Editing Historicity of the Bible (section)

==Hebrew Bible/Old Testament==

===Authorship===
{{main|Authorship of the Bible}}

A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described—the [[Pentateuch]] was the [[Mosaic authorship|work of Moses]], the [[Book of Joshua]] was by [[Joshua]], and so on.{{citation needed|date=March 2024}} As early as the Middle Ages, scholars such as [[Abraham ibn Ezra]] noted internal contradictions that suggested the Pentateuch was not authored by [[Moses]]. For example, Moses could not have written an account of his own death in [[Deuteronomy]] 34.{{Sfn|Collins|2018|p=55}}

These ideas became more common during the [[Protestant Reformation]]. The English philosopher [[Thomas Hobbes]] in his major work ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'' (1651) argued that the biblical texts themselves provide significant evidence for when they were written. Readers, he notes, should be guided by what the text itself says rather than relying on later tradition:{{Sfn|Collins|2018|p=55}} "The light therefore that must guide us in this question, must be that which is held out unto us from the books themselves: and this light, though it shew us not the author of every book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time wherein they were written."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hobbes |first=Thomas |title=Leviathan|chapter=Chapter XXXIII. Of the number, antiquity, scope, authority and interpreters of the books of Holy Scripture |year=1651 |publisher=Andrew Crooke |location=Green Dragon in St. Paul's Churchyard |chapter-url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2H_4_0464}}</ref> Using such textual clues, Hobbes found it was impossible for Moses to have authored the Pentateuch. He also believed Joshua, [[Book of Judges|Judges]], [[Books of Samuel|Samuel]], [[Books of Kings|Kings]], and [[Books of Chronicles|Chronicles]] were written long after the events they describe.{{sfn|Driver|1911|p=861}}

[[File:Title page of the "Histoire critique du vieux testament" by Richard Simon.jpg|thumb|right|Title page of Simon's ''Critical History'', 1682.]]

The Jewish philosopher and pantheist [[Baruch Spinoza]] echoed Hobbes's doubts about the provenance of the historical books in his ''[[Tractatus Theologico-Politicus]]'' (published in 1670),<ref>{{cite book|last=Spinoza|first=Baruch|title=A Theologico-Political Treatise (Part II)|year=1670|chapter=Chapter VIII. Of the authorship of the Pentateuch and the other historical books of the Old Testament|chapter-url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/990/990-h/990-h.htm#chap08}}</ref> and elaborated on the suggestion that the final [[redaction]] of these texts was [[Babylonian captivity|post-exilic]] under the auspices of [[Ezra]] (Chapter IX). He had earlier been effectively excommunicated by the rabbinical council of [[Amsterdam]] for his perceived [[heresies]]. The French priest [[Richard Simon (priest)|Richard Simon]] brought these critical perspectives to the [[Catholic]] tradition in 1678, observing "the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews," in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.<ref>{{cite book |last=Simon |first=Richard |title=A critical history of the Old Testament|year=1682|location=London|page=21|publisher=Walter Davis|url=https://archive.org/details/SimonRichard1638-1712ACriticalHistoryOfTheOldTestament1682}}</ref>

In response [[Jean Astruc]], applying to the Pentateuch [[source criticism]] methods common in the analysis of classical secular texts, believed he could detect four different manuscript traditions, which he claimed Moses himself had redacted (p.&nbsp;62–64).<ref name="isbn0-8308-2551-7"/> His 1753 book initiated the school known as [[higher criticism]] that culminated in [[Julius Wellhausen]] formalising the [[documentary hypothesis]] in the 1870s,<ref>{{cite book |last=Wellhausen |first=Julius |title=Prolegomena to the History of Israel |location=Edinburgh |publisher=Adam and Charles Black |year=1885 |url=https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/phai/index.htm }}</ref> which identifies these narratives as the [[Jahwist]], [[Elohist]], [[Deuteronomist]], and the [[Priestly source]]. While versions of the documentary hypothesis vary in the order in which they were composed, the circumstances of their composition, and the date of their redaction(s), their shared terminology continues to provide the framework for modern theories on the composite nature and origins of the Torah.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wenham |first=Gordon |date=1996 |title=Pentateuchal Studies Today |url=https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_pentateuch_wenham.html |journal=Themelios |language=en-GB |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=3–13}}</ref>

By the end of the 19th century, the scholarly consensus was that the Pentateuch was the work of many authors writing from 1000 BCE (the time of [[David]]) to 500 BCE (the time of Ezra) and redacted {{circa|450}}, and as a consequence whatever history it contained was more often [[polemic]]al than strictly factual—a conclusion reinforced by the then-fresh scientific refutations of what were at the time widely classed as biblical mythologies.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

===Torah (Pentateuch)===

====Genesis creation narrative====
[[File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - The Garden of Eden - Google Art Project.jpg|right|thumb|The Garden of Eden. By [[Lucas Cranach der Ältere]] (1472–1553)]]
{{see also|Genesis creation narrative|Book of Genesis}}
There is a Christian tradition of criticism of the creation narratives in Genesis dating back to at least [[St Augustine of Hippo]] (354–430), and Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher [[Maimonides]] maintained a skeptical ambiguity toward creation ''[[ex nihilo]]'' and considered the stories about [[Adam]] more as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."<ref name="isbn90-247-3439-8">{{cite book |last=Klein-Braslavy |first=Sara |editor=Pines, S. |editor2=Yovel, Y. |title=Maimonides and Philosophy (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées) |chapter=The Creation of the world and Maimonides' interpretation of Gen. i–v |publisher=Springer |location=Berlin |year=1986 |pages=65–78 |isbn=978-9024734399 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SzymWqsNulMC }}</ref> Greek philosophers [[Aristotle]],<ref>''Physics'' I, 7</ref> [[Critolaus]]{{sfn|Dorandi|1999|p=50}} and [[Proclus]]{{sfn|Lang|2001|p=2}} held that the [[Eternity of the world|world was eternal]]. Such interpretations are inconsistent with what was after the Protestant Reformation to be "commonly perceived in evangelicalism as traditional views of Genesis".<ref>{{harvnb|Young|1988|pp=42–45}}: "But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions."</ref>

The publication of [[James Hutton]]'s ''[[Theory of the Earth]]'' in 1788 was an important development in the scientific revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and [[prehistory]]. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."<ref name="isbn0-674-34481-2">{{cite book |last=Gillispie |first=Charles Coulston |title=Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850 |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |year=1996 |orig-year=1951 |isbn=978-0674344815 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PKERMZkA9A0C |page=224}}</ref> The battle between [[uniformitarianism]] and [[catastrophism]] kept the [[Genesis flood narrative|flood]] alive in the emerging discipline, until [[Adam Sedgwick]], the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:
<blockquote>We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.<ref>Quoted in {{cite book |last=Gillispie |first=Charles Coulston |title=Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850 |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |year=1996 |orig-year=1951 |isbn=978-0674344815 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PKERMZkA9A0C |pages=142–143}}</ref></blockquote>

All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until [[Charles Darwin]] naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing [[theology]]/symbolic [[mythology]] rather than actual history or science.<ref name="isbn0-8308-2551-7">{{cite book |last=Wenham |first=Gordon J. |title=Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch|chapter=Genesis 1–11 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |location=Downers Grove, Ill |year=2003 |isbn=978-0830825516 }}</ref>{{Page needed|date=July 2021}}

====The Patriarchs====
{{main|Patriarchs (Bible)}}
In the following decades [[Hermann Gunkel]] drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and [[Albrecht Alt]], [[Martin Noth]] and the [[tradition history]] school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's position is that

{{blockquote|1=if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures. ...For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call "Abraham," everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The "religion of Abraham" is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham.{{sfn|Gunkel|1997|p=lxviii}}
|sign=Gunkel, 1997|source=page xviii|title=}} This has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.<ref>{{harvnb|Moore|Kelle|2011|p=62}}:{{blockquote|BIBLICAL HISTORY AND ISRAEL'S PAST The Changing Views of Scholars in Their Own Words{{pb}}The dramatic shifts in the study of the patriarchs and matriarchs that occurred during and after the 1970s can be illustrated by quotations from two works on the history of Israel separated by several decades. In a history originally written in the 1950s, John Bright asserted, "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were clan chiefs who actually lived in the second millennium B.C.... The Bible's narrative accurately reflects the times to which it refers. But to what it tells of the lives of the patriarchs we can add nothing."<sup>1</sup> Assessing the situation in scholarship four decades later, William Dever in 2001 concluded, "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'"<sup>2</sup> 
{{pb}}1. John Bright, ''A History of Israel'', 4th ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p. 93.{{pb}}
2. William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 98. 
... historical figures but as literary creations of this later period. Though the evidentiary underpinnings of this thesis were new, the thesis itself was quite similar to the views held by Alt and Noth. Thompson, Van Seters, and others had shown that the earlier scholarly consensus of a second-millennium date for the traditions depended upon coincidences and harmonization of evidence that could not be sustained. Thompson provided one of the most representative statements of this change in the study of Israel's past: "[N]ot only has 'archaeology' not proven a single event of the patriarchal traditions to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely. On the basis of what we know of Palestinian history of the Second Millennium B.C., and of what we understand about the formation of the literary traditions of Genesis, it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable".}}</ref>

In the United States the [[biblical archaeology]] movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers.

Following Albright's death, his interpretation of the patriarchal age came under increasing criticism: such dissatisfaction marked its culmination with the publication of ''[[The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives]]'' by [[Thomas L. Thompson]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Thompson|first=Thomas L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qdM8AAAAYAAJ&q=The+Historicity+of+the+Patriarchal+Narratives:+The+Quest+for+the+Historical+Abraham|title=The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham|date=1974|publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=9783110040968 }}</ref> and ''[[Abraham in History and Tradition]]'' by [[John Van Seters]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Seters|first=John Van|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MySUQgAACAAJ&q=Abraham+in+history+and+tradition|title=Abraham in History and Tradition|date=1975|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-01792-2}}</ref> Thompson, a literary scholar, argued on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns, while Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were [[Iron Age]] creations.{{sfn|Moore|Kelle|2011|pp=18–19}} Van Seter and Thompson's works were a [[paradigm shift]] in biblical scholarship and archaeology, which gradually led scholars to no longer consider the patriarchal narratives as historical.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Moorey|first=Peter Roger Stuart|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e1x9Rs_zdG8C&q=A+Century+of+Biblical+Archaeology|title=A Century of Biblical Archaeology|date=1991|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=978-0-664-25392-9|pages=153–154}}</ref> Some conservative scholars attempted to defend the patriarchal narratives in the following years,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kitchen|first=Kenneth|date=1995|title=The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?|url=https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/21/2/3|access-date=2021-07-12|website=[[Biblical Archaeology Review]]|language=en}}</ref>{{sfn|Kitchen|2003|p=313}} but this position has not found acceptance among scholars.{{sfn|Dever|2001|p=98|ps=: "There are a few sporadic attempts by conservative scholars to "save" the patriarchal narratives as history, such as [[Kenneth Kitchen]] [...] By and large, however, the minimalist view of Thompson's pioneering work, ''The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives'', prevails."}}{{sfn|Grabbe|2007|ps=: "The fact is that we are all minimalists—at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.<br /><br />"In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given."}}

Nevertheless, some biblical scholars argue that the names of Patriarchs correspond to [[Amorite language|Amorite]] personal names typical of the [[Middle Bronze Age]] (2000 BCE – 1550 BCE) rather than to other names from later periods, which suggests that the Patriarchal narratives were based on traditions originating in the second millennium BCE.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Personal Names of the Pentateuch in the Northwest Semitic Context: A Comparative Study |journal=Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament |last=Rahkonen |first=Pauli |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=111–135 |year=2019 |doi=10.1080/09018328.2019.1600259 |issn=0901-8328}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Patriarchal Names in Context |journal=Tyndale Bulletin |last=Millard |first=Alan |volume=75 |issue=December |pages=155–174 |year=2024 |doi=10.53751/001c.117657 |issn=2752-7042 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Other scholars argue that the narratives fit better the historical reality of the late Judahite monarchy. The narratives refer to [[camel]]-based traders carrying [[natural gum|gum]], [[Balsam of Mecca|balm]], and [[myrrh]], which they hold it is unlikely prior to the first millennium, as such activity only became common in the 8th–7th centuries BCE when Assyrian [[hegemony]] enabled this Arabian trade to flourish into a major industry.<ref>''The Bible Unearthed'', p. 37.</ref> In 2013, excavations in the [[Timna Valley]] discovered what may be the earliest bones of domesticated camels found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of [[Abraham]], [[Joseph (son of Jacob)|Joseph]], [[Jacob]] and [[Esau]] were written after this time.<ref name=camels>{{cite news|last=Hasson|first=Nir|title=Hump stump solved: Camels arrived in region much later than biblical reference|url=http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/.premium-1.569091|access-date=30 January 2014|newspaper=Haaretz|date=Jan 17, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Sapir-Hen|first=Lidar|author2=Erez Ben-Yosef |title=The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley|journal=Tel Aviv|year=2013|volume=40|issue=2|pages=277–285|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257921867|doi=10.1179/033443513x13753505864089|s2cid=44282748}}</ref> In 2021, Martin Heide and Joris Peters argued that camels were already domesticated in the early second millennium BCE and that their presence in the Patriarchal narratives was not anachronistic.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Camels in the Biblical World |last1=Heide |first1=Martin |publisher=Penn State Press |year=2021 |isbn=978-1-64602-170-3 |page=302 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XMXKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA302 |last2=Peters |first2=Joris}}</ref>

Today, although there continues to be some debate on the historical background of the narratives, many scholars (possibly most) reject the existence of the Patriarchal age.{{sfn|Faust|2022|pp=69, 71-72}} William Dever stated in 1993 that

{{blockquote|[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum. ...The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer "secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dever |first=William |doi=10.2307/3210358 |title=What Remains of the House that Albright Built?|journal=The Biblical Archaeologist |volume=56|issue=1|date=March 1993 |pages=25–35 |jstor=3210358|s2cid=166003641 }}</ref>|author=William Dever|title=The Biblical Archaeologist, "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?"|source=March 1993, pp. 25–35}}

=== The Exodus ===
{{Main|The Exodus|Sources and parallels of the Exodus|Book of Exodus}}
Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. It is generally agreed that the Exodus stories reached the current form centuries after the apparent setting of the stories.{{sfn|Moore|Kelle|2011|p=81}} The [[Book of Exodus]] itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, stating that the [[Israelites]] dwelled in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40–41), and including place names such as [[Land of Goshen|Goshen]] (Gen. 46:28), [[Pithom]] and [[Pi-Ramesses|Ramesses]] (Exod. 1:11), as well as stating that 600,000 Israelite men were involved (Exodus 12:37).{{sfn|Dozeman|Shectman|2016|pp=138–139}} The [[Book of Numbers]] further states that the number of Israelites in the desert during the wandering were 603,550, including 22,273 first-borns, which modern estimates put at 2.5–3 million total Israelites, a clearly fanciful number that could never have been supported by the [[Sinai Desert]].{{sfn|Dever|2003|pp=18–19}} The geography is vague with regions such as Goshen unidentified, and there are internal problems with dating in the Pentateuch.{{sfn|Dozeman|Shectman|2016|p=139}} No modern attempt to identify a historical Egyptian prototype for Moses has found wide acceptance, and no period in Egyptian history matches the biblical accounts of the Exodus.{{sfn|Grabbe|2014|pp=63–64}} Some elements of the story are [[Miracle|miraculous]] and defy rational explanation, such as the [[Plagues of Egypt]] and the [[Crossing of the Red Sea]].{{sfn|Dever|2003|pp=15–17}} The Bible also fails to mention the names of any of the pharaohs involved in the Exodus narrative.{{sfn|Grabbe|2014|p=69}}

While [[ancient Egypt]]ian texts from the [[New Kingdom of Egypt|New Kingdom]] mention "Asiatics" living in Egypt as slaves and workers, these people cannot be securely connected to the Israelites, and no contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible.<ref>{{cite book
| last           = Barmash
| first          = Pamela
| chapter        = Out of the Mists of History: The Exaltation of the Exodus in the Bible
| editor1-last   = Barmash
| editor1-first  = Pamela
| editor2-last   = Nelson
| editor2-first  = W. David
| title          = Exodus in the Jewish Experience: Echoes and Reverberations
| year           = 2015
| publisher      = Lexington Books
| chapter-url     = https://books.google.com/books?id=jKYlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1
| isbn           = 9781498502931
| pages          = 1–22
}}</ref> The earliest surviving historical mention of the Israelites, the Egyptian [[Merneptah Stele]] ({{circa|1207&nbsp;BCE}}), appears to place them in or around Canaan and gives no indication of any exodus.{{sfn|Grabbe|2014|pp=65–67}}

Despite the absence of any archaeological evidence, a majority of scholars agree that the Exodus probably has some historical basis,{{sfn|Faust|2015|p=476}}{{sfn|Redmount|2001|p=87|ps=: "To some, the lack of a secure historical grounding for the biblical Exodus narrative merely reflects its nonhistorical nature. [...] To others, still in the majority among scholars, the ultimate historicity of the Exodus narrative is indisputable. The details of the story may have become clouded or obscured through the transmission process, but a historical core is mandated by that major tenet of faith that permeates the Bible: God acts in history."}} with Kenton Sparks referring to it as "mythologized history."<ref>
{{cite book
| last           = Sparks
| first          = Kenton L.
| editor1-last   = Dozeman
| editor1-first  = Thomas B.
| title          = Methods for Exodus
| chapter        = Genre Criticism
| year           = 2010
| publisher      = Cambridge University Press
| isbn           = 9781139487382
| chapter-url    = https://books.google.com/books?id=CiqF7sVqDQcC&pg=PA73
| page = 73 }}</ref> Scholars posit that small groups of people of Egyptian origin may have joined the early Israelites, and then contributed their own Egyptian Exodus story to all of Israel.<ref>{{harvnb|Faust|2015|p=476}}: "While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt{{nbsp}}... Archaeology does not really contribute to the debate over the historicity or even historical background of the Exodus itself, but if there was indeed such a group, it contributed the Exodus story to that of all Israel. While I agree that it is most likely that there was such a group, I must stress that this is based on an overall understanding of the development of collective memory and of the authorship of the texts (and their editorial process). Archaeology, unfortunately, cannot directly contribute (yet?) to the study of this specific group of Israel's ancestors."</ref> [[William G. Dever]] cautiously identifies this group with the [[Tribe of Joseph]], while [[Richard Elliott Friedman]] identifies it with the [[Tribe of Levi]].{{sfn|Dever|2003|p=231}}<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|language=en}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}} Most scholars who accept a historical core of the exodus date this possible exodus group to the thirteenth century BCE at the time of [[Ramses II]], with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE at the time of [[Ramses III]].{{sfn|Faust|2015|p=476}} Evidence in favor of historical traditions forming a background to the Exodus narrative include the documented movements of small groups of [[Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples]] into and out of Egypt during the [[Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt|Eighteenth]] and [[Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt|Nineteenth Dynasties]], some elements of Egyptian [[folklore]] and culture in the Exodus narrative,<ref>{{cite book
| last          = Meyers
| first         = Carol
| title         = Exodus
| year          = 2005
| publisher     = Cambridge University Press
| url           = https://books.google.com/books?id=0QHHITXsyskC&pg=PA5
| isbn         = 9780521002912
| pages = 8–10 }}</ref> and the names [[Moses]], [[Aaron]] and [[Phinehas]], which seem to have an Egyptian origin.{{sfn|Redmount|2001|p=65}} 

Scholarly estimates for how many people could have been involved in such an exodus range from a few hundred to a few thousand people.{{sfn|Faust|2015|p=476}}

[[Donald Redford]] held that the Exodus narrative is a Canaanite memory of the [[Hyksos]]' descent and occupation of Egypt.<ref>Redford, Donald B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-03606-9.</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2024}}

===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>