The Israelite Conquest of
the Land of Canaan
1
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
2
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/the Promised Land.”
3
4
Conquest – Central and
South.
5
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;
6
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).
7
R. De Vaus (d. 1971).
8
Yigael Yadin – Israeli Archaeologist.
9
Traditional Explanations of the Israelite
Conquest/Settlement:
- Alt School (Germans) did not accept this explanation;
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.
10
11
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;
- 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.
12
Jericho – Aerial View of Excavated Areas.
13
14
15
Arad – View of an Excavated Area.
16
Sea Peoples – from New Kingdom Egpytian
Reliefs.
17
Finkelstein’s Position (see Textbook, pp. 53-54):
- Inconceivable that the Conquest stories invented by the latemonarchic 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;
- 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 is the new Joshua;
- the Conquest stories should be read against and geographical and
18
ideological background of late-7th century Judah, in the time of King
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;
- 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;
19
20
Hazor – Aerial View.
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.
21
22
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;
- 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;
- 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;
- my survey work in Edom;
23
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.
24
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.
25