Authorship 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. These ideas became more common during the
Protestant Reformation. The English philosopher
Thomas Hobbes in his major work
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: "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." Using such textual clues, Hobbes found it was impossible for Moses to have authored the Pentateuch. He also believed Joshua,
Judges,
Samuel,
Kings, and
Chronicles were written long after the events they describe. 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), and elaborated on the suggestion that the final
redaction of these texts was
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 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. 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. 62–64). 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.
Torah (Pentateuch) Genesis creation narrative in the
Garden of Eden; first half of the fourth century AD. 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'." Greek philosophers
Aristotle,
Critolaus and
Proclus held that the
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". 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." The battle between
uniformitarianism and
catastrophism kept the
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: 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. 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.
The Patriarchs ; 245 AD. 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 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 culminated with the publication of
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives by
Thomas L. Thompson in 1974 and
Abraham in History and Tradition by
John Van Seters in 1975. 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. 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. Some conservative scholars attempted to defend the patriarchal narratives in the following years, but this position has not found acceptance among scholars. Nevertheless, some biblical scholars argue that the names of Patriarchs correspond to
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. Other scholars argue that the narratives fit better the historical reality of the late Judahite monarchy. The narratives refer to
camel-based traders carrying
gum,
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. 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,
Jacob and
Esau were written after this time. 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. Critical scholars such as David Ilan have noted that personal names found in the patriarchal narratives also appear in third-millennium BCE sources, such as the Ebla archive, which mentions names like Abram, Esau, Ishmael, Israel, Michael, and others. In addition, traders and migrants traveled from Mesopotamia to Canaan in antiquity. On this basis, Ilan argues that the patriarchal narratives may fit not only a single historical period but several periods throughout history. He also points out that the narratives contain a number of anachronisms, including references to camels, Philistines, and certain place names. 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. William Dever stated in 1993 that
The 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. 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
Goshen (Gen. 46:28),
Pithom and
Ramesses (Exod. 1:11), as well as stating that 600,000 Israelite men were involved (Exodus 12:37). 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. The geography is vague with regions such as Goshen unidentified, and there are internal problems with dating in the Pentateuch. 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. Some elements of the story are
miraculous and defy natural explanation, such as the
Plagues of Egypt and the
Crossing of the Red Sea. The Bible also does not mention the names of any of the pharaohs involved in the Exodus narrative. While
ancient Egyptian texts from the
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. The earliest surviving historical mention of the Israelites, the Egyptian
Merneptah Stele (), appears to place them in or around Canaan and gives no indication of any exodus. Despite the absence of any archaeological evidence, a majority of scholars agree that the Exodus probably has some historical basis, with Kenton Sparks referring to it as "mythologized history." Building on a different perspective, Gili Kugler has shown that several biblical texts preserve a tradition of Israel’s residence in
Egypt without slavery. For example,
Ezekiel 20 recalls God’s revelation in Egypt but omits any mention of slavery or oppression, while
Deuteronomy 23:7–8 refers to the Israelites as resident aliens rather than slaves. Kugler concludes that the motif of slavery and redemption was gradually added to the Exodus story in later periods, reflecting evolving socio-political and theological concerns.
Deuteronomistic history Many scholars believe that the
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. However, flaws in the conquest narrative appeared. The most high-profile example was the "fall of
Jericho", excavated by
John Garstang in the 1930s. 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. The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski. More recent excavations led by
Lorenzo Nigro have found that there was also a later walled settlement at Jericho during the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BCE), although Nigro argues that "[t]his of course has nothing to do with Biblical accounts, the hypothetical historicity of which has nothing to do with the archaeology of Tell es-Sultan." 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. The consensus for the conquest narrative was eventually abandoned in the late 20th century. ''
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. However, there are a few cases where the biblical record is not contradicted by the archaeological record. For example, stratum XIII in Tel Hazor, found in a destruction layer from around 1200 BCE, shows signs of catastrophic fire, and cuneiform tablets found at the site refer to monarchs named Ibni Addi
, where Ibni
may be the etymological origin of Yavin
(Jabin''), the Canaanite leader referred to in the Hebrew Bible. The city also shows signs of having been a magnificent Canaanite city prior to its destruction, with great temples and opulent palaces, 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
general collapse of civilization across the whole eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age, rather than being caused by the Israelites. Amnon Ben-Tor (
Hebrew University of Jerusalem) believes that recently unearthed evidence of violent destruction by burning verifies the biblical account. 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. Biblical scholar
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.
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.
Alan Millard argues that those elements of the Biblical narrative are not anachronistic.
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: 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. The status of Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE is a major subject of debate. The oldest part of Jerusalem and its original urban core is the
City of David, which does show evidence of significant Judean residential activity around the 10th century. 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. Since the discovery of the
Tel Dan Stele in July 1993 and 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 (another possible reference occurs in the
Mesha Stele), 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. 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. ==New Testament==