http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=593
The Conquest of Canaan: How and When?
| by |
Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. |
The biblical description of the conquest of Canaan has been shrouded in
a cloud of doubt for many years. How and when this monumental event
occurred are questions that continue to seize scholastic attention and
create controversy. If we accept as factual the biblical description of
the conquest, these questions are not difficult to answer. In some
instances, the conquest was not complete (Judges 1:27-36), which led to
an uneasy cohabitation with the indigenous population. However, the
Bible is clear that an impressive military campaign achieved forceful
penetration into Canaan (Joshua 11:15-23).
Additionally, the Bible offers some chronological insights into when
the conquest occurred. According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years transpired
between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign—the year in
which he began to build the temple. We can date Solomon’s reign with
reasonable confidence at 971-931 B.C., which places his fourth regnal
year at 967 B.C. These figures, therefore, suggest that the Exodus
occurred about 1447 B.C.
Allowing for the 40-year wandering prior to the Israelites’ invasion of
Canaan, the initial stages of the conquest occurred around 1407 B.C.
Also, Judges 11:26 provides another chronological marker. This text
indicates that the Israelites had occupied Canaan for 300 years before
the time of Jephthah, who is commonly dated at 1100 B.C. Once again,
using these figures, the conquest would have occurred around 1400 B.C.
(see Bimson and Livingston, 1987, 13[5]:42).
CHALLENGES TO THE BIBLICAL RECORD
It would seem, given the above information, that the question of the
conquest is a simple matter, with little room for controversy. Not so!
There are primarily two areas of disagreement between the biblical text
and mainstream scholastic models of the conquest.
Time of the Conquest
At the turn of the century, the biblically consistent date of 1400 B.C.
was the generally accepted date for the conquest. As a rule, scholars
considered the Bible as the standard for historical truth, though the
historical-critical school, which questioned the integrity of the
Scriptures, was making its scholastic mark (see Brantley, 1994). This
began to change in the 1930s when John Garstang and William F. Albright
excavated at Jericho and Beitin, respectively.
Initially, both Garstang and Albright held to the earlier date of the
conquest (1400 B.C.).
However, during excavations at Beitin, which he assumed was biblical
Bethel, Albright faltered and finally moved to a later date for the
conquest (c. 1250 B.C.; Albright, 1957, p. 13).
He made this reversal because he attributed a thick destruction level at
Beitin, which he dated at about 1250 B.C., to
the invading Israelites (though the Bible does not mention Bethel among
the cities Israel destroyed; see Livingston, 1988, 1[3]:14). Due to this
evidence and similar finds at other sites, coupled with Albright’s
pervasive influence, the date of 1220-1230 B.C. for the conquest has
prevailed since the 1950s (cf. Hester, 1962, p. 139; Stiebing, 1985,
11[4]:58-69).
Kathleen Kenyon’s meticulous and prolonged excavations at Jericho
(1952-1958) further blurred these once-clear chronological lines. John
Garstang found biblically consistent evidence in the ruins of Jericho
that there was a violent conflagration at that location around 1400
B.C.,
which he attributed to the Israelites. Kenyon’s conclusions, however,
sharply contradicted Garstang’s interpretations. She dated this
destruction level at 1550 B.C., and contended that there was no city
with protective walls for the Israelites to destroy in 1400 B.C.
(Kenyon, 1957, p. 259). Additionally, and in agreement with Garstang,
she found no evidence of occupational activity on that site in the 13th
centuryB.C.—the period in which most current
scholars believe the conquest actually occurred. Hence, Kenyon’s
conclusions supported neither the early (1400 B.C.) nor the late date of
a military conquest (1230-1220 B.C.).
The Method of the Conquest
These chronological disagreements about the conquest spawned
methodological disputes concerning this event. Exactly how did Israel
emerge in Canaan? As noted, the Bible indicates that there was a
large-scale military incursion into Palestine. This biblical scenario,
however, has been discarded by a growing number of archaeologists who
contend that such an Israelite invasion of Canaan is inconsistent with
the archaeological record (see Silberman, 1992). In fact, some scholars
argue that there is no factuality at all to the biblically described
conquest. To them, the stories of conquered cities (like Jericho) were
embellishments of pre-Israelite traditions, which provided a
mythological explanation of Israel’s origin in, and right to, the land
(Cross, 1992, 8[5]:24).
Consistent with this view, William Dever, addressing a prestigious
academic gathering, argued that the central events in Israel’s
history—the Exodus, wilderness wandering, military conquest, God’s
miraculous deliverance of fortified Canaanite cities, and the gift of
the land—did not happen that way at all. Dever concluded that the
Bible’s account in this regard is simply groundless and wrong (Shanks,
1987, 13[2]:54-55).
Among such scholars who hold a low view of the historical reliability
of the Bible, there are two popular theories explaining the emergence of
Israel in Canaan. The first is the “peaceful infiltration” model, which
is associated with the German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth.
Appealing to ancient Egyptian records (e.g., the Tell el-Amarna
letters), they concluded that the Israelite settlement of Canaan was due
to a gradual immigration into the land, not a military offensive. Alt
and Noth further theorized that the Israelites must have been pastoral
nomads who slowly filtered into the settled land from the desert,
seeking pastures for their sheep. After a long period of uneasy
coexistence with the indigenous population, the Israelites eventually
overran, and destroyed, the Canaanite city states (Silberman, 1992,
2:25; see Zertal, 1991). This “peaceful infiltration” theory has gained
in popularity and influence through the years, but clearly is at odds
with the Joshua record.
Second, the combined efforts of George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald
introduced and popularized the “peasant revolt” theory that actually
redefines the ethnic origin of the Israelite nation. This model suggests
that there was no external conquest of Canaan; it was an indigenous
liberation movement among depressed Canaanite peasants living in the
countryside. These peasants, who formed the lowest level of their
culture’s highly stratified social order, engaged in an egalitarian
rebellion, overthrew their urban overlords, and became “Israelites.”
This theory, which repudiates the biblical scenario, has its outspoken
defenders who argue that it is most compatible with archaeological data
(see Shanks, 1987, 13[2]:55).
Problems With Theories
Though these anti-biblical theories have gained popularity in certain
circles, and their advocates speak with an authoritarian voice, they
have some significant difficulties. First, these theories must explain
the biblical tradition to the contrary. Adherents to these views argue
that the archaeological data—not textual information—must be primary.
Accordingly, archaeological interpretations take precedence over, and
stand in judgment of, the biblical text. However, the fact remains that,
even if one rejects its divine inspiration, the Bible is an ancient
historical witness. By virtue of that fact, it should be taken as
seriously as any other document of antiquity. To brush aside the
biblical account as a “pious fraud” simply will not do.
Second, there are reputable archaeologists who feel that these theories
are inconsistent with the evidence. Abraham Malamat, for example,
argued that the archaeological evidence demonstrates that a number of
Canaanite cities were destroyed, and subsequently settled, by the
Israelites (1982, 8[2]:24-35). Additionally, Yigael Yadin, the late
distinguished archaeologist, suggested that the picture painted by
archaeological finds is consistent with the biblical portrait: fortified
Canaanite cities were destroyed and replaced by a new culture (1982,
8[2]:19). Though these archaeologists were/are committed to a late date
of the conquest, and allowed for some errors in biblical details, their
interpretations of the physical evidence support the general outline of
the biblical presentation of the conquest. Thus, the archaeological
evidence in support of the “peaceful infiltration” or “peasant revolt”
theories is not as conclusive as some would suggest. In fact, Max Miller
of Emory University opined that the wide variety of views regarding
Israelite origins in Palestine, with each view appealing to
archaeological support, illustrates that “...the archaeological evidence
is ambiguous, or essentially neutral, on the subject” (1987, 50:60). In
short, the limited nature of archaeological inquiry forbids a dogmatic
rejection of the biblical record of the conquest.
EVIDENCES FOR BIBLICAL HISTORICITY
In light of the foregoing, we must ask: Is there any support that the
conquest happened when and how the Bible says it occurred? Keeping in
mind the limited nature of archaeological evidence, there
is a
large body of data that supports the biblical account. Archaeologists
generally recognize the heavy importance of ancient inscriptions, as
evinced by the excitement over an inscribed stone fragment recently
found at Dan (see Shanks, 1994; Wood, 1993). Artifactual data (e.g.,
potsherds, war implements, architecture, etc.) typically are
inconclusive on historical matters, and are subject to a wide variety of
interpretations (Miller, 1987). There is, however, an impressive body
of ancient literature that lends support to the biblical picture of the
conquest, which includes the following.
Ancient Egyptian Maps
The Bible provides specific information regarding the locations at
which the Israelites camped along the final stage of the exodus route
just prior to their entering Canaan. Numbers 33 describes in detail the
northward, Transjordanian route the Israelites took as they traveled to
the location at which they miraculously forded the Jordan river. Several
places are mentioned on their journey from the desolate region south of
the Dead Sea to the plains of Moab: (1) Iyyim; (2) Dibon Gad; (3) Almon
Diblathaim; (4) region of Mt. Nebo; (5) Abel Acacia Grove; and (6) the
Jordan River. The extraordinary specificity and precision of this text
has made it vulnerable to criticism.
Some critical historians suggest that this list demonstrates the
historical inaccuracy of biblical writers, since there is no
archaeological indication that these cities existed at that period. For
example, excavation efforts at Tell Dhiban (the Dibon Gad mentioned in
Numbers 33:45b-46a), indicate that there was no city at that site in the
Late Bronze Age II (c. 1400-1200 B.C.). Though some remains dating to
around 1200-1100 B.C. were discovered on the summit of the mound, there
is no evidence that a city existed there before the ninth century B.C.
This has led some to conclude that the “...Biblical writers knew nothing
about events in Palestine before the tenth century B.C.E.” [Before
Common Era (B.C.E.) is a religiously neutral way of referring to history
before Christ (B.C.), currently employed by many scholars—
GKB] (Gosta Ahlstrom, as quoted in Krahmalkov, 1993, 20[5]:55-62,79).
Though no physical evidence has yet been found to verify this location,
there is an impressive literary witness of its presence in this period.
During the Late Bronze Age (c. 1560-1200 B.C.),
Egypt ruled Palestine. In the course of its 300-year jurisdiction over
this region, Egypt exhaustively mapped the area, including the main
roads of Palestine. Among the ancient maps is an important, continuously
used route through Transjordan, linking the Arabah and the Plains of
Moab. Three partial maps describing this road have been preserved.
Though no individual map is complete, each provides supplementary
information, which provides a reasonably complete description of this
road. Interestingly, these maps mention four stations from south to
north: Iyyim-Dibon-Abel-Jordan—the exact order in which these names
appear in the Bible (Krahmalkov, 1994, 20[5]:57). These ancient Egyptian
documents corroborate the biblical description.
Merneptah Stela
The famed Egyptologist, William F. Petrie, discovered the “Israel”
Stela of King Merneptah at Thebes in 1896. This stela (an inscribed
stone monument), which dates from c. 1210 B.C.,
contains the only extant extrabiblical reference to Israel in the
pre-Monarchic period. The stela contains a poetic eulogy that praises
Merneptah’s military exploits (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 231). Of special
interest is the context in which “Israel” is mentioned. The inscription
bears two major groupings of locations whose destruction is attributed
to Merneptah. The first is a group of four city-states: The Canaan
(Egyptian name for Gaza), Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yeno’am. The second
group, which appears before and after these isolated city-states, lists
the names of national entities such as Tehenu (Libya), Hatti (Hittites),
and Kharu (a general designation for Syria-Palestine; Wood, 1989).
It is in this second group that the name Israel appears, suggesting
that it was considered a national entity on par with the powerful
Hittites. Accordingly, by about 1210 B.C. this
Egyptian monument gave Israel a measure of international standing. The
importance of this implication cannot be overstated. The generally
accepted date for the conquest is about 1230-1220 B.C. Yet, the Merneptah Stela implies that in 1210 B.C.
Israel was well established in Canaan and a formidable force with which
to reckon. Some objectors point out that the Merneptah Stela’s sole
purpose was to aggrandize the military campaign of this king and should
not be considered as historically accurate. While this was the purpose
of the inscription, it is still the case that Israel was
perceived
to be a formidable force in Canaan. Surely, Merneptah would have gained
little in prestige by boasting about conquering an insignificant,
disunited band of pastoral nomads! The Merneptah Stela is a powerful
witness that the conquest occurred when the Bible said it did (cf.
Archer, 1974, p. 181; Wood, 1991, 4:110).
Tell el-Amarna Letters
In 1887, an Egyptian peasant fortuitously discovered a large cache of
clay tablets at Tell el-Amarna. Dating from 1400-1370 B.C.,
these tablets were written in Akkadian cuneiform (wedge-shaped
writing)—the then-accepted language for international correspondence.
The tablets were urgent letters sent from Canaanite kings to the
Egyptian king, requesting immediate military assistance in dealing with
fierce invaders. These letters also reflect an anxious disunity among
the various Canaanite kings, and an eager tendency for them to forsake
their Egyptian alliance and become politically affiliated with the
invading
Habiru or
‘Apiru (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 276). Many scholars associate the
Habiru with the biblical Hebrews (cf. Archer, 1974, pp. 271-279; Harrison, 1969, 318-322).
Thus, an analysis of these documents suggests that they reflected a
Canaanite perspective of the Israelite conquest. There are some
significant parallels between the general information in these letters
and the biblical narrative. A communication from Megiddo mentioned that
several towns located in the region of Arad in the south had already
fallen to the invaders. According to Numbers 21:1-3, the Israelites
destroyed many cities in this southern region. Also, there were no
letters found from the first cities destroyed during the Israelite
incursion (e.g., Jericho, Gibeon, et al.).
If the
Habiru mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna letters actually
were the invading Hebrews (and there are good reasons to believe they
were), then these documents provide secular confirmation of the biblical
description of conquest, both chronologically and methodologically.
Since these letters date from 1400 B.C., they suggest that the initial
stages of the conquest occurred in the 15th, not the 13th, century B.C.
Additionally, they corroborate the view of a concentrated military
penetration into Canaan. In both instances, they support the biblical
record of the conquest.
CONCLUSION
No doubt the interpretations of archaeological data and the biblical
text will continue to clash on occasion, primarily because the new
generation of biblical archaeologists places more importance on
discoveries than on the text. Accordingly, in the estimation of some,
archaeology will serve to critique, illuminate, and correct the Bible,
but the question of biblical confirmation is no longer a general concern
(Davis, 1993). The above evidence, however, demonstrates that
archaeology has provided solid evidence supporting the historical
reliability of the Bible.
Yet, we must always keep in mind the limitations of archaeological
inquiry and the oftentimes inconclusive nature of its evidence. Such
data can be ambiguous, and subject to a variety of interpretations.
Therefore, we should listen with cautious skepticism when
archaeologists’ interpretations disagree with biblical information (see
Brantley, 1993). Also, though in many instances the Bible’s historical
reliability has been confirmed by the archaeologist’s spade, the lack of
such evidence does not prove the Bible wrong. More importantly, we must
recognize that, though the Bible offers valuable and historically
accurate information, its primary purpose is to proclaim the sovereignty
of God, Who is Lord of history. It is a volume affirming divine
activity in human history, the truth of which archaeology is inadequate
to judge. By faith, we acknowledge that the same God Who brought the
Israelites out of Egypt, and gave them the promised land, is still the
sovereign Lord of our own history—even in these anxious times.
REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. (1957),
From the Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Archer, Gleason (1974),
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Bimson, John and David Livingston (1987), “Redating the Exodus,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[5]:40-68, September/October.
Brantley, Garry (1993), “
Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility,”
Reason and Revelation, 13:81-85, November.
Brantley, Garry (1994), “
Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,”
Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Development of Israelite Religion,”
Bible Review, 8[5]:18-50, October.
Davis, Thomas (1993), “Faith and Archaeology, A Brief History to the Present,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 19[2]:54-59, March/April.
Harrison, R.K. (1969),
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hester, H.I. (1962),
The Heart of Hebrew History: A Study of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Kenyon, Kathleen (1957),
Digging Up Jericho (New York: Praeger).
Krahmalkov, Charles (1994), “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[5]:55-62,79, September/October.
Livingston, David (1988), “Exodus and Conquest,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 1[3]:12-17, Summer.
Malamat, Abraham (1982), “How Inferior Israelite Forces Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 8[2]:24-35, March/April.
Miller, Max (1987), “Old Testament History and Archaeology,”
Biblical Archaeologist, 50:55-63.
Pritchard, James (1958),
The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (London: Oxford University Press).
Shanks, Hershel (1987), “Dever’s Sermon on the Mound,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[2]:54-57, March/April.
Shanks, Hershel (1994), “ ‘David’ Found at Dan,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[2]:26-39, March/April.
Silberman, Neil (1992), “Who Were the Israelites?,”
Archaeology, 45:22-30, March/April.
Stiebing, William H., Jr. (1985), “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement be Redated?,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 11[4]:58-69, July/August.
Wood, Bryant G. (1989), “Merneptah and the Israelites,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 2:82, Summer.
Wood, Bryant G. (1991), “Recent Discoveries and Research on the Conquest,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 4:104-110, Autumn.
Wood, Bryant G. (1993), “New Inscription Mentions House of David,”
Bible and Spade, 6:119-121, Autumn.
Yadin, Yigael (1982), “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 8[2]:16-23, March/April.
Zertal, Adam (1991), “Israel Enters Canaan,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[5]:28-47, September/October.
Some
contend that science is at odds with religion. They suggest that the
scientific method requires empirical testing, but God’s existence cannot
be empirically verified. Science supposedly proves the Big Bang,
evolutionary theory, a very old Universe, and dinosaurs that never
co-existed with humans, while the Bible mistakenly contends that the
Universe was created in six literal, 24-hour days only a few thousand
years ago, with humans and dinosaurs being created together on day six.
Supposedly, science is based on verifiable evidence, whereas religion is
based on “blind faith” and ambiguous “tinglies” attributed to the Holy
Spirit. For such reasons, it is claimed that science and Scripture
cannot be harmonized—that they are diametrically opposed to each
another.