesha Stele]]),<ref>[[André Lemaire|Lemaire, André]] [http://jewishhistory.com/pdf/house_of_david.pdf "House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713103910/http://jewishhistory.com/pdf/house_of_david.pdf |date=2011-07-13 }}, ''Biblical Archaeology Review'', May/June 1994.</ref> the majority of scholars accept the existence of a polity ruled by David and Solomon, albeit on a more modest scale than described in the Bible. Most scholars believe that David and Solomon reigned over large sections of Cisjordan and probably parts of Transjordan.<ref>{{cite book|last=Orlin|first=Eric|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dXH4CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA462|title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions|date=2015|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781134625529|pages=462}}</ref> William G. Dever argues that David only reigned over the current territories of [[Israel]] and [[West Bank]] and that he did defeat the invading [[Philistines]], but that the other conquests are fictitious.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Dever|first=William G.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=39HoDwAAQBAJ|title=Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?|date=2020|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-1-4674-5949-5}}</ref>