The Israelite Conquest of the Land of Canaan

1. The Israelite Conquest of the Land of Canaan The Books of Joshua and Judges; traditional explanations; and the positions of Finkelstein and Mazar

2. The Book of Joshua: Joshua 1.1-6.26: The crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Jericho; Joshua 7-9: Foothold on the Palestinian mountain range: - Ch. 7: Defeat at Ai; - Ch. 8.1-29: Capture of Ai; - Ch. 9: Gibeonite deception and Gibeonites made vassals; Joshua 10.26-43: Conquest of Southern Canaan; Joshua 11.10-20: Conquest of Northern Canaan; Joshua 12.1-22: Lists of Conquered Kings; Joshua 13-19: Division of the Land among the Tribes of Israel.

3. The Book of Judges: The Land of Canaan after the Death of Joshua: - Judges 1.1-3.6: Non-Israelite survivors in the land of Canaan; Thus, conflicting information in the Bible on the so-called “Conquest of Canaan”/”Conquest of the Promised Land.” See your Textbook: “Map of Iron Age Sites”, p. x for the location of the sites mentioned.

5. Joshua – From the Plains of Moab to Jericho, Ai, Gibeah, etc.

6. Jericho – Aerial View of Excavated Areas.

7. Joshua 6.1-27: the Siege and Fall of Jericho.

8. Kathleen Kenyon (1906-1978) – British Archaeologist

9. Joshua 8.1-29: Victory at Ai.

10. Ai (modern Et-Tell) means “ruin”

12. Joshua’s Conquests – Central and South.

13. Traditional Explanations of the Israelite Conquest/Settlement: • Various attempts to explain, on the basis of the biblical texts, archaeology, and anthropological theory the conquest and settlement of the Israelites in the Land of Canaan (See Textbook, p. 53): - Albright School (Americans): Conquest happened as described in the Bible (a military conquest of the land); - excavations indicating the destruction of Late Bronze II cities in the 13th century BC; - these destructions attributed to the invading Israelites under Joshua’s leadership;

14. Traditional Explanations of the Israelite Conquest/Settlement: - the Conquest as a short-lived event that could be identified archaeologically; - Joshua as a real military hero who conquered city after city in Canaan according to the biblical narrative (Y. Yadin).

15. Roland De Vaux

16. Yigael Yadin – Israeli Archaeologist.

17. Traditional Explanations of the Israelite Conquest/Settlement: - Alt School (Germans) did not accept this explanation; According to the Alt School the “conquest” took place in two stages: 1) the Israelites gradually infiltrated into unsettled land in the Central Hill County; - settlement in unoccupied areas rather than a series of conquests. 2) once established they followed up with military conquests over the Canaanites settled in the plain areas of the land. - Mendenhall’s Peasant Revolt; and - Gottowald’s position.

19. Demise of the Military Conquest Theory (see Textbook, p. 53): • Excavations at key sites mentioned in the Conquest narratives, for example, Jericho, `Ai, Gibeon, Heshbon/Hesban, and Arad showed that they were not inhabited in the Late Bronze Age or else were insignificant villages; • new finds at Lachish and Aphek and the reevaluation of finds from the older digs at Megiddo and Hazor indicated that the collapse of the Late Bronze Canaanite city-state system was a long process that took several decades;

20. Demise of the Military Conquest Theory (see Textbook, p. 53): • the strength of the Egyptian grip on Canaan lasted well into the 12th century BC (until ca. 1150 BC); thus, Egypt could have easily repelled an invasion of the land of Canaan by Israelites; • the collapse of Late Bronze Canaan was part of a wider phenomenon that encompassed the entire eastern Mediterranean; - large-scale surveys indicate that the rise of ancient Israel was just one phase in a long-term, repeated, and cyclic process of sedentarization and nomadization of indigenous/native groups.

21. Conquest – Central and South.

23. Sea Peoples – from New Kingdom Egyptian Reliefs.

24. Finkelstein’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 53-54): • Inconceivable that the Conquest stories invented by the late-monarchic writers; • The Deuteronomistic Historian must have taken old folktales and fragmented memories and incorporated them in his compiled narrative; • the story of the conquest of `Ai is probably an aetiological legend, that is, it explained how the ruin came about; • other stories would have told of the collapse of the civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age;

25. Finkelstein’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 53-54): - the Conquest narratives reflect late-monarchic realities; • the figure of Joshua is used to paint a metaphorical portrait of Josiah, the 7th century BC would-be saviour of the people of Israel; - Josiah (640-609 BC) is the new Joshua; - the Conquest stories should be read against the geographical and ideological background of late-7th century Judah, in the time of King Josiah.

26. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): • Many of the sites that Joshua is said to have conquered were uninhabited at the time of the Conquest, e.g., Arad, Heshbon, `Ai, and Yarmuth; • other sites were small at the time, e.g., Jericho; • destruction of such sites as Hazor (mid-13th century) and Lachish (mid-12th century) could not have been part of the same military undertaking;

28. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): Result: archaeology contradicts the biblical account of the Israelite Conquest as a discreet historical event led by one leader; But: certain conquest stories echo individual historical events that may have happened in the late-2nd millennium BC; other stories appear to be aetiologies; the story of the conquest of `Ai is negated by archaeological finds; it is an aetiology;

29. Hazor – Aerial View.

30. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): - Hazor (see Textbook, pp. 62-63): a fire destroyed the city during the 13th century BC; - destruction not due to the Israelites but to memories of a traumatic event.

31. Conquest – Central and South.

33. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): • Other conquest stories have no archaeological verification or explanation; • For example, the case of Arad (see Numbers 21.11 and 21.3); • no evidence of Canaanite settlement of Arad in the Late Bronze Age;

34. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65) • story of its conquest by Israelites is the literary creation at the time when the Israelites began to settle the region; • the same is true for Kadesh-barnea and the Negev highlands;

35. Map of Location of Sites in Israel

36. Arad - Iron Age Fortress

37. Arad – the remains of an Iron Age Temple are located within the Fortress

38. Traditional Route of the Exodus between Egypt and the plains of Moab in Jordan.

39. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): - a similar situation as far as Transjordan is concerned, for example, the conquest of Heshbon (Numbers 21.21-32); - no evidence of an Amorite state of any kind in the region of Transjordan; • no evidence of a Moabite kingdom at the end of the Late Bronze Age; • no evidence of an Edomite kingdom and/or state at the end of the Late Bronze Age; - my survey work in Edom;

42. Various Nations East of the Jordan.

43. Edom – Its Territory at its greatest extent

44. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): • The Conquest tradition … a telescoped reflection … (see Textbook, p. 64); • Possible historical recollections: • 1) the concept of Canaan as a country divided into many city-states (see the Tell el-Amarna Texts); • 2) the lists of unconquered territories in Canaan (Judg 1.27-35; Josh 13.2-6); • – the continuity of Canaanite culture throughout the Iron I period (12th-11th centuries BC); • The case of Shechem.

46. Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 61-65): Summary: • Archaeology negates the biblical “Israelite Conquest” as an historical event; • However, the Conquest narrative may shed light on how memories of actual situations and events rooted in the 2nd millennium BC, early aetiologies, and invented stories found their way into the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.

47. The Case of Heshbon/Hisban: A specific site!

48. Conquest – Central and South.

49. The Case of Heshbon/Hisban: Deut 2.24, 26-36: defeat of King Sihon of Heshbon; Excavated by Andrews Univ., Berrien Springs, MI. Archaeological Findings: no architectural remains antedating about 1200 B.C.; - the Iron Age remains are very fragmentary; - thus, a problem for locating biblical Sihon’s Amorite capital; - is the biblical account unhistorical? - is it anachronistic? - do you seek the Amorite capital at another location?