Before I move on, I’m feeling like we’re getting a little confused over a few issues. 1) Claiming that the more “standard views” of the books I’ve mentioned are somehow novel or unsupported. 2) That I’m somehow going out on a limb by presenting such views as “pretty standard.” 3) That I’m doing something edgy and potentially heretical by reading some biblical scholarship. “To be learned is good,” 2 Nephi 9:29 tell us. Again, I’m no biblical expert, but I don’t see myself as being bad by reading up on some scholarship.

So let’s just repeat: it is widely accepted that there isn’t historical evidence for the events in the Pentateuch, especially the Exodus and Conquest. This video from UsefulCharts is as good an overview as any on the lack of historical evidence for the Pentateuch. I also like the overview Wright gives in his Why the Bible Began (32-51).

Yes Adler (haven’t posted that summary yet!) does have some new ideas and evidence, but we need to distinguish between what’s generally accepted and Adler’s more innovative positions. In other words, attacking Adler’s evidence doesn’t do ANYTHING to demonstrate the historicity of the events in the Pentateuch. Again, there being no evidence of the Exodus or Conquest is quite clear regardless of anything Adler says.

Again, what IS debated is the question of when the books of the Bible were written, redacted, and put together. Naturally, that’s a pretty complicated topic and my understanding is that what’s presented in this UsefulCharts video is a pretty standard view (let me know if I got that wrong!) The standard claim is that there were a few writings and traditions BEFORE the Babylonian captivity (587 BC) but most of the Bible was written after that, and a whole lot was written during the Persian period (538-332 BC) with some final books like Daniel and Esther (and compiling and redactions) in the Hellenistic period (starting in 332 BC).

No doubt such a big topic with so many moving parts has a lot of different opinions, but I think that video gives a pretty good overview: a little writing and legends before the captivity, but mostly written later, especially during the Persian era. No historicity of the Pentateuch.

All the archaeology had a big effect on biblical scholarship, and in my cursory reading, it looks like the lack of archaeological evidence spawned another school of thought, linked to Copenhagen, called the minimalists. Minimalists like Thomas Thompson simply pointed out very little evidence for biblical events in Judea OUTSIDE the Bible.

It was on that issue of evidence that I found Wright’s book most helpful. Wright does a really nice comparison between the history the Bible itself lays out and the historical evidence we have outside the Bible. As is standard, Wright points out that the evidence for the Pentateuch is totally at odds with the historical evidence, which again has been quite clear for a couple of decades.

“With the lives of David and Saul, the biblical story begins to converge with history. But only on certain points,” Wright points out (51). Indeed, the extra-biblical evidence of the Bible starting with David is pretty sparse as well.

There is the Tel Dan Stele referring to a king defeating a king from “the house of David” (90) so that’s something but not a whole lot. Another Tele refers to defeating Omri (77). Wright mentions a seal referring to Hezekiah (103) while also noting a plaque dated to Hezekiah’s time with NO reference to Hezekiah (109), and Wright fills in Hezekiah’s name in a monument to Sennacherib’s attack on the kingdom of Judah (106).  As I said on my previous comments, I don’t think scholars should do that kind of “filling in.”

So I appreciate Wright laying out what the extra-biblical evidence is, but will note like Thompson said, there’s not a whole lot of extra-biblical evidence beyond a few broad points: kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Wright rejects there ever having been a united monarchy, 58) that were defeated, a house a David, Omri, maybe Hezekiah. So not that much, and Wright argues against the historicity of the events presented in Ezra and Nehemiah (214). Likewise, Wrights points out some historical inaccuracies with descriptions from the time of the kings (60-65).

But YES, there is SOME evidence for A FEW things, like I noted.

Wright calls into question some aspects of the Documentary Hypothesis (not uncommon) and seems to push the dates of some of the writing to be a little later than others do. His big point is that the Bible is an outgrowth of the terrible defeats of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and that probably most if not all the writings came after those defeats. “The first and primary purpose of the prophets was not to avert future disaster, but to explain devastating trauma in the nation’s past” (318). Not too radical and Wright seems to place most of the writings in the Persian era with some in the Hellenistic. Again, not too radical.

Adler, on the other hand, brings up the following claim: “no serious efforts were made to test the hypothesis that the Judean masses of the Persian period knew of the Torah and regarded its laws as authoritative” (Adler, 13). Testing such an assumptions is the purpose of Adler’s book that I’ll post about in a bit.

But again, the scholarly issue isn’t whether or not the Pentateuch is historical. The overwhelming consensus is that it is not. The debate is whether the Pentateuch was written in the Persian period (538-332 BC) or Hellenistic (after 332). So to repeat, attacking Adler does nothing to add to Moses’s historicity. Again, I’ll post more about Adler soon.

And just to reiterate my bigger point: I’m of the opinion that there are ways to interpret Mormonism and Christianity where this kind of scholarship is okay (at least in my opinion). More on that later.