Well you do have one mention of Israel in the stela of Merneptah, the successor of Ramses.
And also indicates that they were nomads, probably roaming some ways South or East of Canaan. But according to the Bible, in 1200, the Israelites had already gone into central Canaan and conquered the whole land for themselves two hundred years earlier and established a lasting kingdom. This includes conquering several other kingdoms that didn’t even exist by 1200, let alone 1400 BC.
The reality is that the Israelites were Canaanites and they never conquered Canaan. A kingdom of Israel was established South of Canaan by around 900 BC, but the Israelites of the Bible are principally a group that migrated North into Canaan proper and worked their way up the social ladder to eventually become the dominant group.
So, does that mean that the authors of the Torah originally made the Torah up by scratch rather than recording accurate history? Perhaps, that can be seen as a sign of originality, and modern-day Jews honor that original thinking. 
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:7, topic:611513”]
You’re speaking of a book with dozens of different authors, written over the course of hundreds of years, translated by a wide variety of people, that discusses people who aren’t mentioned in any other written documents. There is no way to confirm the validity of most of it, hence placement of the question in Great Debates.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, I cannot trust anyone who claims anything valid or invalid about the book.
That’s reasonably fair, though I’d use the word “mythology” rather than “fiction”. Fiction implies a deliberate invention, which is not I think how the five books of Moses came about.
The later books edge over more into history.
No. Think of it more as the process of mythologizing. The myths may be based on real events, or they may be based on previously-existing myths from other peoples; in a time before writing, one would expect gradual distortion and anacronisms to creep in (an example of this process is the treatment of King Arthur - based on events during a dark age in Britain).
No, that’s going too far - as with any truly ancient text, what you need is a cross-reference of available sources of information, and making reasonable inferences. You cannot be 100% certain, of course.
Think of the stories, especially the older ones, as having something in common with today’s urban legends: behind most is a grain of truth, but they grow in the telling, and the Devil is in the details.
Now he’s in the details? I thought he was in the Garden!
That was a metaphorical Devil, you snake!
Metaphorical? Not so faust, I thought it was Mephistopheles …
I believe that after or during the Babylonian captivity, the priesthood needed to create a series of myths that would hold the culture together by making their earlier history sound more heroic. So you get the whole set of stories about how amazingly kick-butt the Israelites were when they conquered all of those other tribes.
One thing that can be said, it did work.
Too bad we don’t have the other side of the story, Rashomon-style. I’ll bet it would be a lot different.
Jonah is totally factual. 
Daniel is in way more doubt than the others. The book of Daniel was conveniently “found” when the Greeks were oppressing the Israelites, around what, 160 BC? Daniel claims to have been written hundreds of years earlier, which prophesies the things to come. It’s pretty clearly a book that is political.
It’s not controversial. The Egyptian captivity didn’t happen.
There was a thread a while ago where someone asked when dishes became “traditional recipes of their culture”? The reigning answer in that thread was that if your grandma made it, it was a traditional recipe, because there’s (probably) no one alive who remembers a time without it.
Also consider the game “telephone”, where each person relates what they know to the next person, and at the end it’s entirely different from what it started as.
Minus the printing press, it’s easy for cultural knowledge to change away from historical fact, while still seeming truthful and relevant to that culture. As example, your mom tells you a story when you’re a little girl. Years later, you have your own kid and you’re trying to tell the same story, but of course your memory isn’t 100%. Because of the way human memory works, you particularly remember the bits which seem relevant to your own life and forget the bits which don’t. But the story needs to be “story” length, so you pad it out with (what seem to you to be) irrelevant details, made up on the spot or lifted from events in your life or other stories you know. The story also needs to be entertaining to your child, so you edit and expand based on his interests.
If you’re worried about the veracity of the story, before the printing press, the closest you can come to the original source is by asking your great-grandmother. But if you’re talking about a legend that’s thousands of years old, that’s still hundreds of generations of steady transformation thrown in.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
I am picturing how the cream of Judean society, returning from Babylon to Jerusalem, used the newly compiled Torah and the temple rebuilding project to re-assert and cement social control of all the hoi-polloi that were not important enough to be taken as hostages. After all, someone had to stay behind to do all the agricultural work and forward the proceeds to Babylon. They would not like the return of a ruling class and the reimposition of strict norms.
In 1961 a building stone bearing the name of Pontius Pilate was discovered in Caesarea, the seat of Roman administration. The letters of Paul and the writings of Luke are probably authentic in their records of contemporaneous events (due allowance being made for matters subject to interpretation).