Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote:
> I understand your difficulty here. But I wonder if
> the various
> conquest narratives can really be shown to be unhistorical, or simply
> that they cannot all be confirmed by archaeology etc. Yes, there are
> some difficulties with particular sites and with the details of
> particular passages, though I did understand that Hazor was destroyed
> and burned at about the right time. But as I understood it, the
> archaeological record does indicate a break at the right time, with
> the destruction or abandonment of many and the further occupation of
> some at a lower level of sophistication.
The Conquest of Ai is one of the major, theme narratives in Joshua, demonstrating
what happens when the Israelites do not perform the herem and what
happens when they do. And it is unhistorical. The last occupation level
there was OB.
The Conquest of Jericho, is told as the miraculous capture of a formidable,
walled Canaanite city. And no such thing existed there in the LB or Iron
I Periods.
There was only one destroyed occupation level of Hazor which would
fit the Settlement Period, so either the Joshua narrative is true or the
Judges narrative is true, not both. Considering the penchant of the author
of Joshua to invent "salvation history", I would opt for the Judges narrative
being true.

 

I have no trouble in accepting that the Israelite invaders were not
all physical descendants of Jacob but included others who joined them
in Egypt (the "mixed multitude" of Ex. 12:38) and during the
wilderness period. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles make it clear that
absolute racial purity was not an issue even at quite a late period.

Many of the later Israelites were Canaanite peoples who had never been in Egypt. The Kenizzites are only one example.The Jebusites of Jerusalem are another. More examples in Jud. 1. I wouldn't go as far as Norman K. Gottwald, who attributes the origin of Israel to an entirely internal Canaanite social and religious upheaval, but yes, many of the Canaanites did join up with the Israelites, which is one of the reasons there was syncretism.
And considering the 12-11th century BCE dating of the Patriarchs, there was probably no connection between those elements of later Israel who migrated from Upper Mesopotamia and those elements who fled Egypt at about the same time if not earlier.

>  
> As for the question of XEREM at Jericho, well, we have the evidence
> that it was not reoccupied for several centuries, until a time which
> accords with the notice in 1 Kings 16:34 that it was rebuilt in Ahab's
> time - a notice which also picks up Joshua's curse. Note also 2 Kings
> 2:19-22 which surely reflects a (different?) tradition that Jericho
> was abandoned because of bad water, but that some measures were taken
> to provide good water in the rebuilt city.
>  
Jericho's not being reoccupied for several centuries is not necessarily
a result of the herem.
And don't forget - the notice in 1 Kings was probably written by the
same hand, certainly the same school, as the curse in Joshua.
Yours,
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Israel