I was taught as a child that apart from having some translation imperfections the Hebrew Bible was “God’s word” received through his trusted “prophets.” With what little I knew I assumed it was basically “univocal” (that it had one consistent theology or morality). I was taught that it was a reliable history of the creation of the world and the history of humanity. I was taught to believe in a 6000 year old earth, a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal global flood wiping out all but Noah’s crew. I believed a prophet named Moses actually wrote the first five books within it. I remember my Bishop telling me during a “worthiness interview” that dinosaur bones were only here because the earth was created by God using the remnants of other earths. I remember in youth “seminary” being given a timeline of all 6000 years of human history starting with Adam on one plastic card. As late as April of 2015 Jeffrey R. Holland insisted that the Fall of Adam & Eve must be understood as a literal event.

I’m not saying it can’t have any value at all. I’m saying it must be approached responsibly and understood for what it is.

The “book” isn’t the problem. How the book is approached is the problem. “Biblical inerrancy” views vary in definition, but they basically take words written by ancient men and turn them into God. And treating ancient men’s words as unquestionable and fully reliable of course poses some serious risks.

In addition to accusing God of barbarism—such views also put up walls to learning and progress. They tend to shut down thought. They lead many to reject basic science; to be eager for the end of the world or mass warfare; or to actively support genocide; or to dismiss all concern for environmentalism because they believe God will come fix everything soon anyway; or to view or treat people as lesser because of their sexuality, nationality, race, religion, or gender; or to accept Christian Nationalism, or fascism, or misogyny. 37-40% of Americans still believe humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.

I often wonder if the fastest way to change society for the better might be to talk MORE about the Bible. Not in the usual devotional sense that people already talk about it, but in a scholarly sense. Not with the goal of tearing down faith in a divine being or afterlife (I’m not a believer but I don’t see those things as automatically harmful or as things I can prove wrong), but with the goal of challenging fundamentalism and false perceptions of certainty, and encouraging informed and responsible faith for those who chose it. In fact, in some ways I would say letting go of biblical inerrancy makes faith easier—because it frees people from the burden of having to confine God to the small (and sometimes disturbing) box of the biblical writers.

I’ve often had family, friends, and clients want me to view this text as “the word of God.” This writeup is my attempt to summarize decades of study into a condensed explanation of why I cannot do that, and why I feel others should not do that. I feel that moral, scientific, and textual considerations can all change minds on this issue. But I also feel that becoming familiar with the context and historical environment these texts grew out of—and the earlier texts they borrowed from—makes it impossible to continue viewing and approaching them in the same way.

Ultimately, I propose that the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible should be viewed as a collection of writings by ancient men doing the best they knew how to explain the world around them with the limited knowledge they currently had. Often including their own biases, culture, prejudices, failures, and limited understanding in the text. Sometimes getting things right—and including some very beautiful parts. And sometimes getting them horrifically and disturbingly wrong—just as people in other parts of the world had done when creating their own myths, texts, laws, and traditions. When looked at in this way there are still lessons to be learned from the texts, and rich tradition to draw from. And I’ve found that many people of faith have actually viewed the book this way for quite some time and still found value in it while approaching it responsibly—learning from both the good and the bad within it.

Moral Considerations:

I would eventually realize that there are parts of these texts that are horrific to have to defend as “God’s word.” Among other things these texts claim God approved of slavery (Exodus 21:1-11,20, and Deuteronomy 20 and 21), sexual slavery (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), beating slaves (Exodus 21:20), buying and selling women as property (Exodus 21:7-11), murdering your own children for disobedience (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), genocide and slaughtering even of children and pregnant women (1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:16, Hosea 13:16, Joshua 6:21), and countless other examples of misogyny and intense abuse and subjugation of women.

The laws regarding women in Deuteronomy 22:13-29 alone should evoke tears. They treat women strictly as sexual property. Rape is punished not as an atrocity against women, but only as a property crime that devalued a man’s property. Women’s status in that society was so poor that having her marry her rapist was deemed more merciful than being a single, non-virgin woman. Finally, the law dictated that a woman be stoned to death if she doesn’t bleed on the sheets on her wedding night—as this was viewed as an accurate test of virginity. And that’s all from just one chapter.

Simply put, defending biblical inerrancy means believing that God condoned or advocated for genocide, slavery, racism, misogyny, national favoritism, etc. Although that’s certainly a God that can be feared, it’s not one that I personally could trust, have faith in, respect, or view as morally decent let alone worthy of worship. And I can’t imagine any God being pleased that people are so invested in elevating the words of ancient men to divine status that they’re willing to accuse God of condoning or advocating such things. Is biblical inerrancy the worship of God? Or the worship of men?

Scientific Considerations:

This doesn’t need to become a scientific treatise. But I’ll just say that after I’d been through enough science courses (even at the conservative Brigham Young University) I had to start finding new and less literal ways to interpret and explain much of the text, because not even the traditional view of Noah’s flood could hold water. I found it undeniable that evolution is how life on earth came to be what it is. That upright walking “humans” have been around for over a million years. That by 250,000 years ago they were essentially indistinguishable from us physically. That just 100,000 years ago we were just one of at least 6 human species in existence. That we underwent a cognitive revolution around 70,000 years ago, and an agricultural revolution around 12,000 years ago. I came to know that the earth had formed over billions of years, and that we can see other planets in various stages of formation (through natural processes).

Given all of this my views of what it meant to call God the creator had to change significantly. He now had to be more of a programmer or initiator who set in motion a process that then progressed naturally over probably 13 billion years (or else created some sort of convincing simulation to make us believe the same). A God who created through evolutionary processes. Of course, all of this raises significant questions and requires some updates to one’s theology. But in summary, I had to recognize that much of the Old Testament was simply ancient myth or stories that these civilizations used to explain the world around them as best they knew how at the time, but which were no more literal than the creation myths of the ancient Maya, or Polynesians, or Greeks, or others. None of this necessarily precluded me from continuing to assign some value to this text as an ancient repository of human attempts to explain the divine, or a source from which lessons and rich tradition could be drawn.

The Documentary Hypothesis:

My interest in historical theology started giving me some small tastes of critical biblical scholarship as early as 2005, and I gradually began to see what I consider to be undeniable evidence that this text was not created in the way that I had understood it to have been created (for example, Moses having truly written the first 5 books for us).

I found undeniable truth in some aspects of the “Documentary Hypothesis”—even if various details and versions of it may forever be debated and revised, and even if the original proposed version of it has not held consensus. But what is profoundly clear is that there were multiple authors behind the “Books of Moses.” It’s clear that these books were created by taking multiple existing narratives from different writers and combining, redacting, editing, and adding to them to form a single text. Much is debated now but there were originally thought to be 4 primary “voices” or contributors that can be identified as distinct from each other. The oldest sources being the Yahwist (J) from the Southern Kingdom, and the Elohist (E) from the Northern Kingdom. Then the Deuteronomist (D) writing during the reign of Josiah around 622BCE, and the Priestly (P) source written during the Babylonian exile starting around 586BCE.

As just one very simple introductory example, let’s take Genesis 1 and 2—which discuss the creation story. There are actually 2 different creation accounts there that were written by different authors who have some differing takes and styles. The first was written by the Priestly (P) source during the Babylonian exile after 586BCE (which is evident as it seems to respond specifically point by point to the Babylonian myths). The second is from an older source—the Yahwist (J).

The translators who created the modern chapter and verse breaks in the text of course weren’t aware of the fact that there are two completely separate accounts there, and unfortunately didn’t break them up into separate chapters. In fact they don’t even split them cleanly into different verses. The second account begins halfway through verse 4 of chapter 2. Modern translations like the NRSV and the Jewish Study Bible place a break there with an acknowledgement that a second and distinct creation account is beginning. But that is not found in the KJV that I was raised with. The accounts have identifiable linguistic differences. The first account refers to God as Elohim, and the second as Yahweh. The two accounts also seem to differ in their views of God (one viewing God as more anthropomorphic). There are countless very interesting examples of this kind of thing happening throughout the text that can be explored. Evidences that there were multiple sources of the same stories—sometimes with some differences.

In any case, if this text really is a combination and editing of several documentary sources, what does this mean for us as we look at the text? Well for one thing some of the examples make clear that there are contradictions in accounts that should preclude us from viewing this text as “univocal” (having one consistent theology or morality throughout). Which should also preclude us from treating any part of the text as unquestionable and definitively representing God or Moses.

Borrowing From Sumerian/Mesopotamian Myths

Another major eye opener was when I realized that the Israelites had borrowed much of Genesis and Exodus from older Mesopotamian traditions which they reworked to their own liking—and in ways that make it hard to continue to view the events as historical. One could think of it as vaguely similar to Americans creating their own version of the British TV show “The Office”—but with new names and flavors.

Given that the Israelites emerged as a subset of the Canaanite population it makes sense that the core Mesopotamian stories and myths were a part of their culture. But it also makes sense that this newly emerging nation would gradually take the old stories and make them their own; and that they’d create their own sense of national and religious identity by inserting their own Israelite names/patriarchs into the old stories; and that over time they would update or change some parts of the stories to suit their own uniquely developing beliefs and philosophies. Here are some of the older Mesopotamian writings the Israelites borrowed from.

THE MYTH OF ADAPA (1800BCE):

The story of the Fall of Adam and Eve draws on and reworks the Myth of Adapa. In this narrative Ea/Enki takes a role similar to the serpent in the Garden—deceiving Adapa into not eating the bread and water that was offered to him by the high god that would have given him eternal life and made him like the gods. And because of his choice Adapa is then held responsible for all the ills that befall humankind, with the text saying “and whatsoever of ill this man has brought upon men, upon this man may the horror fall.”

THE MYTH OF ENKI AND NINHURSAG (1900-1600BCE):

Enki and Ninti from Sumerian traditions both show parallels with the biblical Adam and Eve respectively. Enki lives in a state resembling Eden before the fall—a lush garden where there is no death or aging, where predators don’t kill and lambs don’t fear wolves, and there are even plants that he is forbidden to eat. But Enki’s curiosity leads him to eat all of the forbidden plants, and Ninhursag is furious that he consumed her creations without permission, and curses him with a death curse affecting 8 of his bodily organs. Ninti is one of eight deities then created to heal each of these organs—and she is responsible for his rib. Her name was a pun with double meaning—meaning both “Lady of the Rib” and “The Lady who makes alive.” Eve seemingly has parallels as “mother of all living” and was created from Adam’s rib.

THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH (1800BCE):

This text has parallels both with the creation accounts as well as the flood account. Regarding the flood account, Ziusudra/Utnapishtim becomes Noah—with both stories including a global flood, a divinely warned hero, a massive rectangular boat, pitch sealant, and the release of birds to look for dry land. But this text also includes the story of a man named Enkidu who parallels the biblical Adam. He was made from the clay of the earth, originally lives naked and in harmony with the animals and nature. After a sexual encounter with Shamhat who seduces him, he loses his innocence, gains wisdom, must enter the world of labor, and is rejected by the wild beasts. He is then told by Shamhat, “You are wise, Enkidu, you are become like a god”—echoing the serpent’s words in Genesis “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” He is then given clothing by Shamhat, similar to Adam and Even recognizing their nakedness and being clothed after eating the forbidden fruit. Another story in the text regarding Gilgamesh resembles the creation account—with Gilgamesh seeking a plant that restores youth—which is stolen by a serpent—ultimately condemning him to remain mortal.

THE UGARITIC TEXTS (1400-1200BCE)

The Ugaritic texts (roughly 1500 of them)—discovered in 1928—gave us loads of information about the Canaanite religion. Ugaritic and Hebrew languages contain a lot of similarities. And given that the Israelites arose from Canaanite roots it shouldn’t surprise us that the early Israelite religion shared commonalities with Canaanite religion.

Like the Canaanites, the early Israelites believed a whole pantheon or “divine council” of gods (elohim) existed. Many still don’t realize that the Bible is absolutely not monotheistic except in a “monarchistic” sense—meaning they believed there was a “most high god” (el) who exceeded the others in power. It’s clear that biblical writers believed other gods existed—but simply viewed them as lesser in power or subordinate (Exodus 15:11; Psalm 82:1; Psalm 95:3; Exodus 18:11). In fact, as late as the 7th century BCE, Yahweh (translated as “Lord” in English translations) was still considered to be a different deity than El—the “most high god.” Yawheh was just one of many “patron deities” whom the “most high god” had assigned to various nations. Yahweh was simply the one assigned to Israel (the “god of Israel”)—all of which is made clear in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Only after the Babylonian exile (586BCE) do biblical writers start to merge El and Yahweh into the same deity. But the text retains indicators that they were not always the same.

Canaanites also had in their pantheon a female goddess named Asherah who was associated with the “tree of life,” and a “serpent,” and who had the distinct title of “the mother of all living.” And prior to “Josiah’s Reform” in 622BCE it had been the norm for Israelites to appeal to this female goddess alongside Yahweh/Adonai. Inscriptions have been found that say “To Yahweh and his Asherah.” Figurines of her were common, and the Asherah “tree” stood in the Jerusalem temple for 230 of its 370 year history. This only changed when Josiah’s people suddenly (and a bit too conveniently) claimed to have found a new book of Moses (Deuteronomy) in the temple and used it to support reforming Israelite worship to exclude Asherah, to consider her a false cult, and to attempt to restrict worship to a more patriarchal “Yahweh only” model. Centralizing the cult/religion this way was beneficial to those in power for a number of reasons. But not everyone was happy about it and her worship remained common even after that time. Josiah’s own scribes who wrote the text of course present him as a hero for this reform, and the post-exilic writers/compilers of the Bible supported cutting her out. Their creation accounts intentionally try to rewrite Asherah’s symbols to demote and erase her. They include the “tree of life” but don’t associate it with her. And her “mother of all living” title seems to be intentionally taken and given instead to a human—Eve.

CODE OF HAMMURABI (1754BCE) AND MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAW (1450-1250BCE)

It’s worth briefly noting that the often unbelievably disturbing laws presented in the Hebrew Bible didn’t arrive out of a vacuum and certainly weren’t actually decreed by God. They developed out of previous horrific Middle Eastern social norms of that time. To give just one example:

Middle Assyrian Law, tablet A, 55:

“If a married man rapes a virgin who lives in her fathers house…. The father shall give his daughter who has been ravished as a spouse to her ravisher. If the rapist has no wife, he must pay the price of a virgin to the father, marry the girl, and know that he can never divorce her. If the girls father does not agree to this, he shall accept the money fine, and give his daughter to who he pleases.”

Compare to Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

“If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”

There are countless other ways that the morality of the biblical writers developed out of the norms of the time—not only regarding the rights of women—but other things like slavery, polygamy, “eye for an eye,” etc. And surely this should make any reasonable person resistant to assuming that we should accept something as God’s law just because the Bible says it.

THE SARGON BIRTH LEGEND (722-705BCE)

Even the origin story of Moses seems to be borrowed directly from the story of King Sargon of Akkad. In Exodus 1 and 2 we learn that Moses was born of two Levite (priestly) parents. His birth involved secrecy because the male children were being killed, so his mother had to hide him. He never knew his parents, because after 3 months of hiding him, she attempts to save his life by placing him in a basket sealed with pitch, and floating him down the river. Pharoah’s daughter finds him, and adopts him as her son. Now compare this with the story of the Mesopotamian King Sargon:

“I am Sargon the great king, the king of Agade.
My mother was a high priestess, I did not know my father…
My mother, the high priestess, conceived me, she bore me in secret.
She placed me in a reed basket, she sealed my hatch with pitch.
She left me to the river, whence I could not come up.
The river carried me off, it brought me to Aqqi, drawer of water.
Aqqi, drawer of water, brought me up as he dipped his bucket.
Aqqi, drawer of water, raised me as his adopted son.”

Much of the content of the “Books of Moses” is adapted from much older Sumerian myth. They wrote themselves into some of the existing Near Eastern tradition. Now, were some of these people real? Moses for example? It’s possible! But even if they were I’m not counting on their history being accurate when reported through oral tradition or adaptation many centuries later, and when some of their stories are clearly recreations of other older traditions. Was King Arthur a real person? It’s possible. Is the “history” we have of him real? Not so much. Can it still inspire us and teach us lessons and give us rich tradition to draw from? Sure it can.

How do we know the Israelites borrowed these traditions, and not the other way around? There are many reasons we can tell the one came from the other (linguistics, textual dependence, etc). But the simplest is simply the dating of the writings and the civilizations. Although the King Sargon tradition above could possibly have been written as late as the 7th century BCE, the other examples are dated between 1800BCE and 1200BCE at the latest. As we’ll explore in the next section, the majority of the biblical texts are dated after 800-700BCE.

Considerations Regarding the Timing of the Compilation of the Text

I grew up believing that Moses wrote the Pentateuch/Torah himself (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). If Moses was a real historical figure (we’ll see in a later section that archeology casts serious doubt on the Moses/Exodus narratives), linguistic issues alone make it very unlikely that he truly wrote any of the biblical texts himself.

Israelites don’t seem to have distinguished themselves from other Canaanites as a distinct people until around 1200BCE when the centralized Canaanite society was falling apart—and they were still a scattered nomadic/tribal group (rather than a kingdom or city-state) at that time. Therefore, the Hebrew language didn’t even begin gradually distinguishing itself from broader Canaanite language until 1200-1100BCE (Hebrew language is just a branch or dialect of Canaanite). And the earliest actual archeological records we have of something that can be called a “Hebrew” language are from around 1000BCE—and they still use an older “Paleo-Hebrew” alphabet. Fully developed “biblical” or classical style Hebrew doesn’t come about until about 900BCE.

As a result, if we want to imagine that Moses did write any of the Bible himself, it would not have been originally written in Hebrew. And as we’ve seen, the Documentary Hypothesis also severely complicates belief that Moses authored those texts—because it’s very apparent that multiple sources from different writers at different times were combined and redacted and added to in order to form one text.

Along with linguistic clues there are also historical and textual clues that give us an idea of the time periods in which various parts of the Bible were written. Here is a brief and simplistic summary of scholarly consensus on the dating of biblical texts:

Very few parts of the Bible were written before 800BCE.

These very select and small parts simply include poems like the Song of Deborah (in Judges 5) and the Song of the Sea (in Exodus 15) that are embedded within larger surrounding texts. We also have Genesis 49—the “Blessing of Jacob”—which may date as far back as 1100-1000BCE. They can be recognized as older because they use an older version of Hebrew writing and grammar than the rest of the text.

Some parts were written in the “Pre-Exilic” period between 800-600BCE

This would include some of the writings of “The Prophets” including Amos, Hosea, Nahum, and parts of Isaiah (Proto-Isaiah) which date as far back as 800-700BCE. In addition, although Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers simply did not exist prior to 586BCE, some parts of them utilized or incorporated various writings that may date as far back as that same time period of 800-700BCE.

Parts of Deuteronomy (Proto-Deuteronomy) also date to before the exile—likely written between 640-609BCE. Although traditionally attributed to Moses the scholarly consensus is that it was written in the time of King Josiah’s religious reforms (when it was a bit too conveniently and suddenly “found” in the temple during repairs).

The rest was written in the “Post Exilic” period after 586BCE

Anything not previously mentioned dates to after this time. This includes parts of Deuteronomy and parts of Isaiah (which creates some problems for the historicity of the Book of Mormon I grew up with—as does pretense that a single record with all Hebrew writings combined in one place would have existed before the exile).

And the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers as we now know them simply did not exist until after this time. At best some sections of them existed as individual writings or stories that hadn’t been compiled all together yet. But these books were yet to have been created by the post-exilic scribes/priests who compiled, edited, redacted, and sometimes added to various older writings and traditions to create them. One reason this is evident is again because of linguistics and our ability to track the development of the Hebrew language over time and recognize “Classical (pre-exilic) Hebrew” vs “Late (post-exilic) Hebrew.”

However, there are also historical reference clues. And there are instances where the biblical writings are actively responding to other texts. For example, the first creation account actually responds point by point to—and essentially attempts to refute—the creation account of their post-exilic Babylonian captors found in the Babylonian Enuma Elish. This helps identify them as post-exilic creations. In addition to following the structure of the Enuma Elish, Etymological studies also show that the Genesis authors are sometimes doing a sort of wordplay on the Babylonian texts as they write their own accounts.

Implications for historical reliability of the Hebrew Bible:

Here is how I see it:

If Israel was first unified with a centralized King (Saul) around 1050BCE, and the earliest Hebrew writings in existence date to about 1000BCE, then most “history” the text discusses that took place prior to that time is likely going to be based on oral tradition and myth. Some of it we can expect to be purely mythical; borrowed from and reworked from broader and older Mespotamian/Canaanite myths and creation stories (and frankly, as we’ve seen, this clearly happened). Other events prior to 1050BCE could at least possibly have some bits of truth to them even if they’re largely myth. Just as King Arthur’s legends may have roots stemming from an actual historical figure, there could have been an actual man named Moses. But I’m not counting on either of their “histories” being accurate after their legends grew and were handed down (and we’ll see that archeology suggests the Moses stories are mostly legend–in case stories of parting seas and borrowed birth stories didn’t already make that clear).

To sum up the issue briefly, any “history” the Bible discusses that occurred before King Saul in 1050BCE isn’t likely to include much actual history. And given that the oldest biblical accounts date to 900BCE if we’re being generous—even the stories of the first three Israelite kings (Saul, David, Solomon) might already be expected to be exaggerated and romanticized even though they were no doubt real leaders.

The reverse is also true. If the oldest biblical writings date to about 800BCE, then any events the Bible discusses that occurred after that time (or not too long before that time) can be expected to have a higher degree of historical reliability—because they were written more concurrently—rather than retroactively.

And yet, even in these more contemporary “histories” we should expect they’ll be slanted a certain way by those who wrote them—sometimes giving us their own biases, versions of events, or exaggerations. For example, if Josiah’s own scribes wrote Deuteronomy—we can expect them to present Josiah as a hero for his religious reforms even though they weren’t popular. And if we’re reading histories written by Jewish people—it shouldn’t surprise us that they claim to be God’s special “chosen” people who are favored by him, and that God hates their enemies. This is no different than Americans, or Babylonians, or Romans believing God favors them above other nations. It doesn’t make it true. It makes it egocentric.

We can also expect that they might sometimes be misrepresenting events in ways that are favorable to themselves, and unfavorable or antagonistic to enemies and outsiders. A humorous example of this is when the text presents the origins of the Ammonites and the Moabites and other Canaanite enemies of Israel as having come about when two daughters decided to get their father drunk and then sleep with him. Even if this was a real historical event (it’s likely not), did it need to be included in this religious record, or is it propaganda intended to demean their enemies?

In sum… from King Saul onward (1050BCE) we’ll have some history (but still plenty of reason to question the biases and accounts). Anything before that time is likely to be legend if not outright myth.

Archeological Considerations

I acknowledge that archeology has some limitations. But it does give us important data, and we need to consult the evidence we do have and be aware of the general picture we currently get from archeologists compared to the picture we get from the Bible.

The Bible version of the establishment of Israel:

• The Israelites are outsiders—not from Canaan (Abraham comes from Mesopotamia to the Holy Land which is Canaan)
• The Israelites are taken to and enslaved in Egypt
• The Israelites have their exodus from Egypt led by Moses
• They wander 40 years in the wilderness
• Joshua conquers numerous Canaanite cities in a miraculous and powerful manner—thus re-entering and re-claiming the Holy Land again for Israel

The Archeology version of the establishment of Israel:

• The Israelites are primarily disenfranchised local Canaanites (not outsiders) who are seeking a new identity after the collapse of the many city-states in the region shortly before 1200BCE, and a resulting wider dispersal of the people throughout the land. Basically tribal groups of herders and farmers that create a new god, stop eating pork, and forbid marriage to other groups. They don’t get a centralized king until 1050BCE.
• There is no evidence of any Israelites (let alone 600,000) ever being enslaved in Egypt. Egyptian records mention encountering Israelites one time around 1200BCE and mentions them (along with many others) as a group they conquered.
• Although there is no evidence for any enslavement or exodus from Egypt, it is possible that a small group of Canaanite slaves could have left Egypt and joined the people in Canaan—possibly learning of Yahweh (YWH or Yahu) while passing through Midian and sparking some of this tradition (again, there is no archeological evidence of this).
• At this point the Israelites could possibly be a “mixed multitude”—some disenfranchised Canaanites, and possibly some escaped slaves from Egypt if we want to assume there were some, and some nomads looking to settle down.
• They eventually built a new identity and sense of national pride around sensationalized stories of being miraculously freed from bondage in Egypt, and then miraculously conquering numerous Canaanite cities with the help of their god. (rivers parting, walls miraculously falling, hail killing their enemies, the sun standing still, etc). Again, compare to legends like King Arthur.
• The numerous Canaanite cities supposedly miraculously conquered by Joshua as they reclaimed the Holy Land (according to the text) were actually destroyed at many different time periods—often very far apart. And some don’t seem to have ever been destroyed at all. So these stories do not seem to hold up even though they would have been very useful in helping Israel establish national pride and a sense of identity and power and divine favoritism.

Some General Conclusions

This is really just a brief introduction. There’s much more to explore—including contradictions in the texts. But this was my attempt to distill many years of study into a brief summary for others who are curious what changed my mind, or want to deconstruct and understand but can’t find the time or interest to dive deep. I encourage anyone in disagreement to go do their own study. Dive into the scholarly sources and learn the reasons that there is broad consensus on so many of these issues before dismissing them.

Some will see these things as threatening, but I would argue that ignorant faith (rather than responsible and informed faith) is threatening and counterproductive to our progression as individuals and as a society. There are many people of strong faith and devotion who long ago stopped what I consider to be the desperate, uncomfortable, and hopeless battle of trying to defend the literalism, historicity, and even the supposedly “inerrant” nature of these ancient writings. People who moved toward more responsible and informed faith in a divine being or afterlife. People who aren’t so anxious for a false sense of certainty that they end up idolizing and giving God status to a collection of ancient books that were written by unidentified men–which I don’t think any God would appreciate. Especially when those words claim God approved of slavery, genocide, sexual slavery, etc. And when those words don’t even always agree on theology or morality.

These texts are simply a collection of writings by ancient humans doing the best they knew how to explain the world around them with the knowledge they currently had. Often including their own biases, culture, prejudices, failures, and limited understanding in the text. Sometimes getting things right, and sometimes getting them horrifically wrong–just as people in other parts of the world had done when creating their own myths, texts, laws, and traditions. When looked at in that way there are still lessons to be learned from the texts, and rich tradition to draw from. And I’ve found that many people of faith have actually viewed the book this way for quite some time and still found value in it while approaching it responsibly—learning from both the good and the bad within it.