THE ISRAELITE POSSESSION OF CANAAN (Joshua and Judges) GENERAL ASSUMPTION There was an exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

GENERAL CONCEPTIONS 1. From the details in Joshua 2-12 we get the impression that the conquest of Canaan was swift and decisive. 2. That Joshua conquered with all Israel (Josh 10:36ff). 3. We get the impression that Israel operated as a nation under the leadership of Joshua. 4. That through military means they captured Canaanites cities. However, if we read Judges, we encounter some contradictions.

CONTRADICTIONS 1. For instance, now Joshua is dead but someone had to wage a war against the Canaanites (Judges 1:1-3, 9-13). 2. According to Joshua 10:36ff, Hebron was captured by Joshua, but according to Judges 1:10-11, Judah was planning to capture Hebron long after Joshua had died. 3. Who captured Debir, between Joshua and Othniel? It seems Israel acted as individual tribes to capture Canaan.

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN JOSHUA AND JUDGES 1. All Israel fought as a nation. (Josh 10:36ff) 1. Judah fought on his own (Judges 1:1-3, 9-13). 2. Joshua conquered Debir (Josh 10:38). 2. Othniel conquered Debir (Judges 1:13). 3. David captured Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6-9) 3. Judah captured Jerusalem (Jg 1:8). Jerusalem was captured by Benjamin (Judges 1:21)

SO HOW DID ISRAEL SETTLE IN CANAAN? MODERN THEORIES OF THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN

1. THE CONQUEST MODEL Supported by the Archaeological school which included; William Foxwell Albright, John Bright, and E. Wright. They utilize archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the material that we have in Joshua. They agree that Joshua with all Israel managed to defeat the Canaanites in three phases.

PHASES OF OCCUPATION 1. CENTRAL PALESTINE CAMPAIGN In this campaign Israel destroyed 3 cities: Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon (Josh 5:13-9:27. 2. SOUTHERN PALESTINE CAMPAIGN In this campaign Makkedah, Lanchish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir and Libriar were defeated (Josh 10). 3. NORTHERN PALESTINE CAMPAIGN This campaign covered Hazor (Josh 11:10).

ARGUMENTS 1. Archaeological evidence can be used to support the above military campaigns. 2. Israel’s army defeated all her enemies. 3. At a variety of archaeological sites, a stratum which has evidence of massive destruction of Canaanite city states in the late Bronze Age (13th Century), was found.

4. These were followed by poor, unfortified, & new settlements, suggesting that a large group had intruded into this area. 5. These conquerors and intruders were the Israelites. 6. There is enough evidence that these people either came from the desert or its fringes.

7. They were in a transition from a nomadic life to a much more settled, urbanized and agrarian way of living. E. Wright, thinks that Israelites were the invaders. 8. The Hebrews moved from unculturedness to civilization. Canaanites cities were destroyed b/w 1230 and 1175 BC, and the Exodus is said to have taken place around the same time.

WEAKNESSES 1. The dates given suggest that some cities were destroyed about 1230-1175 BC, implying that the Exodus happened during that time. However, biblical evidence shows that the Exodus happened in the 15thC BC. Consequently, we cannot associate the destruction of these cities with the settlement of Israel.

2. Although it has been established that the cities were destroyed through military means, this can point to other invaders, not necessarily the Hebrews. 3. While these scholars argue that these cities were destroyed between 1230 and 1175 BC, theydoubt if Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, and Arad were destroyed at this time.

4. The archaeological school accepts that the Israelites were less developed militarily, than the Canaanites who they are said to have conquered. If this was the case, then what contributed to their military success? Why are the Canaanites presented as passive onlookers in the whole process? This makes us question the historicity of the whole process especially where God is involved. 5. The stories appear to be etiologies (Josh 8:28, 29) As it is to this day). This is a feature of etiologies.

6. The idea that Israel acted as a nation according to Joshua is contradicted by Judges. 7. The Jebusite city is said to have been captured completely by Joshua, but in 2 Sam 5:7ff, the city is claimed to have been captured by David. 8. Throughout the book of Joshua, we get that the cities were captured by military means in a one day swift attack. But a close analysis of the situation reveals elements of peaceful negotiations (Josh 10).

2. NOMADIC INFILTRATION MODEL Supported by German scholars: Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth, and the Israelite archaeologist, Yohanan Aharoni. Argues that settlement of Israel into Canaan was gradual and was a result of peaceful negotiations. A.K.A Conquest Through Peaceful Means/The Immigration Model.

Israel consisted of individual clans, which were involved in the Tribal Amphictyony. This was a loose political confederation. Israelites were a group of land hungry nomads/semi-nomads who were in a sense, in the process of settling down.

Initially these people did not need farming land. They were at home with animal grazing. But as time went on and pastures became scarce, whilst their population was growing, they started competing for land. They began to move from the hilly area/country into the Canaanite fertile lands. Military clashes began to happen.

The marginalized and weak Israelites took advantage of the withdrawal of Egyptian overlords and the confusion that came as a result of that. They just walked and occupied the land that had been left by the Egyptians. The settlement of Israel was peaceful as evidenced by some alliances between Israelites and Canaanites (Josh 9:1ff, 2 Sam 21). The school argues that the notion of all Israel was a creation of the Deuteronomist who wanted to create unity.

WEAKNESSES 1. These scholars acknowledge that there were military clashes between the Hebrews and the Canaanites. 2. This is a contradiction between peaceful negotiations and military clashes. 3. The theory does not account for the collapse of the city states and the decline of the Egyptian dominion. 4. The bible does not say that the city states had declined. 5. Only peaceful negotiations can explain the Israelite successes during the settlement.

3. PEASANTS REVOLUTION MODEL Proposed by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald. It is based on the socio-political and economic conditions of that time, especially the claims made in the Armana Letters that there were disloyal groups in Palestine; landless, bands of mercenary troops, and unrest between the Canaanite city states.

The Armana Letters, give enough evidence that there was political withdrawal by larger groups of people from the obligations loaded upon them by the aristocracy. There was fighting during the settlement process. Israelites consisted of groups of peasants who rose against the state machinery replacing it with an egalitarian society.

The school identifies the Israelites with the Habiru of the Armana era. Gottwald argues that the Habirus were a group of declassed people who withdrew from a feudal socio-political situation. The school goes on to describe the Canaanite social system which it claims was stratified.

SOCIAL CLASSES 1. At the top was the ruling class. 2. This was followed by the middle class. 3. At the bottom were the peasants.

CONSEQUENCES Sour relationship between landlords & subjects. Gottwald says, no equal rights existed. Heavy taxation. Forced labor and military conscription. Payment of tribute to Egypt and the rest & the aristocracy. There was resentment& withdrawal.

An egalitarian underground community of the Habiru emerged. The ideology of the rich was feudalism and of the peasants was egalitarianism. Feudalism was supported by Baalism and egalitarianism was supported by Yahwism.

The Hebrews started preaching about Yahweh as the Liberator who would liberate them from bondage. This became very popular to other marginalized peasants and they quickly joined the group. The priests and the Levi were the political propagandists who politicized the peasants. They also organized the Habiru into a military movement that embarked on a guerrilla warfare against the landlords.

Israel was not yet a united people. Israel was created by groups who initially and originally constituted the native Canaanite population. The settlement was not by outsiders, but groups of disgruntled peasants. These were the people with the same culture, politics, and economy.

Israel shared the same culture with the Canaanites. However, Gottwald does not deny that there could have been a group of slaves (the Exodus Hapiru) which escaped from Egypt and resettled in Palestine. According to him this was a common phenomenon in the ANE, where many groups of slaves escaped from their masters.

REASONS FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE HABIRU 1. Since the habiru group operated underground. 2. The officials associated their movements with nomadic life. 3. The Canaanite fighters became neutral during the fight, or might have joined the peasants. 4. The war was fought in hilly areas.

1. This is not supported by the biblical evidence. WEAKNESSES 1. This is not supported by the biblical evidence. 2. It is based on the Armana Letters, which might be proved to be erroneous, one day.

4. THE RURALIZATION MODEL Suggested by the American archaeologist, Lawrence Stager. Farmers in Palestine moved beyond the reach of state control and resettled in less accessible mountain areas. They changed from being sheep-goat pastoralists to land tillers, so they needed more fertile land for farming. In those remote rural areas Israel created her identity based on the covenant which she claimed to have made with Yahweh.

In those remote rural areas Israel created her identity based on the covenant which she claimed to have made with Yahweh. WEAKNESSES This theory is unbiblical.

CONCLUSION The Conquest Model makes more sense than all other models. Other theories base their assumption on Joshua and Judges. Other hypotheses are based on the assumption that the Habiru were the Hebrews, which might not be the case. However, these theories show us that the settlement of Israel in Canaan might not have been as simple and straight forward. The easiest way out is to follow the biblical position.