Editing Bible (section)

== Archaeological and historical research ==
{{Main|Biblical archaeology school|Historicity of the Bible|Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeology}}
{{See also|Dating the Bible}}
[[File:JRSLM 300116 Tel Dan Stele 01.jpg|thumb|The [[Tel Dan Stele]] at the [[Israel Museum]]. Highlighted in white: the sequence ''[[bet (letter)|B]] [[yodh|Y]] [[tav (letter)|T]] [[dalet|D]] [[waw (letter)|W]] [[dalet|D]]'']]
[[Biblical archaeology]] is a subsection of [[archaeology]] that relates to and sheds light upon the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament.{{sfn|Caraher|Pettegrew|2019|p=19}} It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times.{{sfn|Caraher|Pettegrew|2019|p=11}} There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology.{{sfn|Mazar|2003|pp=85–87}} One broad division includes [[biblical maximalism]], which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. According to historian [[Lester L. Grabbe]], there are "few, if any" maximalists in mainstream scholarship.{{sfn|Grabbe|2017|p=36}} It is considered to be the extreme opposite of [[biblical minimalism]] which considers the Bible to be a purely [[post-exilic]] (5th century BCE and later) composition.{{sfn|Davies|2000|p=27}} According to Mary-Joan Leith, professor of religious studies, many minimalists have ignored evidence for the antiquity of the Hebrew language in the Bible, and few take archaeological evidence into consideration.{{sfn|Leith|2022|p=5}} Most biblical scholars and archaeologists fall somewhere on a spectrum between these two.{{sfn|Leith|2022|p=4}}{{sfn|Grabbe|2017|p=36}}

The biblical account of events of the [[Exodus from Egypt]] in the Torah, the migration to the [[Promised Land]], and the period of [[Biblical judges|Judges]] are sources of heated ongoing debate. There is an absence of evidence for the presence of Israel in Egypt from any Egyptian source, historical or archaeological.{{sfn|Hoffmeier|1999|p=53}} Yet, as William Dever points out, these biblical traditions were written long after the events they describe, and they are based in sources now lost and older oral traditions.{{sfn|Dever|2003|p=8}}

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ancient non–biblical texts, and archaeology support the [[Babylonian captivity]] beginning around 586 BCE.{{sfn|Leith|2022|p=1}} Excavations in southern Judah show a pattern of destruction consistent with the Neo-Assyrian devastation of Judah at the end of the eighth century BCE and 2 Kings 18:13.{{sfn|Leith|2022|p=6}} In 1993, at Tel Dan, archaeologist Avraham Biran unearthed a fragmentary Aramaic inscription, the [[Tel Dan stele]], dated to the late ninth or early eighth century that mentions a "king of Israel" as well as a "house of David" (bet David). This shows David could not be a late sixth-century invention, and implies that Judah's kings traced their lineage back to someone named David.{{sfn|Leith|2022|p=2}} However, there is no current archaeological evidence for the existence of King David and Solomon or the First Temple as far back as the tenth century BCE where the Bible places them.{{sfn|Leith|2022|pp=2–3}}

In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, surveys demonstrated that Acts of the Apostles (Acts) scholarship was divided into two traditions, "a conservative (largely British) tradition which had great confidence in the historicity of Acts and a less conservative (largely German) tradition which had very little confidence in the historicity of Acts". Subsequent surveys show that little has changed.{{sfn|Phillips|2006|p=365}} Author Thomas E. Phillips writes that "In this two-century-long debate over the historicity of Acts and its underlying traditions, only one assumption seemed to be shared by all: Acts was intended to be read as history".{{sfn|Phillips|2006|p=366}} This too is now being debated by scholars as: what genre does Acts actually belong to?{{sfn|Phillips|2006|p=366}} There is a growing consensus, however, that the question of genre is unsolvable and would not, in any case, solve the issue of historicity: "Is Acts history or fiction? In the eyes of most scholars, it is history{{snd}}but not the kind of history that precludes fiction." says Phillips.{{sfn|Phillips|2006|p=385}}