on the origins of israel in canaan
DESCRIPTION
On the origins of Israel in the land of Canaan: did they emerge from within the land, or come from without? Is the Biblical testimony at all salvageable in light of archaeological data? Though a plethora of views abide, a late 15th century conquest that only marginally involved razing, followed by several centuries of social strife fits both the archaeological and biblical testimony best, and is to be preferred.TRANSCRIPT
CSAP 619 MD: Biblical Archaeology
On the Origin of Israel in
Canaan 15th Century Conquest, Tribalism and Struggle
Timothy A. Zieger
5/25/2012
Titus Kennedy
Zieger 1
How did the Israelites come to be in the land of Canaan?1 The Biblical narrative has been
mostly discounted by modern skeptical scholars as erroneous at best and fictional at worst. As
Provan notes, “The history of ‘ancient Israel,’ if that is the correct term, must in this case be
sought not in the biblical stories, but in the artifacts, buildings, and inscriptions the people
themselves left behind.”2 Toward that end, archaeologists have proposed a plethora of theories
accounting for the origin of Israel. Notwithstanding, two general perspectives have arisen,
though a great deal of variance abides with regard to specifics. One perspective understands
Israel to have entered into the land from without. The other view sees them as having emerged
from the Canaanites within the land. Some of the latter emergence theories and their proponents
are at present enjoying great popularity; but, the evidence adduced for their varied positions is
not incontrovertible. A late 15th
century conquest that only marginally involved razing, followed
by several centuries of social strife fits both the archaeological and biblical testimony best, and is
to be preferred.
Some Archaeological Perspectives
1 For the purposes of this paper, a discussion of the Exodus lies outside the scope—the question is how
Israel came to be in the land of Canaan. However, it is here assumed that an Exodus ca. 1446 is the Bible’s own
testimony (see especially: 1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26); it is thus used as a working hypothesis.
For resources on a 15th
century Exodus, see:
Bryant G. Wood, “Recent Research on the Date and Setting of the Exodus,” Bible and Spade Vol. 21 No. 4, (Fall
2008); Idem, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeir,” JETS 50/2, (June
2007): 249-58; William Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh of the Exodus,” Bible and the Spade Vol. 16 No. 2,
(Spring 2003). John J. Bimson, and David Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review,
(Sep/Oct 1987): 40-48, 51-53, 66-68.
For contrapuntal perspectives, see:
Nahum M. Sarna, “Exploring Exodus: The Oppression,” The Biblical Archaeologist , Vol. 49, No. 2 (Jun., 1986):
68-80.; Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); James K.
Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996).; Baruch Halpern, “The Exodus from Egypt: Myth or Reality?,” The Rise of Ancient Israel,
(1991): 87-117. 2 Lain W. Provan, “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of
Israel,” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 114, No. 4 (Winter, 1995): 585-606.
Zieger 2
Many theories have been put forth to account for the presence of Israel in the land of
Canaan. As mentioned above, the models can be grouped into two broad categories: those that
see Israel as entering from without, and those that view Israel as having emerged from within.
From Without
Merrill observes that “The most common understanding of the conquest in precritical
times was that of a violent destructive incursion of Canaan by Israel’s armies, one that in seven
years or so annihilated much of the indigenous population and reduced the cities, towns, and
other structures to rubble.”3 This position was modified by scholars like Albrecht Alt and Martin
Noth, who argued for an extended infiltration. Instead of being violent and militaristic, their
conquest was “…a gradual penetration of Canaan by outside pastoralists who eventually united
with each other as tribes and who also brought into their federation indigenous peoples.”4 Alt and
Noth posited that from this coalescence a core of religious traditions/convictions involving the
worship of YHWH arose.5
In Merrill’s estimation, the once dominant conquest model of W.F. Albright and John
Bright largely adheres to the biblical picture with a few notable adaptations.6 He presents their
basic perspective:
Israel emerged…as a collection of tribes, some indigenous and some from the outside,
who confessed a common heritage and faith and who, on that basis, became a
recognizably distinct people. As for the conquest, it did take place, and with violent
repercussions, sometime in the 13th
century. It should not be seen as an all-Israel
invasion, however, but as the action of only some of the tribes who experienced
Canaanite resistance to their attempts to locate within the land.7
3 Eugene H. Merrill, “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-162, here, 148. 4 Ibid., 149.
5 Ibid.
6 Kenneth A. Kitchen is currently the most outspoken proponent of essentially this 13
th century conquest
model. See: Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 7 Merrill, “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel,” 149.
Zieger 3
Dever suggests that the main point recommending the conquest model to influential scholars like
W. F. Albright, J. Bright, G. E. Bright, and Y. Yadin was “that it took the biblical account (in
Joshua, though not in Judges) seriously, if naively.”8 He goes on to suggest that the main reason
for its demise was “the absence not only of destruction levels at Dibon and Heshbon in
Transjordan, but also any possible occupational context for such.” 9
Ultimately, however, the
work of Kathleen Kenyon at Jericho left nothing for Israel to defeat on any theory of the exodus,
and therefore severely undercut the 13th
century conquest model.10
From Within
After expressing dissatisfaction with the sole alternatives for the origin of Israel then
available, G.E. Mendenhall proposed a new, sociologically oriented, “peasant revolt theory.”11
To him, Alt’s model was based upon a faulty understanding of nomads that, upon re-evaluation,
left the infiltration hypothesis empty. And, as far as the conquest theory was concerned,
Mendenhall proclaimed,
...There was no statistically important invasion of Palestine at the beginning of the twelve
tribe system of Israel. There was no radical displacement of population, there was no
genocide, there was no large scale driving out of population, only of royal administrators
(of necessity!). In summary, there was no real conquest of Palestine at all; what happened
instead may be termed, from the point of view of the secular historian interested only in
socio-political processes, a peasant’s revolt against the network of interlocking Canaanite
city states.12
This he based largely upon the notion that the biblical accounts and the Amarna letters conveyed
the same situation on the ground, namely the political and subjective withdrawal of the hab/piru
8 William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 44. 9 Ibid., 45.
10 Ibid. John Brimson notes this Achilles’ heel as well, citing the profound lack of archaeological
corroboration at “Jericho, Ai…Gibeon…Hebron, Arad and Zephath/Hormah,” as insurmountable problems for the
13th
century conquest model. See: John Brimson, “The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent
Theories,” Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15, here, 5. 11
George E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 25, No. 3
(Sep., 1962): 65-87 12
Ibid., 73.
Zieger 4
from the Canaanite society as it stood.13
This withdrawal was, for him, sparked by the Yahwistic
faith of a small group of “slave labor captives [that] succeeded in escaping from Egypt.”14
Though this suggestion was not initially well received, it gradually inspired a number of
other theories of a similar nature. Brimson highlights four such theories: Finkelstein’s nomadic
model, J.A. Callaway’s displaced coastal plain and Shephelah villagers interpretation, N. P.
Lemche’s “evolutionary Israel” view, and R. B. Coote and K. W. Whitelam’s synthesis, which
places the emergence of Israel in the context of LB economic decline.15
Dever’s summation of
the current climate of scholarly opinion demonstrates just how seminal Mendenhall’s
sociological theory was. He suggests that all older models of Israel’s origins are obsolete:
archaeology, the best source for the real history of early Israel has demonstrated the fact that
Israel’s origin is indigenous to Canaan, and occurred visibly within the LB II/IA I transition. In
13
Ibid. Anson Rainey and others have suggested that habiru (‘apiru) has absolutely no connection with the
Hebrews, linguistically or otherwise. “Habiru,” he observes, “is not an ethnic designation. The habiru are a social
element. It is likewise clear from the personal names of individual habiru that they are not from a single linguistic
group.” He argues that habiru was a pejorative term often synonymous with “pauper” or “mutineer”. He does,
however, believe that shasu refers to the Hebrews, noting several connections, including the fact that shasu is used
to designate a pastoralist, tribal people group that occupied regions throughout the Levant, including much of
Canaan. (Anson F. Rainey, “Shasu or Habiru: Who Were the Early Israelites?,” Biblical Archaeology Review
Nov/Dec 2008, 51-55. Cf. Idem, “Scholars Disagree: Can You Name the Panel with the Israelites?: Rainey’s
Challenge.” Biblical Archaeology Review Nov/Dec 1991, 56-60, 93, 96.)
Rainey, of course, uses this distinction to argue in favor of a nomadic origin of Israel (as per Finkelstein).
The finer points of this theory are simply not robust. For instance, the notion that the earliest settlements lie toward
the eastern edge of the central hill country of Canaan (used to indicate the Transjordan origin of the nomadic—
shasu—peoples that formed Israel) is simply not convincing. Dever has done a respectable job showing that
Finkelstein’s settling nomads would simply not be enough to explain the “ten-fold growth in population in Iron I—
not even if every family produced 50 surviving children!” This he accomplishes on Finkelstein’s own estimates for
the highland settlement population of the 12th
century B.C. (ca. 12,800 to 17,000) and for the 11th
century B.C. (ca.
30,200 to 42,700). For, “by Finkelstein’s own estimates, the pastoral-nomadic element of the population of Palestine
in all periods up until recently has been about 10% of the total (or a maximum of 15%),” leaving, at most, 1,200-
1,500 nomad-pastoralists to account for the 17,400-25,700 new occupants in the Iron I highlands (Cf. Dever Who
Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 157.).
Perhaps a more moderate approach may better suit the shasu vs. habiru problem. Perhaps both shasu and
habiru, as terms denoting, respectively, pastoralist-tribalists and outlaw-paupers, encompass the Hebrews without
specifically denoting them. 14
Ibid. 15
Brimson, “The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories,” 10ff.
Zieger 5
support of this consensus are the material continuities between the Canaanites and the LB II/IA I
settlements associated with “Proto-Israel.”16
Thus it stands. The Bible has been relieved of the duty to account for Israel’s historical
origin: archaeology and anthropology provide the truth where it could not. Those theories that
posit a violent conquest or even peaceful infiltration are now all but abandoned. This consensus
is unsatisfying, and is based on essentially three erroneous assumptions: the biblical conquest is
set ca. 1230 B.C., it included wide-scale razing, and it would preclude material continuity
between the Canaanites and Israelite conquerors. Given the Bible’s own admissions and the
archaeological record, however, there is little reason to discount the text as historically reliable.17
The Biblical Testimony
Conquest
According to the Bible’s portrayal, Israel entered the land from without, first conquering
portions of the Transjordan region from beside the Dead Sea north to Mt. Hermon, and then
crossing the Jordan to seize southern and northern Canaan regions in two campaigns.18
Bypassing the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, Moses and the Israelites quickly took
territory from kings Sihon and Og east of the Jordan (cf. Num. 21:21-25; Deut. 3:8-10); Reuben,
Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh chose to occupy this land (Num. 32:1). Subsequently,
Israel moved across the Jordan and engaged in a long conquest of Cisjordan (cf. Jos. 6-12). The
southern campaign was punctuated by a covenant renewal at Shechem (Jos 8:33), wherein both
16
Cf. Dever Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 167. 17
Issues of textual criticism are simply outside of the scope of this paper, though they remain troublesome
for many skeptics. Yet, the extent to which the biblical accounts of the conquest an settlement of Canaan fit with a
reasonable reconstruction of the archaeological data militates against rampant skepticism toward the text. 18
Cf. Num. 21:21-35; Deut. 2:32-37, 3:1-17; Joshua; Judges 1
In answer to the question, “Who were the earliest Israelites and what was the nature of their society?” Rainey
declares: “The Bible is very clear. They were pastoral nomads who came from east of the Jordan.” Indeed, this is
very clear, and so starkly put, it highlights the significance of the proposal that Israel arose as a “motley crew” of
indigenous Canaanites and other displaced folk from the broader Levant.
Anson F. Rainey, “Inside, Outside: Where Did the Early Israelites Come From?,” Biblical Archaeology Review
(Nov/Dec 2008): 45-50, here 48.
Zieger 6
“resident foreigners and native Israelites” (NET) heard the Law of Moses read aloud. After this,
the land was divided among the remaining tribes, each one with the responsibility of fully
displacing the Canaanites within their respective territories (cf. Jos. 13-21). Much of Canaan thus
became occupied by the tribes of Israel.
Significantly, no biblical passage dealing with this entrance into the Transjordan or
Cisjordan regions requires that the Hebrews always destroyed conquered cities, or that their
conquest was complete. That is, the conquest primarily involved the displacement of peoples;19
few cities were razed or burned (Jericho: cf. Jos. 6:24, Ai: cf. Jos. 8:28, and Hazor: cf. Jos.
10:11).20
There would be little reason for the Israelites to do so. In fact, exhortations like that
found in Deuteronomy 6:10-12 suggest that they did not:
“Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He
swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities
which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and
hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant,
and you eat and are satisfied, then watch yourself, that you do not forget the LORD who
brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. (NASB; italics are mine
for emphasis)
Israel was expected to occupy cities, with all their attendant benefits, that were not their own. It
would not, then, be surprising to discover a general state of material continuity within the
Canaanite regions through LBI/LBII A transition (conquest), or even the LBII B/IA I transition
(proliferation of highland settlements). The semi-nomadic Hebrews executing the conquest of
Canaan should not be expected to usher in a sharp cultural break with the inhabitants of the land:
19
Merrill opines, “Once one understands that the [cherem] under which Canaan stood applied only to
populations and not places (Jericho, Ai, and Hazor excepted) the archaeological verifiability of the conquest is
shown to be an exercise in irrelevance.” This may be slightly hyperbolic, since the material evidence for the
conquest of those three principle cities is arguably discernible, but the general point is valid. Eugene H. Merrill,
“The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel,” Biblitheca Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-
162, here, 153. 20
It is noted in Judges that Jerusalem was set on fire by “the men of Judah” (Jud. 1:8); such evidence
remains to be found. Given the extent to which significant excavations are restricted in the city, Jerusalem remains a
perpetual frustration for archaeologists.
Zieger 7
they would likely have had little distinctive material culture of their own and would possibly
have been in need of the material resources available within the conquered cities and outlying
districts of Canaan.21
Indeed, that is the expectation noted in this passage.
Furthermore, the conquest was not complete; several passages make this abundantly
clear. In Transjordan and to the south, the Hebrews left several notable people-groups
unmolested: the Edomites (Deut. 2:4), Moabites (Deut. 2:9), and Ammonites (Deut 2:19, 37).
After Joshua’s southern and northern campaigns in Cisjordan, several inhabitants explicitly
remained, including those of Gibeon (Jos. 9-10:15), of Jerusalem (Jos. 15:63), of Gezer (Jos.
16:10), and of the coastal regions along the Mediterranean up to Megiddo (cf. Jos. 17:11-13).
Moreover, Joshua’s farewell address to Israel includes exhortations to stay distinct from the
“nations…which remain[ed] among [them]” (cf. Jos. 23:12-13). There should be little doubt that
such remaining indigents would have influenced the socioeconomic culture of Canaan even with
the Israelites there.
Beyond the Conquest
Additionally, the book of Judges not only reiterates these vestigial inhabitants and towns,
listing even several more (cf. Jud. 1:27-35), but the tenor of the book is pointedly fixed on this
latent non-Israelite presence and the grief which it fomented.22
By the Bible’s clear admission,
the Israelites were not alone in the land after Joshua’s spearhead campaigns, and only slowly,
with great struggle, became established in Canaan.
21
Cf. Bimson, and Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” 40-48, 51-53, 66-68. 22
That indigents would remain as a troublesome presence within the land is anticipated by the warning of
Numbers 33:55: “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about
that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will
trouble you in the land in which you live.” (NASB)
Even more significant is the rebuke of Judges 2:1-3: “The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and
said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never
break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break
down their altars. ’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said, ‘I will not drive
them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.”(NIV)
Zieger 8
First, the book depicts great social turbulence in the land. As semi-independent entities,
each Israelite tribe was responsible for displacing the Canaanites within their region. So, at the
outset, the tribes encountered severe resistance. Judah took possession of the hill country, but
was unable to displace the inhabitants of the plains (Jud. 1:19). The Benjamites failed to drive
out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, and so shared the city with them (Jud. 1:21; cf. Jos. 15:63).
Manasseh did not expel the Canaanites along the northeastern edge of its allotted land (cf. Jud.
1:27); though they later “pressed [them] into forced labor,” they “never drove them out
completely” (Jud. 1:28). The tribes of Ephraim (Jud. 1:29), Zebulun (1:30), Asher (1:31-32), and
Naphtali (1:33) experienced similar setbacks. And, the Amorites, who were “determined to hold
out in Mount Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim,” are said to have “confined the Danites to the hill
country, not allowing them to come down into the plain” (1:34). The buffeted Israelites even
seem marginalized by the portrait of these texts, occupying primarily the heartland regions of the
Cisjordan and areas of Gilead, cut off from one another by numerous Canaanite settlements.
Beyond this, no fewer than six foreign oppressions are recorded in Judges: Cushan-
Rishathaim (Mesopotamian; cf. 3:7-11), Eglon (Moabite; 3:12-31), Jabin (Canaanite; 4:1-5:31),
Midianite (cf. 6:1-10:6), Ammonite (10:7-12:15), and Philistine (13:1-16:31).23
The tribes of
Israel, unified by virtue of their ethnicity (descendants of Israel) and their shared identity as the
people of YHWH (cf. Lev. 26:12; Num 1), were often sorely oppressed during the Judges period.
They are pressed into labor often, and at one point are even forced to inhabit “dens which were
in the mountains and the caves and the strongholds” (6:2). Leaders arose ad hoc in this tribal
configuration, relieving Israel from these oppressors and securing fleeting periods of peace.
Among the most notable episodes of deliverance is that which comes under the direction of
23
Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges,” JETS 43/3 (September 2005):
491-500, table 1, 493.
Zieger 9
Deborah and Barak, against Jabin, the “king” of Canaan who lived in Hazor, whose military
commander they defeated, and whom they pressed ultimately to destruction (cf. Jud. 4:1-24).
The loosely knit tribes endured this turbulent status until Saul became king (1 Sam 10), when a
unified state began to form that would become established under David.
Ineluctably, the biblical testimony is clear: a significant Canaanite populace remained in
the land when Israel moved in, and the socioeconomic conditions that followed were turbulent.
No scholar denies the clear message of the biblical narrative in this regard. One real objection is,
however, well-articulated by Finkelstein when he states, “According to the inner logic of the
biblical narrative, and when placed against the history of the ancient Near East, the period of the
Judges covered about two centuries, from approximately 1200 to 1000 B.C.E. Yet the book of
Judges does not depict the realities of the Iron Age I period.”24
Chronological issues aside, just
what realities might be expected given the biblical testimony regarding the Judges period that
came swiftly in the wake of the conquest?
The Bible’s own assertions must be born in mind in attempting an answer to this
question. The conquest left many cities intact and people alive and the Israelites struggled with
these nations for several centuries as tribal entities until the monarchy. Thus, in sum, few cities
and town conflagrations ought to be attributable to the conquest: only three are explicitly named
in the text—these destruction layers, dating to the Late Bronze I age, ought to be reconcilable
24
Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the
History of Early Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007): 73.
This statement is misleading. The two hundred year span cannot be based upon the “inner logic” of the biblical
narrative alone which even by the time of Jephthah has Israel occupying “Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding
settlements and all the towns along the Arnon” (Jud. 11:26) for three hundred years. On the biblical chronology, the
Judges period must occupy nearly four centuries, as Solomon began constructing the temple in the fourth year of his
reign, ca. 966 B.C., four hundred eighty years after the Exodus (1 King. 6:1), ca. 1446. Roughly one century must be
deducted from that figure for the period in the wilderness and the reigns of Saul and David, leaving about three
hundred eighty years for the Judges. Yet, it is not clear that Finkelstein’s picture would be any different if he
allowed the frame to be ca. 1350-1000 B.C.
Zieger 10
with the archaeological evidence. Material remains during the Late Bronze should not indicate a
drastic ethnic shift. As referenced earlier, Israel anticipated using cities, cisterns, and other
features of civilization, so they would likely have let them stand largely as they found them: any
distinct material culture attributable to the Israelites ought to emerge somewhat gradually.
Finally, according to the picture presented in the book of Judges, the cultural and demographic
characteristics of the LB II/IA I settlements within the region should be poor and tribal in
organization.
Synthesizing the Data with the Biblical Testimony
Many of the sites mentioned in the conquest narratives have been either surveyed or
excavated to varying degrees. A mere sampling of this accrued data should suffice to give a taste
of the situation on, or in, the ground. First, however, it should be mentioned that locating biblical
sites with any degree of certainty is often fraught with challenges. MacDonald suggests that
“three factors come into play in the identification of an ancient settlement: 1) topographical and
historical information derived from ancient written sources; 2) analysis of the site’s name,
development, and preservation in the area; and 3) artificial evidence recovered by excavation
and/or survey.”25
This is by no means to say that site identification is outside of the scope of
certitude, but only to acknowledge the fact that the precise location of many biblical sites is not,
in all cases, settled: site identification generally remains a complex process.26
As with all
archaeological research especially, this reality confirms the sound adage, “absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.”
A. Transjordan Sites
25
Burton MacDonald, “East of the Jordan” Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures, (Boston:
ASOR, 2000): 13. 26
For more on site identification, see: Anson F. Rainey, “Historical Geography: The Link between
Historical and Archeological Interpretation,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 45, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982): 217-223,
especially 219ff.
Zieger 11
Dibon
Biblical Dibon of Moab is ubiquitous in Numbers. The Israelites briefly camp there while on
their journey into the east Jordan region (Num. 33:45-46). It is referenced as the city at the
southern extent of the Transjordan conquest (Num. 21:30), and among those “ideal for cattle,”
apportioned by Moses to the tribe of Reuben (Jos. 13:15-23). At some point following the
apportioning of land east of the Jordan, the Gadites are said to have “rebuilt Dibon” (Num.
32:34), indicating that it had been destroyed or abandoned earlier (likely by the oppression of the
Amorites, not the Hebrews; cf. Num. 21:24-30).
Numerous excavations at Dhiban have failed to uncover any notable occupational layers
from the time of the LB up through IA I: “Six seasons of excavations at Dhiban (ancient Dibon)
during 1950-56 and 1965 produced a small amount of Iron I material, none of it located
stratiagraphically.”27
As referenced above, Dever seizes this as one of the chief reasons for
denying the historicity of the conquest. However, a few rejoinders may be made to such a
reaction. As Kitchen notes, “The archaeology of the site is very fragmentary and incomplete.”28
Perhaps there is more to be discovered at Dhibon—it is certainly possible—or, instead, perhaps a
nearby site is a better location for Dibon. Though skepticism may scoff at the latter notion, it is
not simply the lack of evidence for biblical Dibon that recommends alternatives: it is the
presence of extrabiblical, reliable references to it that uphold the existence of a Late Bronze-Iron
Age Dibon. During Egypt’s period of domination over Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, roads
were maintained leading from Egypt to and through various areas of Canaan, including Dibon.
Three relevant Egyptian maps and topographical lists, dating to the LB I, LB IIA, and LB IIB,
are known to be extant. Though none is complete, all include Dibon as a city along the way from
27 Max Miller, “Ancient Moab: Still Largely Unknown,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No. 4, The
Archaeology of Moab (Dec., 1997):194-204, here, 199. 28
Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 195.
Zieger 12
Arabah to the Jordan, and by comparing the three lists, the Numbers 33:45b-50 list of Israel’s
camps becomes easily discernible.29
Additionally, toponym lists of Thutmoses III’s (ca. 1479-
1425 B.C.) military forays into the Transjordan include references that may be interpreted as
referring to Dibon (ti-pu-nu).30
So, even though the artifacts may not yet be found at Dhibon,
enough evidence exists to warrant an acceptance of 15th
century Dibon and lend rich plausibility
to the biblical account of Israel’s encounter with it.
Heshbon
The “city of king Sihon of the Amorites,” (Num. 21:26), Heshbon is cast as a prominent city
of Transjordan in the conquest narratives. The tribes of Israel are not supposed to have destroyed
the city proper at all; instead, their defeat of King Sihon at Jahaz opened the whole Amorite
territory to their occupation: “Israel settled in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in
all its villages” (cf. 21:23-25).
Biblical Heshban is generally identified as Tell Hesban (Tall Hisban), though not
unequivocally. A number of excavations have taken place at the Tell, yet no verifiable
occupational levels have been dated to the Late Bronze. Geraty et al., of the Madaba Plains
Project, observe that, in the region, a period of settlement abatement lasted from roughly the MB
III/IV on through the LB until Iron I, with one notable exception: Tell el Umeieri, located
roughly 10 km north east of Hesban.31
It may certainly be the case that Hesban was no more than
the site of limited tribal or nomadic activity around the time of the conquest, as seems to be the
29
Cf. Charles R. Krahmalkov, “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology
Review (Sep/Oct 1994): 54-62.
See also: Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 195. 30
Cf. Udo Worschech, “Egypt and Moab,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No. 4, The Archaeology of
Moab (Dec., 1997): 229-236, here, 230ff. This interpretation, however, has not been unchallenged, as Worschech
notes. 31
Lawrence T. Geraty et al., “Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season at Tell El-
'Umeiri and Vicinity,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies No. 26,
Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1983-87 (1990): 59-88, here 60.
Zieger 13
case with much of the rest of the Transjordan in this period;32
but it is not unlikely that either
Tell el-Umeieri or Tell el-Jalul may instead be the actual location of biblical Heshbon.33
Given
the current archaeological understanding of the region, however, there is little reason to jettison
the biblical conquest picture. Two points especially undergird the plausibility of the biblical
account: a “lessening and a centralization of sedentary population at a comparatively few fixed
and strongly fortified points”34
seems to reflect the character of the region of Israel’s attack as
described in Numbers, etc., and the increase in settlement activity during Iron Age and on35
fairs
well with Israel’s presence in the land during the Judges period and beyond.
Cisjordan Sites
Jericho
The first city on Israel’s agenda after crossing the Jordan was Jericho (Jos. 6). Joshua and
the incoming forces are said to have achieved a great victory over Jericho—the walls of the city
collapsed and the Israelite attackers went “up into the city, each one straight ahead,
and…captured the city” (Jos. 6:20b NET). Unanimously identified as Tell es-Sultan, Jericho has
been the darling site of opposing perspectives. Two main excavations serve as the subjects of
32
Cf. Robert D. Ibach, “Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region,” Andrews University Seminary
Studies 14.1 (Spring 1976): 113-117. And, see Glueck:
“During most of the…MB II period and much of the LB period, both in the Jordan Valley and in the Transjordan,
there seems to have set in a sharp decline of permanent settlement, accompanied by a lessening and a centralization
of sedentary population at a comparatively few fixed and strongly fortified points. In North Gilead and in the Jordan
Valley, this decline seems to have taken place mainly between the middle of the 18th
and the 15th
centuries B.C.,
while in the rest of Transjordan south of the Wadi Zerqa it seems to have extended between the 20th
and 13th
centuries B.C. Available literary evidence confirms these inductions.” Nelson Glueck, “Explorations in Eastern
Palestine, IV Part I: Text,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 25/28, Explorations in
Eastern Palestine, IV. Part 1: Text (1945 - 1949): iii+v+vii+ix-xix+1-423, here 423. 33
Tell Jalul was the site originally pinpointed by the Madaba Project as a potential site for Hesbon, but
escalating political tensions in the region forestalled any attempts to excavate for some time. Both it and el-Umeiri
have, however, since been excavated with rich archaeological results. See: Larry G. Herr, “The Search for Biblical
Heshbon,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1993): 36-37, 68.
Kitchen also suggests that el-Jalul or el-Umeiri may be sites more fitted to the biblical Heshbon. See: (2003): 196. 34
Glueck, “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Part I: Text,” 423. 35
Geraty et al., “Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season at Tell El-'Umeiri and
Vicinity,” 60.
Zieger 14
general debate, those of John Garstang, from 1930-1936, and Kathleen Kenyon, from 1952-
1958. Garstang discovered a burn layer corresponding to City IV that contained scarabs from the
time of Amenhotep III and Cyprian painted pottery. Furthermore, he noticed the conspicuous
absence of Mycenaean pottery typical of the 14th
century. Cumulatively then, these termini for
the dating of that destruction led Garstang to conclude, “Our excavations, logically interpreted,
point to a fall of the city in the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1400 B.C.), possibly late in his reign
(which is well represented), but before that of his successor, Akhenaton…”36
Garstang’s
assessment was never uncontested. Nevertheless, a contemporary critic reservedly commented:
“Absolutely all that we can now say about [the problem of Jericho] with certainty is that the city
fell to the Hebrews sometime between cir. 1475 and 1300 B.C.”37
Kathleen Kenyon revised the accepted date on the basis of her excavations at Tel es-Sultan.
By carefully employing her stratigraphic technique, Kenyon’s work at Jericho contributed
greatly to the tools and techniques of archaeology, and was generally admired.38
Thus, her
conclusion regarding the date of the City IV destruction has held great sway. She concluded,
When the material is analyzed in the light of our present knowledge, it becomes clear that
there is a complete gap both on the tell and in the tombs [found to the northwest of the tell]
between c. 1560 B.C. and c. 1400 B.C.39
36
John Garstang, “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative,” The American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1941): 368-372.
Amenhotep III (ca. 1390-1352), ruled over a period of relative peace in Egypt, diplomatically maintaining the
empire secured by his predecessors. See: Carol A Redmount, “Bitter Lives,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical
World. Oxford Biblical Studies Online, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/book/obso-
9780195139372/obso-9780195139372-div1-26 (accessed 20-May-2012).
Akhenaton (Ak-hen-Aton, Akhenaten, Amenophis IV, Amenhotep IV), famed for establishing a cult dedicated to
Aton; ruled ca. 1352-1336 B.C. See: John A. Wilson, “Akh-en-Aton and Nefert-iti,” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies Vol. 32, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1973): 235-241. 37
G. Ernest Wright, “Two Misunderstood Items in the Exodus-Conquest Cycle,” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research No. 86 (Apr., 1942): 32-35. 38
“Excavations at Jericho from 1952 to 1958 vindicated the ‘Wheeler-Kenyon’ method of excavation and
made her a world figure in archaeology.” Joseph A. Callaway, “Dame Kathleen Kenyon 1906-1978,” The Biblical
Archaeologist Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring, 1979): 122-125. 39
Kathleen Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land 4th edition (New York: Norton, 1979): 182, as quoted
in Bryant G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical
Archaeology Review (Mar/Apr 1990): 44-59.
Zieger 15
Given Kenyon’s date, the incoming Israelites would have had nothing more than a barren mound
to conquer circa 1400 B.C.
Bryant Wood has since analyzed and compared the results of the excavations at Tell es-
Sultan and come to heartily agree with Garstang’s date for the destruction of City IV: LB I, ca.
1400 B.C. He points out the disturbing reality that Kenyon’s detailed excavation reports “became
available only in 1982 and 1983 when two volumes on pottery excavated from the tell were
published:”40
a gap of over two decades. Prior to these volumes, “Her conclusions were reported
only in a popular book published the year before she completed her fieldwork, in a series of
preliminary reports and in scattered articles.”
41 Despite the lack of detailed evidence for over
twenty years, most archaeologists accepted her assessment, and indeed, most still do, having
come to treat it as a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, Wood noted serious methodological
flaws in Kenyon’s work at Jericho: “Kenyon based her opinion almost exclusively on the
absence of pottery imported from Cyprus and common to the Late Bronze I period (c. 1550–
1400 B.C.E.).” 42
Wood goes on to note the fragility of this position. First, he observes that both
Kenyon and Garstang dug in poor portions of the city—expensive, imported pottery is not likely
to be found there—second, Kenyon based her conclusion on two very limited excavation areas
(26’x26’ each),43
third, shards of imitation or import Cypriote pottery were found by Garstang,44
fourth Kenyon largely discounted the domestic pottery that is datable to LB I,45
fifth, the
presence of Egyptian scarabs indicates a final occupation of City IV ca. 1400,46
and finally, an
40
Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?,” 44-59. 41
Ibid. 42
Ibid. 43
Ibid. 44
Bryant G. Wood, “Battle Over Jericho Heats Up: Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on
All Counts,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Sep/Oct 1990): 45, 47-49, 68-69. 45
For a discussion of the domestic pottery of City IV, see: Ibid. 46
Ibid.
Zieger 16
argument from silence is almost never sound, especially in archaeological investigation. Wood’s
work has admirably demonstrated the viability, indeed the accuracy of, a ca. 1400 B.C. date for
the destruction of Jericho.
Additionally, some interesting features of the LB I destruction layer warrant mention. Among
the destruction debris of City IV were found several pots of charred grain, indicating an abundant
supply of food at the time of the city’s downfall. Wasting resources in this way is quite unlike
Egyptian military technique47
and suggests that the City’s destroyers cared little for Jericho’s
resources, or were committed to destroying the city in its entirety. Furthermore, the destruction
of City IV is followed by a period of general abandonment excepting Garstang’s “Middle
Building,”48
dated to the 14th
or late 13th
centuries. This is in close fitting with the biblical
portrayal of the total destruction of Jericho which then lay abandoned, except for a brief
occupation by Eglon, king of Moab during the Judges period (Jud. 3:12-30).
Ai
The most common site for Ai is et-Tell, “a polygon shaped mound…of 27.5 acres on the
south side of the deep Wadi el-Jaya leading east toward Jericho.”49
According to Callaway,
“Violent destruction overtook the city of Ai ca. 2400 B.C., during the Fifth Dynasty of
Egypt…the site was abandoned and left in ruins…[and] lay in ruins until ca. 1220 B.C. at the
47
Kathleen Kenyon proposed the Egyptians as the culprits of the Jericho destruction, specifically, the
Hyksos on their exodus from Egypt in the mid-16th
century. However, Wood contends that the Hyksos would have
little reason to decimate a city to which they were fleeing for refuge, and there is little evidence otherwise that the
Egyptians conducted military campaigns into southern Canaan in the XVIIIth dynasty (following the Hyksos). This
seems especially so considering their main interests of the time: “trade routes on the Mediterranean coast and the
Kishon-Jezreel Valley and in points further north.” Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the
Archaeological Evidence.” 48
John Garstang, “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative,” p. 371ff.; So called
because it was “between Iron Age structures above and the destroyed Bronze Age city below.” Bryant G. Wood,
“From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period,” in Giving the Sense:
Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, eds. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A Grisanti,
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003). 49
Joseph Callaway, “Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964-1972,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 39, No. 1
(Mar., 1976):18-30, here, 18.
Zieger 17
beginning of Iron Age I when a new settlement was founded upon 2.75 acres of the acropolis
terraces.” 50
This leaves little to corroborate with the military rout and subsequent razing that
takes place in Joshua 8. Thus, most scholars have considered the Joshua conquest account
erroneous or fictional; but, alternative sites have been proposed—as noted above, the
identification of ancient sites is not without challenges. David Livingston spearheaded the work
on the problem of Ai’s location.51
Livingston cited several geographic and topographic
requirements for the location of biblical Ai,52
including its relative location to Bethel; for this
reason Livingston was equally concerned with correctly identifying Bethel. He rejected the
common association of Bethel with Beitin on several grounds,53
proposing instead Bireh (el-
Bira) as the real location.54
Though Bryant Wood agrees with Livingston on the identification of
Bethel, he would disagree with his suggestion that Khirbet Nisya is Ai, and believes instead that
Khirbet el-Maqatir is the better site.55
Excavations conducted at Khirbet el-Maqatir under
Wood’s direction have led him to conclude that all twelve of the Biblical criteria for the location
50
Ibid., 29. 51
See: David Livingston, “Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered,” Westminster Theological
Journal 33.1, (November 1970): 20-44. 52
Ibid. 53 See Ibid., “Geographical: 1. Roads. a. Beitin is not on the main crossroad in the area. b. It is on only one
of three Roman roads going from Bireh to Nablus. c. It was not even on the main northerly Roman road, from
Jerusalem to the Roman capital at Caesarea through Gophna, at the time when Eusebius-Jerome would have made
their Onomasticon. d. It is a “dead town” today simply because it is not on main crossroad. 2. Borders. a. There is
an abnormal northerly bend if Beitin is on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim, Judah and Israel. b. There is
no natural topographical feature enabling it to become a border town. 3. Ai has not been discovered east of Beitin. 4.
The distance from Jerusalem mentioned by Eusebius-Jerome does not bring one to Beitin. 5. Town names move.
Perhaps so in this case. (Nor can certain proof be advanced that Beitin-Bethel etymologically.) Topographical:
There is a small valley instead of a mountain between Beitin and et-Tell (although there is a small hill just northwest
of et-Tell). Archaeological: 1. The Bible nowhere says Bethel was burned by Joshua. 2. There is no archaeological
evidence identifying Beitin as Bethel. 3. Jeroboam’s sanctuary has never been discovered. 4. Chronology of the site
accords with high dating. 5. There is no certain evidence Beitin was even occupied in Eusebius-Jerome’s time” 54
Livingston is careful to note the meaning of the Hebrew word “bireh,” “castle, or fortified place, palace,”
observing the significance of this definition: the former name of Bethel (Luz) also has this meaning. Ibid., note 83. 55
See: Bryant Wood, “Searching for Joshua’s Ai,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds.
Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr., (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008): 205-240, here, 225.
Zieger 18
of Ai have been met there.56
Wood reports, “Abundant evidence of destruction by fire has been
found at Khirbet el-Maqatir in the form of ash, refired pottery, burned building stones and
calcined bedrock.”57
Elsewhere he states that he and his team uncovered “a small border fortress
dating to the 15th
century B.C. that had been destroyed by fire.”58
Thus, little is to be concluded
from the absence of evidence at et-Tell—it may just be the wrong mound!
Hazor
The final site reportedly burned by the Israelites was the great city of Hazor, conquered
on Joshua’s northern campaign (cf. Jos. 11). Archaeological evidence has confirmed the Bible’s
depiction of Hazor as a dominant city within Canaan (cf. Jos. 11:10); it is the “largest biblical-era
site in Israel, covering some 200 acres,” with an estimated population in the second-millennium
of about 20,000 people.59
Additionally, Hazor was the object of Israelite reprisal under the
leadership of Deborah and Barak (cf. Jud. 4-5), which on the biblical chronology is supposed to
have occurred in the mid-13th
century B.C.
Hazor has been excavated under Yigael Yadin (1955-1958; 1968-1969), and more
recently under Amnon Ben-Tor (1991-present).60
An uncontestable and well documented
destruction layer has been unearthed at Hazor that seems to correspond to the Deborah and Barak
56
These criteria are: 1) Adjacent to Beth-aven (Josh 7:2) 2) East of Bethel (Josh 7:2) 3) An Ambush site
between Bethel and Ai (Josh 8:9, 12) 4) A militarily significant hill north of Ai (Josh 8:11) 5) A shallow valley
north of Ai (Josh 8:13-14) 6) Smaller than Gibeon (Josh 10:2) 7) In the vicinity of bethel 8) Occupied at the time of
the conquest 9) Fortified at the time of the conquest (Josh 7:5, 8:29) 10) Gate on the north side of the site (Josh 8:11)
11) Destroyed by fire at the time of the conquest (Josh 8:19, 28) 12) Left in ruins after 1400 B.C.E. (Josh 8:28)
Ibid., pp. 230ff. Wood is careful to distinguish Kh. el-Maqatir, the site of Joshua’s Ai, from the site of Abraham’s Ai
(et-Tell), and Ezra and Nehemiah’s Ai (perhaps Beitin or Kh. Nisya). Ibid., 239. 57
Ibid., 231. 58
Bryant Wood, “Archaeological Views: Let the Evidence Speak.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Mar/Apr
2007): 26, 78. 59
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “The History of Hazor,”
http://unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/~hatsor/hazor.html (accessed 4/28/12).
Yadin estimated the population to be around 40,000 cf.: Yigael Yadin, “Excavations at Hazor,” The Biblical
Archaeologist Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1956): 1-11, here, 11. 60
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Excavation Reports,” (accessed 4/28/12).
Zieger 19
event, ca. 1210.61
Interestingly, however, there is another destruction layer, observed by Yadin in
several places, including the royal temple of the upper city, which was “…demolished and
abandoned during the Late Bronze I period.”62
Moreover, a similar burn layer was noted
explicitly by Ben-Tor in his 2001 excavation report, in area M:
…This earlier phase ended in a conflagration, similar to the one that brought the late
phase to an end. The ceramic assemblage associated with this earlier phase, albeit
meager, seems to place the date of this earlier destruction somewhere in the Late Bronze
Age I (fifteenth century B.C.E.). This destruction is most probably contemporary with the
end of Stratum 2 in the lower city, which may have been the result of the military
campaign led by Thutmosis III.63
That Ben-Tor compares the fire that destroyed the LB I phase to the one that consumed
the LB II city suggests that this was a significant conflagration indeed. As to Ben-Tor’s
suggestion that this destruction may be attributed to Thutmosis III, Petrovich has convincingly
shown that this is unlikely.64
Thutmoses III would have little reason to raze the city, as it would
have been a valuable resource for troop subsistence on his numerous campaigns throughout the
region. And, significantly, Papyrus Hermitage 1116A records the Egyptian presentation of
material goods to envoys from various towns, including Hazor, clearly indicating the fact that
Hazor was occupied at the time of its composition (ca. 1433).65
“Thus there could not have been
61
“The last LB city at Hazor was violently destroyed. A level consisting of fallen mud brick, debris, ash,
and burnt wood (in some places more than 1 m thick) was encountered almost everywhere in both the upper and
lower city. It is the best indication of Hazor's catastrophic end. In areas C and H there is evidence of the deliberate
mutilation and desecration of cult objects. Yadin fixed the date of that destruction in the last quarter of the thirteenth
century BCE and tended to attribute it to the conquering Israelites, as described in Joshua 11:10. The current
excavation encountered that same destruction layer in area A. The date of the destruction Yadin proposed, as well as
its cause, should, for the time being, be left open.” As per: “Hazor,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in
the Near East., edited by Eric M. Meyers and Amnon Ben-Tor, Oxford Biblical Studies Online,
http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t256/e478 (accessed 28-Apr-2012). 62
Yigael Yadin, “The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor 1968-1969,” The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol.
32, No. 3 (Sep., 1969): 49-71, here, 52. 63
Amnon Ben-Tor, “Tell Hazor 2001,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2001): 235-252. 64
Douglas Petrovich, “The Dating of Hazor’s Destruction in Joshua 11 Via Biblical, Archaeological, and
Epigraphical Evidence,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51.3 (Sept. 2008): 489-512. 65
James M. Weinstein, “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment,” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research No. 241 (Winter, 1981): 1-28, here, 13.
Zieger 20
an extended occupational gap at Hazor…covering the 2nd
half of the 15th
century B.C.”66
Therefore, the two destruction layers at Hazor (LB I ca. 1400 and LB II ca. 1210) correspond
neatly to the two destructions attributed to Israel in Joshua and Judges.67
Merneptah Stela
The Merneptah Stela, erected ca. 1208 in commemoration of Pharaoh Merneptah’s
military campaign in Canaan, remains the first virtually uncontested reference to Israel in
Canaan.68
According to Hasel’s recent analyses of the stela, Israel was “an agricultural/sedentary
socioethnic entity,” located in Canaan, and, “The term ‘seed’ Egyptian prt, based on contextual
relations in other military texts, means ‘grain,’ supporting the identification of Israel as a largely
agricultural, noncity-state entity.”69
In essence, then, this entity Israel was an agrarian people
group worthy of Merneptah’s gloat by the late 13th
century B.C. On the biblical chronology, this
would have occurred around the Deborah and Barak events of Judges 4-5. Given Israel as the
possible causal agent behind the destruction of Hazor ca. 1210, this would perhaps be an Israel
that just recently regained security for itself in the land (cf. Jud. 4-5). Notably, the Merneptah
Stela highlights Israel’s conspicuity in Canaan just around the time of the blossoming highland
settlements.
66
Ibid. 67
In addition to these three sites mentioned, Bimson and Livington have made a striking correlation
between seven more sites mentioned in the biblical conquest narratives that have been excavated and have revealed
cities (most of which are known to have been walled) with destruction layers or abandonments dating to the LB I:
Gibeon, Hebron, Hormah/Zephath (Tel Masos), Arad (Tell Malhata), Debir (Khirbet Rabud), Lachish, and Bethel
(Beitin). See: Bimson and Livingston, Sidebar: “Biblical Tradition and the Archaeological Record” in “Redating the
Exodus.” 68
“The princes are prostrate saying: Shalom! Not one of the Nine Bows lifts its head: Tjehenu is
vanquished, Khatti at peace, Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made
nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued
by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,son of Re, Merneptah, content with MAAT, given life like
Re every day.” In Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2.77, as cited in: Readings from the Ancient Near East,
eds. Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002): 160. 69
Michael G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stele,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research No. 296 (Nov., 1994): 45-61, here, 45.
Zieger 21
Is this correspondence supportive of theories like Dever’s or Finkelstein’s? Did Israel
emerge in the highlands at this time according to the cyclical phases of the sedentarization of
pastoralists, as per Finkelstein, or as displaced, dissatisfied Canaanites etc., as per Dever? Not
obviously. Certainly, any number of explanations may be proposed for biblical Israel’s relative
invisibility prior to the end of the 13th
century. As referenced on several occasions above, the
Israelites expected to occupy former Canaanite cities, and are said to have actually done so. If
they had done so, they could perhaps have distributed the majority of their population among the
urban centers, leaving themselves inconspicuous in relation to the more sparsely settled
highlands of the LB. Furthermore, as the covenant renewal at Shechem demonstrated (Jos. 8:33),
Israel seemed even to absorb some of the local inhabitants into their own cause. Such
relationships, when they existed, could easily involve an assimilation of local Canaanite culture
to some degree, likewise rendering biblical Israel’s presence less than obvious. Moreover, by the
overt admission of the text, “The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own
daughters to their sons, and served their gods” (Jud. 3:5-6 NIV)—might not Israel have thus
rendered themselves imperceptible to the archaeologist?
Essentially, little is left to distinguish Israel from the Canaanites on the biblical model.
While this may account for the curious invisibility of Israel in Canaan prior to the Merneptah
Stela, its explanatory scope does not, by itself, reach to the sudden proliferation of the highland
settlements ca. 1200 to 1000 B.C. However, the demise of the LB, which serves as the backdrop
for the emergence of Israel on Dever’s theory, can serve equally well as an explanation for the
centralization of biblical Israel in the 12th
century B.C.
Hill Country
Zieger 22
Virtually no scholar questions that the hill country of Canaan experienced “an
unprecedented wave of settlement”70
in the Iron Age I period. Finkelstein states that “about 250
settlements were established between the Beer-sheba and Jezreel Valleys,”71
most of which,
“continue to be settled uninterrupted in the Iron II when they formed the heartland of the states
of Israel and Judah.”72
Thus their inhabitants may be “safely referred to as ‘Israelites,’ or ‘proto-
Israelites’ (William G. Dever’s term)”73
according to Finkelstein. This swell in highland
settlements in the IA I is the anomaly upon which the emergence theories that are most in vogue
are founded.
Finkelstein points out, “The central hill country can be divided into two major
geographical subunits, namely, the Samarian highlands between Jerusalem and the Jezreel
Valley in the north and the Judean hills in the south, between Jerusalem and the Beer-sheba
Valley.”74
The first surveys conducted in these areas took place “following 1967, when Israeli
scholars gained access to the territories of the central hill country of Judah and Samaria.”75
The
results of these initial surface surveys afforded a broad view of the highland settlement patterns,
“So in 1978 a much larger and more deliberate archaeological survey was launched, led mostly
by young archaeologists of the Tel Aviv University.”76
Essentially, these surveys are carried out
by teams of archaeologists and students who grid off a selected region and “walk the entire area
looking for all traces of ancient remains.”77
The surveyors are interested in “topographic
irregularities, wall-lines, and in particular the broken potsherds that provide the best clue to the
70
Finkelstein and Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel, 74. 71
Ibid. 72
Ibid. 73
Ibid. 74
Ibid., 77. 75
Ibid., 85. 76
Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 92. 77
Ibid., 93.
Zieger 23
various periods of occupation below the surface.”78
Though these surveys provide the advantage
of efficiently illuminating the general settlement characteristics of a broad region, they present
several drawbacks.
(1) They can give a somewhat misleading impression of settlement history for a given
region, since many sites—especially smaller and single-period sites—have already been
lost to erosion or modern construction, or may simply be buried and invisible under deep
alluvial deposits. (2) The remains preserved and picked up on the surface may come
principally from the final occupation, while deeper layers (or strata) from earlier periods
remain completely invisible. (3) Finally, the material exposed on the surface, which
archaeologists can actually see and thus pick up, may be very scant, due to overgrowth,
the accidents of preservation, or many factors. For instance, a small site may yield only a
handful of badly worn, obscure shards. For all these reasons, surface surveys are often
impressionistic and lacking absolute statistical validity.79
Nevertheless, Dever willingly concedes the point that these surface surveys have been shown to
supply “fairly reliable relative statistics—especially on period-by-period changes in settlement
distribution.”80
Estimates on the number of hill country sites in the LB range from 29-36, and in
the IA I, from 254-319.81
On any estimate, there was a significant settlement—and population—
increase in the Iron I hill country. In an earlier article concerning the central hill country of
Samaria and Judea, Stager estimates there was roughly a “2 percent per year increase in
population between 1200 B.C. and 1150 B.C., which can hardly be ascribed to natural growth
within the highland zone itself.”82
Notably, a great portion of these settlements were new
foundations,83
and this expansion in the hill country has no analogue in the coastal plain or the
Shephelah.84
78
Ibid. 79
Ibid. 80
Ibid., ff. 81
Cf. Ibid., Dever works with Israel Finkelstein’s, and Lawrence Stager’s estimates here. 82
Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research No. 260 (Autumn, 1985): 1-35, here, 3. 83
Ibid. 84
Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 99.
Zieger 24
On the basis of those that have been excavated, the settlements are generally understood
to be small villages, consisting of groups of the distinctive “four room house,” or “pillared
house” typically associated ethnically with Israel.85
Stager makes note of the ubiquity of the
collard rim storage jar (pithos) in these houses, citing excavations at Ai, Raddana, and Giloh, and
observes that numerous other implements found within such houses reinforce the “agrarian roots
of their inhabitants.”86
From the nature of the remains at the hill country sites, Dever infers
certain qualities of the occupants’ lifestyle: “‘simple’; ‘self-sufficient’; perhaps ‘egalitarian’ or
better, ‘communitarian.’”87
Dever appeals to such qualities, modifies earlier theories, like that of
Norman Gottwald, and suggests that Israel was a “motley crew” of pioneering “agrarian
reformers with a new social vision.”88
Such a view may not seem grossly out of step with the
nature of the biblical Israelites besides the glaring exception that it denies the historicity of the
exodus and conquest and views the explosion of settlement activity in the Iron I highlands as
nascent Israel, not as the biblical Israel that had already been in Canaan for some two hundred or
so years. Yet, the very material factors that seem to lend credence to Dever’s model lend equal
credence to the biblical account. That is, that the material culture of the Iron I highland
settlements attributed to Israel differs little from contemporaneous Canaanite sites or those of the
LB stands to reason if Israel had already been in the land for some time. Given the previous
demonstration in favor of the plausibility of the conquest events, the explanatory scope of the
biblical testimony is sufficient to account for the archeological data.
85
See: Ibid., especially 101-107; Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Israel,” 11ff. Finkelstein and
Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel; Avraham Faust and Shlomo Bunimovitz, “The Four Room House:
Embodying Iron Age Israelite Society,” Near Eastern Archaeology Vol. 66, No. 1/2, House and Home in the
Southern Levant (Mar. - Jun., 2003): 22-31. Finkelstein’s reticence to appeal to material remains as ethnic markers
represents a fringe perspective. When it comes to the collared rim storage jar and the four room house, virtually
every scholar is willing to associate them with Israel, whether “proto” or actual, for they remain commonplace at
sites identified with Israel well into the monarchical period. 86
Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Israel,” 11. 87
Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 110. 88
Ibid., 191.
Zieger 25
What, though, might be the reason(s) for Israel’s sudden mass occupation of the highland
regions; does the biblical model allow for that? The causes for the sudden density of settlements
in the Iron I highlands were perhaps varied, involving the oppression of the Ammonites (cf. Jud.
10), the oppression of the Midianites (Cf. Jud. 6), and most especially the oppression of the
incoming Philistines (cf. Jud. 10; 13-16; 18; 1 Sam. 4-7, etc). The “Sea Peoples” (Philistines
among them) are agreed to have arrived along the coast of the Mediterranean during the reign of
Ramses III (ca. 1184-1153 B.C.), having engaged in a great sea battle with the Egyptians ca.
1175 B.C.89
Their ferocity is clearly recorded in Judges and Samuel. The tribe of Dan struggled
hard to maintain its territorial allotment, ultimately failing and migrating to Laish (renamed Dan:
Tel Dan) as conveyed in Judges 18.90
The main conflict, however, remained between the
Philistines and the tribe of Judah (cf. Jud. 13-16; 1 Sam. 4). The Philistines ultimately captured
the Ark of the Covenant, destroyed Shiloh (cf. Jer. 7:12-14; Psalm 78:60), and moved north,
taking hold of Beth Shean and Megiddo.91
“This gave them control of most of the territory west
of the Jordan River; with these victories and with their monopoly on metalworking in the area,
the Philistines were able to keep the Israelites in a position of economic as well as political
dependence.”92
Dothan goes on to observe that the domination of the Philistines was the main
impetus behind the formation of the Israelite kingdom.93
Thus, the arrival of the “Sea Peoples” in
Canaan, and especially the Philistine constituent, may serve as the dominant reason for the
centralization of Israel’s settlements in the hill country during Iron I: the Bible does allow for
that.
89
Avner Raban, and Robert R. Stieglitz, “The Sea Peoples and Their Contributions to Civilization,”
Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1991): 34-42. 90 See: Avram Biram, “Tel Dan,” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 1974): 26-51. 91
Cf. Trude Dothan, “What We Know About the Philistines,” Biblical Archaeology Review (Jul/Aug
1982): 20-44. 92
Ibid. 93
Ibid.
Zieger 26
Final Assessment
Despite the fact that the imbalance of scholarly opinion tends to corner the Bible as
nearly irrelevant to the origin of Israel in Canaan, the archaeological data do not seem to warrant
it. The Bible’s own testimony regarding the origin of Israel in Canaan is that it occurred by
means of a mildly successful military invasion that only marginally included razing, sometime
around 1406-1400 B.C. In the wake of this invasion, the fragmented Israelite tribes occupied
Canaanite cites, took on their customs, and otherwise rendered themselves less than
distinguishable from the Canaanites. With inconsistent, ad hoc leadership, Israel struggled within
the land, cycling between security and oppression, loosing much of the outlying territories to
neighboring nations or invaders like the Philistines. Thus, the archaeological expectations, given
such a portrait, should be little more than what the archaeological record currently displays.
Theories like Dever’s appear to amount to little more than story telling in an effort to account for
a phase in Israel’s history that is several hundred years after their arrival in Canaan according to
the biblical account, and a plausible consequence of the turbulence brought on by the incoming
Sea Peoples of the 11th
century B.C.
Zieger 27
Bibliography
Arnold, Bill T. and Beyer, Bryan E., eds. Readings from the Ancient Near East.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Ben-Tor, Amnon. “Tell Hazor 2001.” Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 51, No. 2 (2001):
235-252.
Brimson, John. “The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories.”
Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15.
Callaway, Joseph. “Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964-1972.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 39,
No. 1 (Mar., 1976):18-30.
- “Dame Kathleen Kenyon 1906-1978.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring,
1979): 122-125. Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Dothan, Trude. “What We Know About the Philistines.” Biblical Archaeology Review Jul/Aug
1982: 20-44.
Faust, Avraham and Bunimovitz, Shlomo. “The Four Room House: Embodying Iron Age
Israelite Society.” Near Eastern Archaeology Vol. 66, No. 1/2. House and Home in the
Southern Levant (Mar.—Jun., 2003): 22-31.
Finkelstein, Israel and Mazar, Amihai. The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating
Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Ed. Brian B. Schmidt. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2007.
Garstang, John. “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative.” The American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. 58, No. 4: Oct., 1941: 368-372. Geraty, Lawrence T., Herr, Larry G., LaBianca, Øystein S., Battenfield, James R.
Christopherson, Gary L., Clark, Douglas R., Cole, Jon A., Daviau, P. Michèle, Hubbard,
Lorita E., Lawlor, John I., Low, Russanne, Younker, Randall W. “Madaba Plains Project:
A Preliminary Report of the 1987 Season at Tell El-'Umeiri and Vicinity.” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies. No. 26, Preliminary
Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations, 1983-87 (1990): 59-88.
Glueck, Nelson. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Part I: Text.” The Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 25/28, Explorations in Eastern Palestine,
IV. Part 1: Text (1945 - 1949): iii+v+vii+ix-xix+1-423.
Hasel, Michael G. “Israel in the Merneptah Stele.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research No. 296 (Nov., 1994): 45-61.
Herr, Larry G. “The Search for Biblical Heshbon.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec
1993): 36-37, 68.
Ibach, Robert D. “Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region.” Andrews University Seminary
Studies 14.1 (Spring 1976): 113-117.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Krahmalkov, Charles R. “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence.” Biblical
Archaeology Review. (Sep/Oct 1994), 54-62.
Livingston, David. “Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered.” Westminster Theological
Journal 33.1, (November 1970), 20-44.
MacDonald, Burton. “East of the Jordan” Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Boston: ASOR, 2000.
Zieger 28
Mendenhall, George E. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol.
25, No. 3 (Sep., 1962): 65-87. Merrill, Eugene H. “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel.”
Biblitheca Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-162.
- “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition and the Emergence of Israel.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 152: 606 (1995): 145-162.
Meyers, Eric M. and Ben-Tor. Amnon. “Hazor.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the
Near East. Oxford Biblical Studies Online.
http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t256/e478 (accessed 28 April 2012).
Miller, Max. “Ancient Moab: Still Largely Unknown.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No.
4, The Archaeology of Moab (Dec., 1997): 194-204. Petrovich, Douglas. “The Dating of Hazor’s Destruction in Joshua 11 Via Biblical,
Archaeological, and Epigraphical Evidence.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 51.3 (Sept. 2008): 489-512.
Provan, Lain W. “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History
of Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 114, No. 4 (Winter, 1995): 585-606.
Rainey, Anson F. “Historical Geography: The Link between Historical and Archeological
Interpretation.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 45, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982): 217-223.
- “Inside, Outside: Where Did the Early Israelites Come From?.” Biblical Archaeology
Review (Nov/Dec 2008), 45-50, 84. - “Shasu or Habiru: Who Were the Early Israelites?.” Biblical Archaeology Review
(Nov/Dec 2008): 51-55. - “Scholars Disagree: Can You Name the Panel with the Israelites?: Rainey’s Challenge.”
Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1991): 56-60, 93, 96. Raban, Avner and Stieglitz, Robert R. “The Sea Peoples and Their Contributions to
Civilization.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 1991): 34-42.
Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research No. 260 (Autumn, 1985):1-35.
Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges.” JETS 43/3 (September
2005): 491-500.
Weinstein, James M. “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment.” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research No. 241 (Winter, 1981): 1-28.
Wood, Bryant. “Archaeological Views: Let the Evidence Speak.” Biblical Archaeology Review.
(Mar/Apr 2007): 26, 78.
- “Searching for Joshua’s Ai.” Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. eds. Hess, Richard
S. Klingbeil, Gerald A., and Ray Jr., Paul J. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
- “From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges
Period.” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts.
eds. Howard Jr., David M., and Grisanti. Michael A. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.
- “Battle Over Jericho Heats Up: Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on
All Counts.” Biblical Archaeology Review (Sep/Oct 1990), 45, 47-49, 68-69.
- “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence.”
Biblical Archaeology Review Mar/Apr 1990, 44-59.
Worschech, Udo. “Egypt and Moab.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 60, No. 4, The
Archaeology of Moab (Dec., 1997): 229-236. Wright, G. Ernest. “Two Misunderstood Items in the Exodus-Conquest Cycle.” Bulletin of the
Zieger 29
American Schools of Oriental Research No. 86 (Apr., 1942): 32-35. Yadin, Yigael. “The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor 1968-1969.” The Biblical
Archaeologist Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1969): 49-71.
- “Excavations at Hazor.” The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1956): 1-11.