Palestinian Archaeology and the Date of the Conquest: Do Tells Tell Tales?

Grace Theological Journal 3.1 (Spring 1982) 107-21. [Copyright © 1982 Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission; digitally prepared for use at Gordon and Grace Colleges and elsewhere] PALESTINIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE DATE OF THE CONQUEST: DO TELLS TELL TALES? EUGENE H. MERRILL" The date of Israel’s conquest of Canaan is predicated basically on the assumption that it was a military enterprise which, therefore, must have resulted in extensive destruction throughout the land. This being so, it is reasonable to expect that archaeological research would attest to this destruction. The date of the strata associated with the destruction would then yield the date of the conquest. The fallacy of this hypothesis is that the OT record does not allow for a conquest involving massive devastation; in fact, it takes quite the opposite position. It follows that any archaeological attestation of destruction cannot be used to date the conquest. Such dating must be deduced from the biblical literary data themselves, a process which allows a date compatible with the early date of the Exodus. * * * IT may seem to be an exercise in futility and boring redundancy to explore once more the question of the date of Israel's conquest of Canaan under Joshua. The two prevailing views, that of an early fourteenth century1 and that of a mid- to late-thirteenth century date,2 appear to be so firmly entrenched among the scholarly seg- ments which hold them that there is no further need for discussion. 1 See conveniently John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb, A History of Israel from Conquest to Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 17-18; E. H. Merrill, An Historical Survey of the Old Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966, 1979) 106-8, 155; Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970) 94-101. 2 John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 130- 33. Bright even appears to opt for a twelfth century date now (p. 133). Martin Noth (The History of Israel [New York: Harper & Row, 1960] 81) admits that the conquest could have begun as early as the Amarna period (ca. 1375 B.C.) but insists that it ended as late as 1100 B.C. For a 1230 B.C. date, see H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (London: Oxford University, 1950, 1970) 133. Of course, virtually no critical scholars 108 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOVRNAL Indeed, it may well be that the opposing schools of thought can never find rapprochement, particularly if archaeological evidence continues to be adduced and interpreted by both sides in support of their respective conclusions. The thesis of this paper is that while both parties in the debate have cited and utilized the same evidence to prove vastly different propositions, the biblical data themselves have strangely been largely overlooked. What does the OT have to say about any reasonable expectation that archaeology can shed light on the perplexing problem of dating the Conquest? Does it possibly suggest a via media, that archaeology, far from being friend or foe, has nothing at all to say to the question?3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A few years ago Bruce Waltke pointed in the right direction when he argued that one should not expect archaeological documen- tation for an early or any other date for the Conquest since it was clearly Joshua's policy not to destroy the population centers but only 4 to "take" (dkl) them. That is, the biblical account itself presupposes an interpretation quite to the contrary of that held by the vast majority of both conservative and liberal scholars.5 Indeed, he says, if view the conquest as a homogeneous, united effort by twelve tribes under one leader and in one comparatively brief period of time. 3 This has been expressed recently by J. Maxwell Miller but only by maintaining that "there was never an Israelite invasion of the sort envisioned in Josh. 1-12" ("Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan: Some Methodological Observa- tions," PEQ 109 [1977] 92). He correctly observes that there is little or no archaeological evidence for the conquest, no matter the date, but concludes that since the OT narrative presupposes vast destruction that narrative itself cannot be correct. Our thesis is that both the narrative and the "negative archaeological evidence" (Miller, 92) are correct when correctly interpreted. 4 Bruce K. Waltke, "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date for the Exodus," BSac 129 (1972) 35. M. F. Unger had pointed out the same thing nearly thirty years ago but did not follow up on his observations. See his Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954) 163-64. 5 Thus, H. T. Frank (Bible, Archaeology and Faith [Nashville: Abingdon, 1971) 95) states flatly, ". the conquest was sparked by a warlike invasion of the central highlands leaving in its wake a series of smoldering ruins where once-proud Canaanite cities had stood." Among these he includes Hebron, Eglon, Jarmuth, and Lachish. An evangelical scholar, R. K. Harrison, likewise assumes such a position when he points out that "Archaeological excavations along the route of the occupation have afforded clear indications of violence and destruction during the second half of the thirteenth century B.C. ," a period he associates with the Joshua conquest (Old Testament Times [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 175-76). Similarly, K. A. Kitchen, who usually places the biblical testimony above any other, argues for a late exodus and conquest precisely on archaeological grounds. See his Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966) 61-69. MERRILL: DATE OF THE CONQUEST 109 the evidence were to indicate widespread and massive destruction of Canaanite sites in the early fourteenth century, the traditional conquest period, it would fly in the face of the biblical statements and would pose no end of embarrassment to the traditional view. On the other hand, such destruction, amply attested everywhere in the thirteenth century, can be attributed to the Joshua campaigns only by denying the clear biblical witness. Though Waltke's suggestions were correct he did not pursue them fully nor make a convincing case exegetically for their relevance to the issue. In fact, he went on to argue that archaeology has validity when interpreted correctly, a point which is undeniable, but he appears to have failed to appreciate the two-edged nature of the archaeological evidence from most of the sites adduced in support of either date. When equally eminent and competent scholars can look at artifactual data and come to diametrically opposite conclusions based on them, it might be time to abandon the pursuit and follow up on Waltke's own suggestion that the biblical testimony and it alone is adequate to provide satisfying answers.6 THE MOSAIC CONQUEST POLICY Central to the promise of YHWH to Israel concerning the land which he would give them in Canaan was the fact that it would become their property virtually intact.7 They would need to fight for 6 This paper will make no attempt to relate the date of the conquest to that of the exodus though we are persuaded that such a connection only confirms the position taken here that the conquest began ca: 1400 B.C. Neither biblical nor archaeological evidence militates against the early (mid-fifteenth century) date for the exodus. See now John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, JSOT Supplement Series 5 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978) passim. Bimson in fact argues for a slightly earlier date than that of most conservative scholars. 7 Only Canaanite sites will be considered here in detail since Canaan is specified as the land of inheritance to be given to Israel with ready-built structures. Of non- Canaanite cities, only the following in Transjordan are named in the records as having been either taken or destroyed: Heshbon (Num 21:25) and Aroer (Deut 2:36). Though Nelson Glueck's allegation that the Transjordan contained no sedentary population from ca. 1900-1300 was at one time almost universally accepted, recent research at Tell Hesban (Heshbon) indicates to some scholars that the site was occupied by people of some culture during the Late Bronze period. If this is correct it could, therefore, have been taken by the Israelites at 1400 B.C. See Bimson, Redating, 72. The OT narrative does not indicate that Israel destroyed Heshbon but, to the contrary, "took" (':J?) it and "dwelt. in Heshbon" (Num 21:25). One should not expect archaeological confirmation or denial of this. Aroer (now ‘Ara’ir) was explored by E. Olavarri in 1964 and he showed that the site, though abandoned throughout the MB period. was occupied continuously in the LB through the mid-ninth century ("Sondages it. ‘Aro’er sur l'Arnon." RB 72 [1965] 91). This of course supports the OT picture of the "taking" 110 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL it, of course, but in only exceptional cases would it be necessary for them to destroy its cities and towns physically.8 The first statement of this policy is in the Book of the Covenant where, in Exod 23:24, YHWH commands Israel to put the Canaanite gods under the Mr,H, and to destroy their tObc.ema. There is no word here of the destruction of cities. In fact, the passage goes on with the promise of YHWH to drive the inhabitants of the land out gradually so that the land will not become uninhabitable (vv 23-30).9 En route to Canaan Moses reminded the people once again of the policy to be implemented in conquering and occupying the land (Num 33:50-56). They must drive out the inhabitants, destroy their cult objects, and take possession of the land.

Load more