Is Tanakh a Historically Reliable Document?

Overview: The three overall approaches, the issues with the extremes, the middle-path of embellishment, metaphor, myth and legend. The consequences of errancy in Tanakh for Judaism as a whole.

From the most ancient of historical records, the books of Tanakh are the most passionately debated historical records of all time. Its ramifications are of great importance from traditional Christians and Jews to Ancient Near East historians and archaeologists. From its grand Creation account in Genesis to the sea-splitting miracles in Exodus, the narratives of Tanakh raise eyebrows and drop jaws. Are these accounts an accurate portrayal of history or the myths and legends of a nation attempting to forge their past in attempt to unify itself with a majestic ancestry and a sacred religion?

The approaches:

There are three approaches to this overall. There are the two extremes and the middle path which within itself has a wide-ranged spectrum. The extreme right view is the traditional fundamentalist view that takes every word in Tanakh as literal and accurate history. The extreme left, mostly dominating the bible critic circles of the 19^th century and still hosted by some today, is the view that none of the Tanakh is to be trusted and is instead the fabrications and hoaxes of a group of scribes dedicated to religious propaganda to further their cause. We will take somewhat of a middle approach. We take Tanakh as historically accurate for the most part while recognizing the possibility and likelihood of error and metaphor in the scorers of biblical narratives. We will explain this approach more at length after first discrediting the two extreme approaches.

Issues with the traditional view:

There are many issues with this approach and we will go through a few basic issues. First are the contradictions between accounts as told in conflicting books in the biblical canon. So that if each is taken literally, the two accounts would be at odds. For example, I Kings 6:1 speaks of 480 years from when the Jews entered Israel in the days of Joshua until King Solomon began the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. Whereas if we count the number of years of each ruler recorded in the Book of Judges, we account for at least 630 years.^[i] This 150+ year discrepancy is glaring. There are many more such examples.^[1]

Another issue is the lack of archeological evidence for various events described in Tanakh. Often, we can answer such issues with declaring that lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack. But in some cases, we should expect to find evidence for these earth-shattering events. Examples for such are the Ten Plagues recorded in Exodus (see here) – of which there isn’t even a shred of evidence for within the massive Egyptian records that we have of that time period.

Another basic issue with this approach is the beginning of Genesis which records a 6-day Creation account and speaks of a Great Flood that destroyed civilization some 4,500 years ago. The archaeological evidence against this is overly convincing, starting with the evidence for Evolution and the continuity of several civilizations going back much more than just 4,500 years. Genesis Ch. 1-11 cannot be taken as literal history (see here).

Issues with the extreme skeptical view:

The opposite extreme view isn’t spared of its own set of issues. For starters, there is simply no reason to reject all the recorded of history of the Israelites outright. There’s no merit in doing so to any historical documentation and the biblical canon should be no different.

Had the history been completely fabricated, we would expect to find many conflicting accounts within various biblical books – and this simply isn’t the case.^[2] There seems to be, for the most part, a unified complimentary storyline spanning several hundred years within all the book in Tanakh. The Israelites as a whole believed in a single past history – with no political entities opposing the fabrications of other political entities. For example, had the priesthood invented the Exodus account for its own political sake, we would expect to find the monarchy or the prophets reject that history replacing it with another and/or calling out the priesthood for their lies. But we see no such conflict within all the 30+ books in the biblical canon.

Additionally, many elements of the bible have been independently verified – or supported – by archaeological evidence. There is evidence supporting an exodus from Egypt on some scale along with a subsequent conquest of Canaan. Most parts of the later Israelite history (from around 700 BCE and onward) have been independently verified by extra-biblical sources. The extreme approach of rejecting all of biblical history is nothing but a zealous crusade against religion.

In attempt to find a middle path, a few things will need to be addressed.

Was history intended as history?

Nowadays, history is history. Period. It may be hard to fathom but once upon a time, in a culture much different than ours, scribes would write history, except that they didn’t always intend it as actual history. They wrote metaphors placed in the distant past. They added major embellishment to historical events in order to bring out a theological point, and such embellishment wasn’t considered problematic. Sometimes they even wrote the events much after they happened and, therefore, may have erred in the details. Sometimes they would even write down the local legends, whether or not these legends and myths had historical reality to them or not.

Metaphor:

The idea of a metaphor is retelling a story that represents an idea rather than historical reality. The story message may be a philosophical one, theological one, or a moral one. These stories can tell of saintly pious men who lived in the past and they represent the embodiment of what a moral person is. The story plot may subconsciously teach us lessons such as God’s involvement in mankind, and the importance of righteousness. An example for such is the Great Flood which teaches us exactly that. It is very likely that the Great Flood was intended as a metaphor (see here).

This concept is no novel idea to Judaism. Even traditional rabbinic scholars entertained this idea of metaphor in the biblical narratives. For example, one opinion in the Talmud is that the entire 42 chapters of the Book of Job are a metaphor teaching a theological message.^[ii] Some rabbinic commentators understood the account of the Garden of Eden in Genesis Ch. 3 as a metaphor.^[iii]

A somewhat more bold suggestion is that the entire book of Daniel as well is a metaphor of sorts since the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that it was written during the Hellenistic period – and there’s good evidence for that.^[iv] The same may be said about the Book of Jonah which gives off the impression of being a metaphor (e.g. the message of retribution, repentance, fate, Jonah living in the whales intestines for 3 days straight, etc).

Exaggeration and embellishment:

The concept of embellishment is when a writer embellishes a story with various details that veer from reality but they magnify a point being conveyed by the recounting of the story. The story itself is historical but it’s the details that turn astray from reality. The intention of the ancient writer wasn’t to retell history for the sake of knowing history. Instead, it was to convey a theological message that would inspire the people and turn them to the service of God. Nowadays, we can perceive this idea as an extreme version of “exaggeration.” Many authors nowadays exaggerate and we usually don’t find issue with that. To the ancient, exaggeration would also mean the inclusion of details that weren’t actually a part of the historical story. Exaggeration and embellishment are found all throughout ancient history records.[v]

The basic idea of exaggeration in Tanakh is already found in the classical rabbinic sources. For example, the Talmud relates how in three places Tanakh uses exaggerative, figurative speech.^[vi] One example brought there is the verse “and all the people then marched up behind him, playing on flutes and making merry till the earth was split by the uproar.”^[vii] Surely, the earth wasn’t split – rather figurative speech is used to describe a loud and festive event.

Some major biblical narratives may have well been embellished with details to bring out a point. One example is the Ten Plagues possibly added to the miraculous exodus account (see end of this article) in order to emphasize the miraculous nature of the exodus. Other examples of embellishment can perhaps be found in the account of Samson the Warrior who is said to have single-handedly captured and killed 300 wolves,^[viii] slain 1000 men,^[ix] and detached the pillars of a stadium with his bare hands that were holding more than 3000 philistine men and women.^[x]

Another example of probable embellishment is the end of the Book of Haggai. There, the Prophet describes, “the heavens and earth will shake” and all the nations will tremble” in just a bit of time in the days of Zerubbabel.^[xi] The closest to the fulfillment of this prophecy is the many revolts that Darrius the Great had to suppress during his reign just a bit after those prophecies of Haggai.[xii] This is anything but the heavens and earth shaking and the nations trembling – unless we understand these phrases as an exaggeration/embellishment.

Myth, legend, and error:

The authors of the biblical books may have as well documented some of the common legends and myths of their times. They may have thought something to be history when in fact it was nothing more than legend. Let’s use early Genesis as an example (also discussed here).

As explained here, we need not say that Moses wrote the entire Torah word for word from God. In fact, it is probable that parts – specifically historical non-Mitzvos parts – were added later either by later prophets or perhaps even by the Anshei Kneses HaGedolah. Perhaps even Moses himself compiled Genesis from earlier documents that were around with the Israelites, as the Midrash suggests.^[xiii] If the science of Evolution is true, then Genesis is perhaps an inaccurate description of early history. Early scribes would have added parts to the Torah that they thought were history but were in fact mistaken. Thus early Genesis would have been the recording of the local legends. In fact, the same Creation accounts (of Genesis Ch. 1 and 2) and Great Flood account are found in Babylonian mythology as well that preceded the Torah!^[xiv]

Heresy?

Is the idea that there can be mistakes in Tanakh considered heresy? Is Tanakh truly inerrant as many Orthodox now believe?

What we must realize is that there is no one staple answer as to what is considered heresy. In fact, the word “heresy” is a very loosely defined word. It refers to a belief that is considered so foreign and taboo to a culture that the culture deems such a belief to be antithetical to its basic belief-structure. Judaism is diverse with opinions and what one person may find to be heretical, others would believe in. What’s interesting is that some rabbis held beliefs that other rabbis would have deemed heretical.[3] It’s also important that we observe the evidence at hand, instead of tying our hands by what others decide to call “heretical.”

When it comes to the question of inerrancy of Tanakh, there have been a multitude of opinions. Some of the greatest rabbis in Jewish history have floated the idea of error in Tanakh. Now, we may distinguish between the Law of Torah, the prophecies of the Prophets, to the rest of Tanakh – the historical parts. A multitude of traditional sources float this idea and modern archaeology has demonstrated the likelihood of some error in the history of Tanakh. Whereas the other parts – Law and prophecy – are not able to have errors, at least according to traditional Judaism.[4]

The Talmud suggests that the Jeremiah the Prophet erred and documented his error in his Book of Jeremiah. Same goes with Ezekiel in his Book of Ezekiel.^{[xv] [5]} Abarbanel suggests that Ezra, when writing the book of Chronicles, erred in his interpretation of the book of Kings (which Chronicles is mostly a repetition of).[xvi] This would indicate that Abarbanel wasn’t hesitant to point out error in the book of Chronicles. Similarly, Ralbag and Maimonides believed that the Prophets could have believed in false ideas and sciences.[xvii] The vast number of irreconcilable contradictions between different books in Tanakh make it exceedingly difficult to believe there was no error anywhere in Tanakh.[6] In any event, no – this belief cannot be regarded as heretical.

The consequences for Judaism:

This general approach to the historicity of Tanakh taken here is at great odds with traditional Judaism that tends to take every account as literal, factual history. But with modern findings, a dose of skepticism, and a pinch of rationalism, it becomes increasingly hard to accept this fundamentalist view that our ancestors took for granted. We are forced to the reality that parts of Tanakh were not intended as actual history, or were intended as history but were mistaken. What does the errancy of Tanakh’s stories tells us about the Torah Law and Judaism as a whole?

It tells us that historians shouldn’t outright reject or outright accept the biblical accounts as actual literal history. But it tells us little about the Torah Law and the practice of Judaism. This is because the historical elements of Tanakh are different than the Law elements of Torah. Why is this so?

To answer this question one must first answer why they believe in Torah. We have established a rational basis for belief in Torah via the prophecy fulfilment in the Covenant (see here). The fulfillment of these Covenant predictions show that the Covenant is still binding. Had the Covenant been void, why would the Covenant predictions happen?! This realization has ramifications. It tells us that the Covenant (i.e. the Torah Law) is authentic. If God truly wanted us to keep the Covenant, we can assume He kept it intact enough for us to be able to properly keep it. The history of Tanakh has little relevance to religion (except for the lessons learned from it) and thus mistakes were allowed in the historical element of Torah. If indeed the Mitzvos in Torah also went through a corruption, then God cannot blame us for doing our best in keeping the Mitzvos in the Torah we believe to come from Him. On our end, we have to do our part and keep the Mitzvos of which it’s God’s job to keep intact so that we can keep them properly.

It is also possible that there are errors even within the Law elements in Torah. For example, it is possible that some laws were added by an unfaithful scribe to the divinely-inspired Torah Law document. These laws may have been added for a specific agenda this scribe had. Alternatively, these laws creeped into Jewish observance, influenced by other religions and cultures, until it made its way into standard Judaism and into Torah Law. But even if were the case, this wouldn’t invalidate the overall Torah Law. A few potential mistakes shouldn’t invalidate an otherwise authentic Law system (see here for a similar concept in regards to rabbinic law). In fact, the fulfilment of the Covenant predictions is indicative of the still-binding and still authentic Torah Law.

Which narratives are which:

Which biblical narratives are authentic history, which metaphor, which embellishments, and which errors? As true skeptics, we can never know for sure unless we go back in time with a time-machine. All we can do is speculate – and recognize that it is mere speculation. All options must be on the table for all biblical narratives, and the same goes with all ancient historical records

Exodus: We can assume that much of the Exodus account is authentic. As the very origins of the Israelites, it is less likely to go through major error. Also the extreme detail presented in the Book of Exodus and Numbers – more than most biblical books – suggest a contemporary of the events was recording the events as they unfolded. Had it been written much later, we would expect much less detail – as we indeed find in many other biblical books.^[7] Also from an archeological perspective, there is much merit to the idea of an Israelite stay in Egypt as discussed here. We did discuss that there was much embellishment in the Exodus account (e.g. the Ten Plagues), but still the kernel of the story – an enslavement in Egypt and a miraculous escape via Moses a messenger from God who provided them with a Covenant – is likely to have happened.

Another reason for assuming that the Exodus account and the follow-up narratives are authentic (at least in its basic storyline) is understanding the historical context in which Deuteronomy was written.

As argued extensively in Joshua Berman’s ani maamin book, the Deuteronomy treaty, or Covenant, is based off a common military alliance in the Ancient Near East. A superior empire would come to the aid of an inferior kingdom in their struggles against their adversaries. As an act of courtesy, the inferior kingdom would submit itself to the superior one and commit to various stipulations documented in a covenant. The covenant would lay out the historical lead up that resulted in the formation of the covenant. It would describe the aid provided by the superior resulting in the servitude of the inferior party.

The Book of Deuteronomy is by and large a Covenant between God and His people, Israel. Deuteronomy explains the historical lead-up to the treaty, records various stipulations, encourages commitment to the treaty, and describes consequences of obedience and disobedience.[8]

It was the Torah Law that the Israelites were now obligated and privileged to commit to. It was based on the fact that God has redeemed the Israelites from Egypt in a miraculous saga. They were therefore indebted, so to speak, to God. This is why the Ten Commandments begins with “I am the Lord your God who has led you out of Egypt” – since that is the precept that the entire Covenant is based on.

The military treaties in the centuries of Moses’ times would consist of a historical backdrop to illustrate why the inferior kingdom is indebted to the superior king for assisting them. It would describe the war in which the superior king provided troops to the inferior king, or the loans provided by the superior kingdom. In gratitude, the inferior kingdom would then be subject to the stipulations that would proceed the historical backdrop.

Now, had the Exodus and/Mt. Sinai account been intended as metaphor by the original author(s), none of this treaty would make sense. The treaty’s historical backdrop is intended to demonstrate why the inferiors are subject to the stipulations by the superior. Had these events not happened in actual reality, then the inferior cannot be subjected to this treaty and neither would they accept the treaty. The history of the Exodus and Mt. Sinai events described in early Deuteronomy – in the context of a historical backdrop to the treaty, or Covenant – demonstrate the likely reality of the events (at least their basic storyline).

Genesis: Early Genesis is likely to have not been historical reality (although possible, see here), instead being either a metaphor or an error.

Later Genesis – the patriarchal narratives – fall somewhere in between. It is hard to tell whether or not these stories of the ancient patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob reflect a true historical reality or a true theological reality (i.e. metaphor). We cannot know what the original writers intended with those narratives and if they were correct in their recordings of the patriarchal narratives See “Genesis on Trial: Were the Patriarchs Real Historical Figures” for more on Patriarchal Genesis.