History of Ancient Israel
Jerusalem University College
Mr. Brian Schultz
October 1, 2003
"The Settlement"

I.   The book of Joshua presents a "blitz creed" as they took over the area of Canaan and then drew lots and divided up - it isn't quite like this
A.   Two campaigns
1.   Northern
2.   Southern
B.   Problems in the text - the biblical text sometimes gives the responsibility of conquest to two different groups
1.   Num. 21 vs. Num. 32
2.   Josh. 10 vs. Josh. 15
II.   The Settlement Theories and Archaeology
A.   Each theory gives a different emphasis to which text they believe is more historically accurate
B.   Most believe the texts were written after the events took place
C.   Scholars are trying to understand the relationship of the biblical text and archaeology
D.   They are attempting to figure out why the tensions in the biblical text are there - there is a value to the tension there
E.   Theories
1.   Conquest Theory
a.   Traditional Theory
i.   There was a conquest led by Joshua of two main military campaigns that essentially conquered their entire area - fairly accurate to how the book of Joshua portrays
ii.   Even the most conservative scholars will admit that most likely the historical account is telescoped a bit because most likely the events didn't happen all at once but just condensed for story telling
iii.   The conquest took place in the 13th century
iv.   Scholars
a.   Bright
b.   G.E. Wright
c.   Albright
b.   Various Tribes Theory
i.   Different and independent people going in at different time periods conquering various parts of the land
a.   Different tribes went into conquer different parts of there land
b.   Depending on which text you look at there are different tribes mentioned as the twelve
1.   Sometimes Levi is one and sometimes it isn't
2.   Sometimes Ephraim and Manasseh are and sometimes they are the "same" tribe
3.   Song of Deborah (Judges 5:14-19)
a.   Some of the people groups in there seem to be listed as tribes even though they definitely aren't Jacob's sons
b.   Some of the tribes are claimed to have come from certain regions - as if they were different people groups (i.e. Ephraim came from Amalek)
ii.   The tribes relationship had no essential bond, and eventually some unifying force brought them all together
iii.   The tribes that are involved in the conquest are not necessarily the same ones that escaped from Egypt
iv.   Main criticism
a.   The archaeology evidence makes it questionable
b.   The question: How do all these different tribes come to worship the same God after all this conquest? - it is one thing to come together politically but why do they all decide to worship Yhwh
v.   The conquest happened in the 13th century
2.   Peaceful Integration Theory
a.   They would have come into the land, taken land that wasn't used for agriculture and cleared it (Joshua 17:14-18)
b.   They came together in worship because after they settled in they would have came to the same religious sites and find unity in that way
i.   Amphictyony
ii.   People would have a shrine/holy site that they would divide up the responsibility to care for the shrine (1 tribe for 1 month)
c.   Discount the whole conquest
d.   12th-13th century (Iron Age I)
3.   Peasant Revolt Theory
a.   Scholars
i.   Mendenhall
ii.   Gottwald
b.   Based on Archaeological data there is no evidence of a new people showing up in the land
c.   A group of people who were running around, dissatisfied with the larger Canaanite people group, they revolted, gained influence, and eventually took good chunks of land
d.   Eventually they joined up with a small group of people coming out of Egypt and to separate themselves from the Canaanites created a new religion
e.   The problem with this theory is you cannot prove it or disprove it
4.   Ruralization Theory
a.   The idea is that we have a certain collapse of society as we know it
i.   Egypt is dying off (the first kingdom)
ii.   Hittites are dwindling
iii.   When the big powers have problems, everyone has problems
b.   The economy went down therefore those living in the cities moved out and became dependent on agriculture
F.   Archaeology
1.   Typically the conquest is understood as Late Bronze Age and the city is built on Iron Age I
2.   Israelite Travel and Inhabitance and there relation to archaeology
a.   Travel in Negev
i.   Numbers 21
ii.   Site of Arad
iii.   Not Late Bronze Age
b.   Travel in Transjordan
i.   Site of Eschjon
ii.   No Late Bronze Age
c.   Inside the Land
i.   Jericho
a.   Originally said it correlated well with the conquest
b.   Kenyon eventually said there were no late Bronze Age remains (very bias)
c.   Bryant Wood found Late Bronze Age presence
d.   It seemed to be a small town during the Late Bronze Age
e.   The only walls found date to the Middle Bronze Age
ii.   Ai
a.   No Late Bronze Age city in Ai
b.   It is hard to correlate the biblical account
c.   Some scholars think we need to look for Ai at a different hill
iii.   Jerusalem - Does have Late Bronze remains
iv.   Lacish
a.   Does have late Bronze remains
b.   Still problematic for conquest because the only date for its destruction is 11th century
v.   Debir - Does have Late Bronze remains
vi.   Hebron - Just Iron Age I remains
vii.   Hazor - Does have Late Bronze age destruction - fits great to Conquest
viii.   Bethel - Does have Late Bronze age destruction - fits great to Conquest
ix.   Tel Beit-Mirsim
a.   Not biblical
b.   Late Bronze Age destruction and Iron Age city built
x.   Cities mentioned in the Bible that were not conquered
a.   Beit Sean
b.   Megiddo
c.   Gezer
d.   Taanach
1.   Early Bronze Age destruction - Iron Age city built
2.   Seems to be inhabited by the Israelites
3.   The Bible says it wasn't conquered
3.   The basic conclusion is that some cities seem to fit very well (i.e. Hazor, Bethel, etcÉ), while others cities in the conquest don't seem to fit at all (i.e. Ai)
a.   If we want to hold that all cities were conquered by Israel than they weren't all held by one single leader and one single time during two main military campaigns
b.   Half of the sites fit (although at different time periods), and half of the sites really don't fit well at all and are quite problematic
G.   The big question is can we support a foreign, new people group coming into the land and taking in conquest enough of the area to established a nation
1.   Was there conquest or was there not?
a.   There is probably a bit of both
b.   Joshua 13:2-3
2.   Are the Israelites (via archeology) is there a new people group in the land?
III.   Joshua 2 - The story of Rahab
A.   It is strange that in a book totally focused on one man, Joshua, that you have named a prostitute of a foreign country (note that note even the spies named are mentioned)
B.   Jewish Midrash says, "she wasn't actually a harlot/prostitute, but rather a pub keeper'"
1.   The text uses the word the harlot
2.   Pub keepers also usually kept "inns" so it would seem logical that the spies would stay there
3.   Pub keepers were often hired by kings to inform them of what is going on from the "common folk"
C.   She seems to already know what to do with them, and they need to be hidden
D.   The Septuagint makes no reference to a house on a wall - why? - because the walls come tumbling down which would have crushed her house
E.   She tells the spies to go into the mountains and wait to see when those looking for them leave the area (which would be easy to see from those mountains) which indicates that geographically the story is set in the right place
IV.   Joshua 24 - The Renewal of the Covenant and Shechem
A.   Chronology
1.   Went to Egypt
2.   Lived in wilderness for long time
3.   Conquest of Transjordan (against the Amorites)
4.   Balaam incident
5.   You crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho, and fought a bunch of people groups
6.   Two kings of the Amorites (this is strange why he goes back to Transjordan)
7.   Covenant renewed at Shechem
B.   Interesting Notes
1.   There is no mention of the Sinai experience - the pivotal creation of Yhwh worship
2.   Why is this account missing in a narrative so centered around choosing Yhwh worship or denying it
C.   The issues with Shechem
1.   Genesis 34
a.   Seduction of Dinah and Levi and Simeon kills all of the men
b.   Jacob, and at least Levi, Simeon, and Joseph flee
2.   Genesis 37
a.   Joseph sent to Shechem to find brothers that are still there
b.   He is not afraid to use his name (essentially my name is Joseph and I'm looking for my brothers that just killed all the people here)
c.   The conclusion, part of Jacob's family still stayed in Shechem and intermarried
3.   Shechem is never conquered, not in Genesis, and not in Joshua
4.   Joshua 24 renews the covenant in Shechem probably because there were still Israelite people (family) there that never went into Egypt and experienced the Sinai and therefore it was essential for them to understand the covenant renewal as well
5.   Gen 46 says that only 70 people went down to Egypt which indicates that some could have stayed
6.   This gives a foothold that says that there are Israelite people (as we would call them) in the land all along while the Israelite story says they were in Egypt
7.   The first Iron Age settlement are in the land of Ephraim - around the area of Shechem
D.   This could point to the fact that there does seem to be a conquest yet also a peaceful integration of part of the land that they already inhabited through ancient family before going to Egypt
V.   View of settlement by a foreign group from perspective of archaeology
A.   Con
1.   No evidence of a foreign group coming form Egypt (both in artifacts and evidence of travel)
2.   Amorites, Moabites, and others don't exists at this time (or at least there cities don't)
B.   Pro
1.   300 new agricultural villages in the 12th-11th century in the area
a.   Very small (less than an acre)
b.   Unwalled
c.   Near water sources
d.   None of them are built over Late Bronze Age sites
e.   55,000-75,000 estimated population capacity given the amount of space
i.   55,000 towards the beginning of the 12th century and finally arriving at 75,000 by the 11th century
ii.   This is a much higher population growth than average for antiquity
iii.   This would mean somehow the country site had a mobilization of population to them
2.   The development of the four room house
a.   There is the development of a new type of housing that hasn't been seen in the area
b.   The concentration of four room houses is drastically higher where Israelites would have been living
c.   The four room house fits well into the lifestyle of the Israelites
i.   The broad room at the end was centered around the male patriarch

You can access any room in the house independently of the other rooms (therefore when a room became unclean you can still access the other three rooms without becoming unclean)
3.   Terracing
a.   Joshua 16
b.   The removal of trees for agricultural land that wasn't used previously
4.   Plastered Cisterns
5.   Reappearance of handmade pottery as apposed to fast wheel
6.   The absence of pig bones at these sits - THIS IS HUGE
a.   Beith Shemesh (Israelite) has not pig bones
b.   Timnah (Philistines) had lots of pig bones
7.   Decline in ritual and cultic temples
a.   Early bronze age relatively a high number of cultic worship centers
b.   Iron Age I has none
8.   Evidence of Proto-Canaanite script Izbetsartesh (sp?)
a.   Means there is a new language developing
b.   This indicates a new people group
9.   What we find in Iron Age I is for sure in Iron Age II
a.   What ever was in Iron Age I lasted until Iron Age II
b.   We know for SURE that there were Israelites in the area by Iron Age II