Is the Bible’s story of the conquest of Canaan accurate? Jericho and other archaeological evidence

Arguments For and Against the Bible story (from Kugel) Against: There were no signs of destruction at Jericho- no evidence of burning, pillaging or devastation Of the sites said to be conquered by the Israelites, only 2 show signs of destruction- Lachish and Hazor By 1200 BC Jericho was a poorly defended settlement. There is no archaeological evidence to show that it was a walled city as it is described in the Bible. The Bible suggests a Canaan-wide conquest, but the areas mentioned only form a very small part of Canaan Evidence of other theories Because Shechem is never mentioned among Joshua’s conquests, Kugel concludes that Shechem’s Canaanite population simply became Israelites at some point without violence This is pretty similar to Israel Finkelstein’s theory that the Israelites were just ex-Canaanites and there was no conquest

Inconsistences in the Bible

Alt’s theory of settlement Alt observed that there are few pure nomads in region Bedouin engaged in farming Alternative model Lack of tangible evidence Shechem shows signs of conflict There are better alternative theories

Joshua leads the Israelites into Canaan capturing cities through armed conquest Israelites were semi- nomadic peoples who settled in Canaan sometimes peacefully, sometimes through conquest

The El Armana Letters

El Amarna Letters The El Amarna Letters are pieces of correspondence written in Akkadian to the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV ( BCE). They concern themselves with the administration of the area of modern Israel, then a vassal state of Egypt. “The letters provide some very early evidence of the language that was later to be spoken by the people of Israel, biblical Hebrew”

What do the letters tell us? The El Amarna Letters show that the area known as Israel was subservient to the Pharaoh. There was a group called the Apiru/ Habiru causing trouble in the region. “To the king, my lord, my god, my Sun, the Sun from heavan; thus says Yabni-ilu, the ruler of Lachish...” “The war... of the Apiru against me is severe...”

Who are the Apiru? The Apiru appear to have been a rival group to the rulers of the Egyptian-aligned Canaanite city-states. There is a reference to the social revolution theory. “The Israelites were neither outside conquerors nor peaceful semi- nomads...they were Canaanite revolutionaries.”

Canaanite Exurbanite Model

Arguments For the BibleArguments against the Bible -Drastic difference in lifestyle - Presence of pig bones, as well as animal flocks. - Settlements closer to the border rather than the cities -Sudden in population in the highlands -Decrease of city populations occurred around the same time. - Evidence technological advances which made highland settlements possible.

Exurbanite Theory It is now commonly believed that the Israelite people originated within Canaan, rather than as outsiders fighting in. Archaeologists have discovered increase of settlements in the highlands of ancient Canaan, and the inhabitants of these settlements were the supposed Israelite people. One theory suggests that the influx of population to the highlands was caused by social change, and that the new settlers were refugees from the poor districts of Canaanite cities. However, Kugel presents evidence which suggest these new settlers were in fact semi-nomadic people from within Canaan. For example, public buildings, masonry etc. bore littles resemblance to that of the Canaanite cities.

Exurbanite Theory in Conjunction with the Bible Whichever theory of origin you believe, they both point to the Israelites as Canaanite natives, rather than outsiders coming in.