1 The Israelite Conquest of the Land of Canaan

2 The Book of Joshua: Joshua : 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 : Capture of Ai; - Ch. 9: Gibeonite deception and Gibeonites made vassals; Joshua : Conquest of Southern Canaan; Joshua : Conquest of Northern Canaan; Joshua : 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 : Non-Israelite survivors in the land of Canaan; Thus, conflicting information in the Bible on the so-called “Conquest of Canaan/the Promised Land.”

4

5 Conquest – Central and South.

6 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 13 th century BC; - these destructions attributed to the invading Israelites;

7 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).

8 R. De Vaus (d. 1971).

9 Yigael Yadin – Israeli Archaeologist.

10 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.

11

12 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 12 th century BC (until ca 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.

13 Jericho – Aerial View of Excavated Areas.

14

15

16 Arad – View of an Excavated Area.

17 Sea Peoples – from New Kingdom Egpytian Reliefs.

18 Finkelstein’s Position (see Textbook, pp ): - 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; - the Conquest narratives reflect late-monarchic realities; - the figure of Joshua is used to paint a metaphorical portrait of Josiah, the 7 th 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 ideological background of late-7 th century Judah, in the time of King Josiah.

19 Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp ): - 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-13 th century) and Lachish (mid-12 th 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-2 nd millennium BC; - other stories appear to be aetiologies; - the story of the conquest of `Ai is negated by archaeological finds; it is an aetiology;

20 Hazor – Aerial View.

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

22

23 Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp ): Other conquest stories have no archaeological verification or explanation; - For example, the case of Arad (see Numbers 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 ); - 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;

24 Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp ): - 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 ; Josh ); -– the continuity of Canaanite culture throughout the Iron I period (12 th -11 th centuries BC); - The case of Shechem.

25 Mazar’s Position (see Textbook, pp ): 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 2 nd millennium BC, early aetiologies, and invented stories found their way into the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.