Turning to the texts, I focused on Joshua 6 and Joshua 10-12 as well as the first chapter of Judges. Looking to Joshua first, we are first looking at the story of the fall or Jericho. The fall of Jericho follows seven days of ritualized marching around the walled city with the Ark of the Covenant. On the seventh and final day, they marched seven times around the city, blew their rams horns, shouted, and the walls collapsed. All but “Rahab the harlot” were killed. As the Israelites lay waste to the city, we come across a term that comes up many times, and that is the term “proscribed.”

“The city and everything are proscribed for the Lord…but you must be aware of that which is proscribed, or else you will be proscribed: if you take anything from that which is proscribed, you will cause the camp of Israel to be proscribed; you will bring calamity upon it.” (Joshua 6:17-18)

This term denotes the “sacred extermination of the enemy…a linking of violence and sanctity common to war ideologies.”[1] What happens to Jericho is that it is totally and completely obliterated in that it’s walls fell down, all the people and animals are put to the sword, the city is burned, Joshua curses anyone who may want to rebuild on the same spot, and all the treasure is taken away (Joshua 6:20-25). What we have is a city totally laid waste. The Israelites win in a crushing manner.

            As we move forward and look at Joshua 10-12, the Israelites continue on in much the same manner. The end of chapter 12 gives us a laundry list of all of the kingdoms that the Israelites destroyed. In between these chapters the Israelites move forward on a path of destruction that is total and complete aided by YHWH. In the Battle of the Five Kings, Israel defeats the army of the five kings with God contributing a hailstorm as “the Lord hurled huge stones on them from the sky, all the way to Azakah and Makkedah.” (Joshua 10:10) In fact it is also noted that more “perished from the hailstones than were killed by the Israelite weapons.” (Joshua 10:11)  God was intimately involved in these battles, for “the Lord fought for Israel.” (Joshua 10:13) The five kings including King Adoni-bezak of Jerusalem flee to a cave, where they are eventually captured by Joshua, killed, and impaled as a warning to other potential enemies. (Joshua 10:22-27)

            The Lord in Joshua not only aided in their victories, but caused those they were fighting to be stubborn so they could be conquered by Israel. In regards to Israel’s enemies:

For it was the Lord’s doing to stiffen their hearts and to give battle to Israel, in order that they might be proscribed without quarter and wiped out, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Joshua 11:20)

Once again we have the term of “proscribed” used, in which by hardening the hearts of the potential enemies it becomes morally okay to kill everyone, or at least the 31 kings listed in Chapter 12 of Joshua.

            Looking at Judges which is purported to take place after the book of Joshua, one does have some contradictions as well as a different sense of the conquest of the land. One example is the fate of the aforementioned King Adoni-bezak. Whereas he was impaled and utterly destroyed in Joshua, in Judges he is captured, has his thumbs and big toes cut off to humiliate him, and is sent back to Jerusalem where he dies. There are also accounts of the capture of Jerusalem and the victory against King Hebron, which also happened in the book of Joshua.

            The main difference in the Judges account, however, is that instead of working as a unified force, the tribes are given their allotment of lands and they go out individually and try to capture them separately, whereas in Joshua Israel conquers Canaan and then divides it up. They all meet with limited success, some examples being the tribe of Manasseh were unable to dispossess the inhabitants of Bethshean (Judges 1:27), Zebulon was unable to dispossess the inhabitants of Kitron or Nahalol (Judges 1:30), and the tribe of Dan was not able to defeat the Amorites on their own. (Joshua 1:34). Yet others were able to dispossess and take over territories, but they did not work as one unified force, and the conquest as described in Judges is less complete and total than what is found in Joshua.

            These biblical accounts seem to be detailed and can at times sound historical, but the archeological evidence does not strongly favor such an event. In fact, the series of destructions cannot be identified as the result of Israelite conquest.[2] Looking at the accounts of the battles themselves the fate of the cities is general and non-specific. The only city that has any detail to its demise is Jericho. Early excavations seemed to support the biblical account, however later archeological evidence seems to suggest that Jericho was an “unwalled village of the 14^th century.”[3] Therefore, it is not possible to link Jericho to the 13^th century exodus, so archeology can provide no answers here.[4]

            In looking to Bernhard Anderson, we are told that the archeological evidence of the conquest of Canaan is sketchy:

With regard to the situation in Canaan (Palestine), the picture provided by archeology is blurred, at least if we examine the data with a biblical interest. On the one h and, there is clear evidence that some fortified cities were violently destroyed, as indicated by the layers of ash…On the other hand, some fortified cities that Joshua took, according to the biblical account, were not destroyed in this time.[5]

Anderson goes on to state that although Jericho was said to have been burned to the ground in the biblical account, the “wall which supposedly ‘came tumbling down’ in Joshua’s time actually dates back to the third millennium B.C.E. and was destroyed in the middle of the 16^th century.”[6]

So what did happen? There are three dominant schools of thought. One is the Peasant Revolt Model, in which it is thought that the Israelites were descended from a group that revolted from their overlords and fled to the hills thus creating a very short exodus.[7] It was there that they developed the YHWH ideal and became Israelites. Barruch Halpern supports this theory and states that “scholars today generally concur … that Israel formed not in an exodus from Egypt but in the land itself.”[8]

The Conquest of Canaan Model, the oldest of the theories, has fallen into some disfavor. Per Shanks, although early archeology seemed to support this theory, over time as methods of dating improved, as noted previously, the series of destructions cannot be identified as a result of Israelite conquest.[9]

The Peaceful Infiltration Model does have some supporting archeological evidence. Associated with the scholar Albrecht Alt, this model basically states that when the Israelites arrived, they simply moved into the uninhabited areas and occasionally would encounter Canaanites. There would be some clashes, but basically it was a peaceful settling. There is a lot of archeological support for this theory.[10]

Again, I find myself asking the question of what did happen, and how can we reconcile the biblical and the historical. There are two prevailing theories on the Old Testament that I have carried for much of my Spiritual life. I am not sure whom to attribute them to, as they came to me second hand. The first, brought about by my scholar mother, impressed upon me that much of the Old Testament is the story of God’s relationship with God’s people. The Israelites wanted to believe that God was personally involved. Therefore, when things happened that were good, God was with you, when bad things happened God was angry, and that things happen such as coming into a new homeland because God wills it. Secondly, I heard on a Public Radio program how sacred text is written, in that ordinary and fortuitous events are reinterpreted, embellished, and made greater than they are to bring about the idea that God is sovereign and in control. David Merling writes:

Another too seldom considered aspect of the discussion is what the biblical writers were not trying to do. They were not writing for 20^th century archeologists or biblical scholars. They did not write in a way that later archeologists could “prove” their stories true. In addition, they were not writing about the events as objective eyewitnesses; they recorded them as they saw them for their purposes…biblical writers did not attempt to write “history,” they wrote what I have called “redemptive history.”[11]

Richard Nelson writes that these books are more like “Historiography” or “ideological” or interpretive exercises.” These books are literary works written with the intention of bringing out the meaning of past events and strengthening the identity as a people chosen. As these writers recounted and reshaped the past, they gave it legitimacy. [12]

            The question is asked, after reviewing all of this, what do I think can best account for the emergence of Israel in the land. Looking at the archeological evidence that is so lightly touched on in a paper of this length, I can best conclude that it was a mixture of peaceful infiltration model coupled with some aspects of the peasant revolt model. The archeological evidence does not seem to support a massive and coordinated conquest. Over time, as with the writing of any sacred text, the writings were shaped and reshaped to give the people of Israel the hope of a God that was with them, and a God that has guided and taken care of them in the past.

Bibliography

Anderson, Bernhard, Understanding the Old Testament, 4^th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986

Halpern, Baruch. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, Scholars Press, Chico CA, 1983

Jewish Study Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Oxford University Press, 1999

Merling, David Sr. The Book of Joshua: It’s Theme and Role in Archeological Discussions, Andrews   University Press: Serrian Springs, MI, 1998

Nelson, Richard D., The Historical Books, Abingdon Press: Nashville TN

Shanks, Hershel, The Rise of Ancient Israel, Biblical Archeological Society: Washington DC, 1991