Simply Hebrew texts dated from the time of Moses. None exist.
Professor F. F. Bruce:
“For Cæsar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Cæsar’s day.
“Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century.
“Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. . . .
“The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.
“The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” - The Books and the Parchments, page 180.
Yet there are thousands of manuscripts of various portions of the Bible, some of which go back to within a hundred years of the time of the writing of the original material.
I warned that this was on the way. 'Arguing from ignorance' is not an adequate argument that anything exists. Yes there is evidence that others wrote the myths in the Canaanite, Ugarit, Babylonian, and Sumarian cuneiform tablets.
This is what I want you to show me.
Later attributions of authorship are 'traditional beliefs' without any supporting evidence to justify your claim. The attributing authorship of ancient texts without evidence of authorship is common in the ancient cultures.
The weakness, I have found, in educated people is that they don't seem to be able to think for themselves. They are good at regurgitating information but not so good at critical thinking. If you read in a scientific journal that they discovered some pictographic or cuneiform text and it was attributed to the chief of the tribe or medicine man or king or whatever, you wouldn't doubt it. Especially in the unlikely event that you were amazingly fortunate enough to discover another sample from another time which confirmed it, so why not the Bible? The writers of which who followed Moses in chronological order attributed the writing of the Pentateuch to Moses. From accurate Bible chronology you can ascertain the date of it's writing. You don't accept that because you don't accept the Bible. Is this not correct?
Hypothetical archaeological finds that do not exist are not an adequate argument. Nothing has been found either secular nor scripture.
Wait a minute. I just said that the authors of the Bible, from Joshua, who was tutored by Moses, up to Jesus attribute Moses to the writing of the Law of Moses. And you say "nor scripture?"
I realize that hypothetical archaeological finds isn't an adequate argument, I'm just trying to establish the possibility of a bias here, an agenda of an atheist nature. A double standard.
Still waiting for actual archaeological finds that justify your position .Nothing provided so far.
The Value of Archaeology
“Archaeology provides a sampling of ancient tools and vessels, walls and buildings, weapons and adornments. Most of these can be chronologically arranged and securely identified with appropriate terms and contexts contained in the Bible. In this sense the Bible accurately preserves in written form its ancient cultural milieu. The details of biblical stories are not the fanciful products of an author’s imagination but rather are authentic reflections of the world in which the recorded events, from the mundane to the miraculous, took place.” - The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land.
What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do
“Archaeology neither proves nor disproves the Bible in conclusive terms, but it has other functions, of considerable importance. It recovers in some degree the material world presupposed by the Bible. To know, say, the material of which a house was built, or what a ‘high place’ looked like, much enhances our understanding of the text. Secondly, it fills out the historical record. The Moabite Stone, for example, gives the other side of the story treated in 2 Kings 3:4ff. . . . Thirdly, it reveals the life and thought of the neighbours of ancient Israel—which is of interest in itself, and which illuminates the world of ideas within which the thought of ancient Israel developed.” - Ebla - A Revelation in Archaeology.