The book of Joshua sets out to describe to the reader how Israel entered and took possession of Canaan.1 After the initial crossing of the Jordan and destruction of Jericho, the narrative presents us with the image of three quick campaigns (Chapter 7-9, 10 and 11), with a complete conquering of Canaan by 11:16-23.2 This, however, has caused some significant difficulties because the biblical account itself (Judges 1), alongside archaeological evidence, seems to provide us with a different picture of events. This has resulted in several different models being proposed to explain the origin of Israel in Canaan.3 Three such models are the nomadic infiltration (Immigration model), the conquest model and the peasants revolt model.4
- The Nomadic Infiltration Model
Having its roots in German scholarship, with Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth leading the field, this model of the conquest is very different from that of a simplistic reading of Joshua. Alt noticed that the geography of the area was very significant in the region. He noticed that the main cities were in the plains, with the highlands being thinly populated.5 He believed that the Israelites were “land-hungry nomads”6 who first inhabited the highlands before gradually extending into the plains.7 This view is backed up by Judges 1, which says that the Canaanites were not driven out from many of the lowland cities. Alt and Noth both agreed that the Israelites came from outside the land.8
2. The Conquest Model
The conquest model seeks to harmonise archaeological evidence to the biblical account. This particular model was led by William Foxwell Albright. He believed the biblical account to be mostly accurate but there was no means of testing it,9 and that archaeological evidence should confirm it. The way it is done is by finding tells—flat topped mounds that were once ancient cities that were destroyed—and digging down through the various layers to see what lay among the debris. 10A good reflection of Albright’s thought is found in John Bright’s History of Israel. 11
3. The Peasants Revolt Model
First proposed by George E. Mendenhall (a student of Albright) in 1962, this model was prompted by a dissatisfaction with the biblical account. It draws a lot of its methodology and conclusions from the Amarna letters. The letters were found in Egypt in 1888 and consist of clay tablets, written in Akkadian, addressed to several Egyptian Pharaohs during the 14th century B.C.E.12 This model disconnects from the idea that Israel took the land by violent conquest. This does not mean that violence was not used at all, as the Nomadic model would suggest, but instead it is worked out in the form of a revolt against the leading powers of the time.13
When exploring these different models we soon encounter problems concerning dating of the events and what actually took place. In History of Israel, John Bright presents a case for a 13th century date for the exodus. This is a later date than that which 1 Kings 6:1 presents. The text reads, “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.”14 This would place the date of the exodus in the 15th century, which would indicate that the Exodus took place in the Amarna period.15 Bright, however, suggests that 40 years is a “well known round number, often for a generation” in the bible. If this was the case, the 480 years to the 4th year of Solomon’s reign would indicate 12 generations. Presuming an average of 25 years from the birth of a father to the birth of a son, this would give us 300 years rather than the 480 proposed in 1 Kings.16 This method works intimately with archaeological findings and draws its conclusions from there. This was initially done in an attempt to harmonise the two. This backfired somewhat though. Collins says “there was indeed extensive upheaval in Canaan in the late bronze age (13th and 12th centuries)…But the archaeological evidence does not match the biblical account…”17 Joshua claims that after crossing the Jordan, Israel attacked Jericho and then Ai.18 These two major cities present us with some difficulty. Destruction in the area has been looked for and Jericho has been found to be unoccupied in the Late Bronze Period (1550-1200 B.C.E). Bright says that very little is known of Late-Bronze Jericho. There was a town there but not much evidence survives. No evidence of an Israelite invasion was found.19 Recent attempts to solve this problem have sparked a big debate. B.G Wood claims to find the ruins of toppled walls, which he dates to around 1400 B.C.E. If this is true, it correlates wonderfully with the biblical account.20 Ai also poses problems as it would seem that it was destroyed in the middle of the 3rd millennium and was not occupied again until after the Israelite conquest. This has led scholars to question the location of this particular attack, some equating it with the evidence found at Bethel.21 In spite of these problems, there have been positive findings at the site of Hazor, which is another city Joshua is said to have attacked.22
The revolt model goes on the basis that the biblical events and the Amarna materials are speaking of the same political process.23 The Amarna letters were “addressed to the the Pharaohs Amenophis III, Amenophis IV and Akhenhaten”. This was in the 14th century B.C.E. Akhenhaten had taken the nation of Egypt on a wild ride where he embraced a monotheistic religion, worshipping the sun-god Aten, and stopped paying attention to Egyptian dealings in Canaan. 24 Mendenhall suggests that in these circumstances, what really took place was not a mass violent conquest but a revolt against the network of interlocking Canaanite city-states. This involved, not mass frontier movement, but internal revolt against political leaders. He believes that the Hebrew conquest happened because “a religious movement and motivation created a solidarity among a large group of pre-existant social units…”25 Therefore, what held Israel together was not ethnic unity but instead religious commonality.26 The Amarna letters repeatedly speak of rebel groups ‘Apiru’ causing trouble and challenging Egyptian rule. This name is also used in other writing.27 John J. Collins says, “It is not an ethnic term, but refers to people who were, in one way or other, on the margins of society, sometimes as mercenaries, sometimes as slaves, and sometimes just as troublemakers.”28 Many scholars have jumped on the fact that the Apiru could in fact be Hebrews. However, the linguistics do not leave us with any definitive answers. In the bible, cuneiform and Egyptian sources, they do have similar social roles.29 We know they were slaves, abused peasants and ill paid mercenaries.30 Bright provides us with a good argument that the Israelites were in fact slaves in Egypt, who through miraculous circumstances, escaped.31 This is the model that the archaeological evidence backs the most, although it completely ignores the biblical narrative.32 Whether it is right to do this or not shall be discussed later.
The Nomadic infiltration model works on the principle that Israel were “nomadic breeders of small cattle” who came from the deserts and settled into the highlands of Canaan. They took more and more land as the opportunities arose. This was always by peaceful action rather than violent means.33 For this reason, Noth did not want to assign destruction of cities at the time to Israel. This was because the Archaeological evidence “cannot be ascertained accurately”. Any possible hostility between Israelites and Canaanites is understood, as that between farmers and nomads34
Conclusions
Initially, I set out to see if we could draw any conclusions from these models. One immediate conclusion that I have come to, is that Israel was a real people group (as attested to by the Merneptah Stele) and that they were once in Egypt. Bright says, “Although there is no direct records to Israel’s presence in Egypt, the Biblical tradition a priori demands belief: it is not the sort of tradition any people would invent…A number of factors lend objective support. Egyptian names are prevalent in early Israel, especially in the tribe of Levi, certainly argue for a connection with Egypt. Among these are those of Moses himself, Hophni, Phinehas, Merari, and possibly Aaron and others.” There was certainly Apiru in Egypt, as attested to by various texts from the 15th century. They were state slaves.35 Despite this, it is very difficult to conclusively say that the Apiru and Israelites are the same people. I must add that this conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that the biblical narrative is indeed important to this entire discussion, something biblical minimalists would not agree with. They would say that “the way forward in the study of early Israel must lie mainly with archaeology and not with the biblical text…”36 On this matter, Provan and Longman III believe that the commonly cited reasons for discounting the bible (late datings, theological slant and archaeological disproof) are not convincing. They believe that theological slant needs to be understood and allowance should be made for it. After all, all historical writings need to be freed from our bias.37 Archaeological evidence also falls victim to bias. Like ancient texts, a careful reading of the material finds need to be read and interpreted carefully also.38
Each model seems to have areas of strength juxtaposed with areas of weakness. The Conquest model is ironically strengthened and at the same time weakened by destruction found at cities. Cities found without pig bones also add merit to this discussion as they fit in significantly with biblical dietary laws.39
The peaceful infiltration model is strengthened by the fact that it believes Israel came from outside the land of Canaan. This is where it shares its main connection with the biblical account; it would seem to be accurate by Judges 1.40 However, I do not think we should be so hasty in denying any link between the destruction of cities and Israel.
I think the revolt model is the one that most satisfies the Archaeological evidence. However, this would only be because it discounts the biblical account. One area in which I believe it falls down, is where it claims that the Israelites took the land through internal measure. J. Alberto Soggin says, “Israel was always aware of not having originally been native to Palestine, but of having come from abroad. Of course this awareness is expressed in theological rather than historical and ethnic terms, but it is difficult to deny that it has a real basis.”41
John J. Collins believes that modern ideologies can have a big effect on the preferences of modern scholars.42 As we have seen, all three models make claims that would say that the other models are fallacious. Scholars debate endlessly that the model they follow is in fact correct, but as I have shown, all the models have areas of weakness.
As Dillard and Longman III conclude, “Today’s archaeology too often becomes tomorrow’s footnote about earlier mistaken efforts. One can only hope that further excavation will eventually put the question of date beyond reasonable doubt.”43 Archaeology is not a science free from error44 and no pure facts can be drawn; only interpreted facts.45 For this reason, we need to free this field of studies of bias and continue our search for evidence that may shed increasing light on Israel’s origins in the land of Canaan.
Footnotes
