Is The Bible Historically Accurate?
Archaeologists have uncovered many ancient writings that are similar to Old Testament writings. They have not found any evidence for the plagues of Egypt, the exodus, the conquering of Canaanite cities by the Israelites, or the city of Nineveh repenting.
Archeologists William Dever says in his book Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?:
“Both the Pentateuch/Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic history were set down in writing at least 500 years after the Exodus and Conquest they purport to describe. That alone should raise the question of their historical trustworthiness. Most scholars, however, will also argue as I do that the biblical tradition rests not only on contemporary and earlier documentary sources now lost to us, but also on even older oral traditions. Some of these may have their roots in pre-Israelite times in the Bronze Age, when the Exodus would have had to occur. The specific time frame for the Exodus is now confirmed as the middle to late 13th century B.C., not the 15th century B.C. as formerly thought. The old ‘high’ date, based on imprecise and contradictory biblical schemes of chronology… does not accord at all with the archaeological record in Palestine; today only a handful of diehard fundamentalists would argue in its favor.”
“The basic traditions about ancient Israel now enshrined in the books of Exodus-Numbers and Joshua through Kings cannot be read uncritically as a satisfactory history, but neither can they be discarded as lacking any credible historical information. The challenge for both critical scholars and the enlightened public is to sort out fact from fiction; and it is only modern archaeology, as an independent witness to the events of the past, that may enable us to do that.” (Pg. 226) He continues, “the accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence. That may make many uncomfortable, but it is a fact, one from which no open-minded person can escape. There is little real history in these books, although there may be some vague memories of actual events… For example, ...there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. It is conceivable that there was a military chieftain and folk hero names Joshua, who won a few skirmishes here and there. But there simply was no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan.” (Pg. 227-228)
“The miraculous, larger-than-life story of the Exodus as it now stands in the Bible cannot be corroborated as factual history. Nor do we even need to presume such a series of events in a far off foreign land, given archaeology’s recent documentation of the rise of early Israel within Canaan. To put it simply, there is no longer a place or a need for the Exodus as a HISTORICAL explanation for the origins of Israel. The story… is best regarded as myth. In this case, it is just the sort of origin myth that has characterized many other peoples past and present.” (Pg. 232) “There is absolutely no … extrabiblical… witness to Moses, either textual or archaeological… The notion of a revolutionary new religion that emerged complete overnight and never required or underwent revolutionary development is similarly unconvincing.” (Pg. 235)
Biblical Archaeology (Nova)
Archaeology and the Exodus Story
Books
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From
The Bible Unearthed
The Quest for Historical Israel
What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?
Archeologists William Dever says in his book Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?:
“Both the Pentateuch/Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic history were set down in writing at least 500 years after the Exodus and Conquest they purport to describe. That alone should raise the question of their historical trustworthiness. Most scholars, however, will also argue as I do that the biblical tradition rests not only on contemporary and earlier documentary sources now lost to us, but also on even older oral traditions. Some of these may have their roots in pre-Israelite times in the Bronze Age, when the Exodus would have had to occur. The specific time frame for the Exodus is now confirmed as the middle to late 13th century B.C., not the 15th century B.C. as formerly thought. The old ‘high’ date, based on imprecise and contradictory biblical schemes of chronology… does not accord at all with the archaeological record in Palestine; today only a handful of diehard fundamentalists would argue in its favor.”
“The basic traditions about ancient Israel now enshrined in the books of Exodus-Numbers and Joshua through Kings cannot be read uncritically as a satisfactory history, but neither can they be discarded as lacking any credible historical information. The challenge for both critical scholars and the enlightened public is to sort out fact from fiction; and it is only modern archaeology, as an independent witness to the events of the past, that may enable us to do that.” (Pg. 226) He continues, “the accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence. That may make many uncomfortable, but it is a fact, one from which no open-minded person can escape. There is little real history in these books, although there may be some vague memories of actual events… For example, ...there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. It is conceivable that there was a military chieftain and folk hero names Joshua, who won a few skirmishes here and there. But there simply was no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan.” (Pg. 227-228)
“The miraculous, larger-than-life story of the Exodus as it now stands in the Bible cannot be corroborated as factual history. Nor do we even need to presume such a series of events in a far off foreign land, given archaeology’s recent documentation of the rise of early Israel within Canaan. To put it simply, there is no longer a place or a need for the Exodus as a HISTORICAL explanation for the origins of Israel. The story… is best regarded as myth. In this case, it is just the sort of origin myth that has characterized many other peoples past and present.” (Pg. 232) “There is absolutely no … extrabiblical… witness to Moses, either textual or archaeological… The notion of a revolutionary new religion that emerged complete overnight and never required or underwent revolutionary development is similarly unconvincing.” (Pg. 235)
Biblical Archaeology (Nova)
Archaeology and the Exodus Story
Books
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From
The Bible Unearthed
The Quest for Historical Israel
What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?