Outline of Two Major Viewpoints on the Date of the Conquest of Canaan

Introduction:
When it comes to the Israelite conquest of Canaan the core issue argued on by Bible scholars, theologians, and archeologists is this- "When did it happen?" For the purpose of this outline the question of "Did it even happen?" will not be examined. This outline will seek to show the archeological evidence for the two major view of when the conquest happened. The majority of conservative Bible scholars tend to think that the conquest took place in 1406 B.C., because they have come to the conclusion that the Exodus happened in 1446 B.C. They will use passages like 1 Kings 6:1 for their lines of evidence. The other view dates the conquest later at 1200 B.C. This view tends to be held by more liberal leaning scholars. These scholars normally don't try to use scripture references to back up their claims, instead the focus mostly on their interpretation on the archaeological evidence. This is an important issue to Old Testament studies. The dating of the conquest of Joshua affects all Biblical chronology. The dating of the Exodus and of the Conquest also affects how you view the conquest took place. Most "Late Daters" view the conquest as a two-fold exodus and entry into Canaan in different centuries or they believe that some of the tribes of Israel never even were brought into Egyptian captivity. (Rea 5) The majority of archaeologists who view the conquest as happening in the 15th century would take hold to Biblical account of the conquest. Not only does the proper dating of the conquest have an affect on Biblical chronology it also has a drastic affect on Biblical Historicity. Many critical scholars have cited the lack of evidence for an early date for the conquest as a sign that the conquest didn't happen and that the Bible is generally untrustworthy in terms of its historical accuracy. Archaeological data is important to understanding the Bible but it should never be put on a level above the Bible. It is subjective discipline that has only a fraction of the possible data that could be analyzed. Therefore we can expect that interpretations of evidence will change over time as new objects are discovered in tells and as new people excavate Tells.

I. The Conquest took place around 1400 B.C. (Early Dating Sequence)

A. Archaeological Arguments for the view
1. The Canaanite cites in the Late Bronze Age 1B were fortified as the Biblical account described they would be in Deuteronomy 1:28. (Hansen 2)

2. The book of Joshua doesn't say the conquest was followed by widespread destruction therefore archaeologists shouldn't find extreme destruction levels at most tells they excavate unless the Bible stated that there would be significant destruction levels there.

3. The first excavation of Jericho (Tell es-Sultan), which was lead by John Garstang, lead to the conclusion that it was destroyed by a massive fire shortly after 1400 B.C. (Merrill 119)

4. Garstang dated City IV in Jericho as being destroyed in 1400 B.C. based on pottery found in the destroyed strata, on scarabs that he recovered from nearby tombs, and on the absence of Mycenaean ware on the site. (Wood 49, Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?)

5. A Carbon-14 sample of charcoal which was found in the destruction layers of the finale Bronze Age City in Jericho was dated to 1410 B.C. +/- 40 years. (Wood 53, Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?)

B. Archaeological Arguments Against the view
1. A scarab from the 15th Dynasty was found in a tomb at Jericho from a king that wasn't well known and it was dated around 1600 B.C. (Bienkowski 46)

2. The pottery found in City IV at Jericho, which was though to be Late Bronze Age I Cypriote Bichrome, was actually standard Late Bronze II ware. (Bienkowski 46)

3. Debir and Lacish were both towns that were told as being taken by Joshua in the Bible however they are known to have been destroyed towards the end of the 13th century. (Bright 131)

C. Well Known Proponents of the view
David G. Hansen
Eugene H. Merrill
Bryant Wood

II. The Conquest took place around 1200 B.C. (Late Dating Sequence)

A. Archaeological Arguments for the view
1. Bethel was destroyed by fire in the latter part of the 13th century that left a layer of ash several feet deep. (Bright 131)

2. There are towns mentioned in Joshua as being attacked by Israel that have destruction levels that can be dated to the 13th century. (Mattingly 246)

3. Yigael Yadin has excavated Tell Hazor and found that it was destroyed by fire, probably by Joshua, around 1250-1200 B.C. (Merrill 120)

B. Archaeological Arguments Against the view
1. The city of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 is not referring to Ramses II but Ramses of the Hyksos therefore there would be no need to date the conquest during the reign of Ramses II. (Aling 130)

2. Yigael Yadin also found a destruction date of 1400 B.C. of the Middle Bronze Age IIC city in Tell Hazor, therefore refuting his early dating of Tell Hazor at 1250-1200 B.C. (Merrill 120)

C. Well Known Proponents of the view
William F. Albright
William Dever
John Bright

Conclusion:

Dating the conquest by inspecting the various strata of Tells where Joshua once conquered can be an ambiguous, frustrating matter. Considering the face that Archaeologists only have a small fraction of all the possible evidence available to them it can be hard to pinpoint certain data points such as pottery trends transferring from Middle Bronze Age III to Late Bronze Age 1. However we can be fairly certain that using archaeological methods and studying Scripture can help us obtain a chronology of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. I have come to the conclusion that the conquest took place around 1400 B.C. give or take 15 years. There is not enough archaeological evidence to prove otherwise and this timeframe matches up with multiple scripture passages as well. We have many examples of Late Bronze Age IIB pottery that match up with pottery found at sites like Jericho city IV. Also we can generally trust data such a Carbon-14 dating of strata that exhibit destruction levels to know when the destruction took place. Most of the archaeological taken at various tells seem to point towards an early conquest. The Bible points toward an early conquest, therefore we should be on guard against throwing random dates based on one new pottery sherd we found at a Tell that has already been interpreted by numerous scholars and archaeologists to have been destroyed around 1400 B.C.

Bibliography

Aling, Charles F. "The Biblical City of Ramses." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:2 (1982): 129-137. JETS on-Line.

Aling, Charles F. "The Sphinx Stele of Thutmose IV and the Date of the Exodus." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22:2 (1979): 97-101. JETS on-Line.

Battenfield, James R. "A Consideration of the Identity of the Pharaoh of Genesis 47." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15:2 (1972): 77-85. JETS on-Line.

Bienkowski, Piotr. "Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age." Biblical Archaeology Review 16:5 (1990): 45-46.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster P, 1981. 129-133.

Callaway, Joseph A. "Book Review: Redating the Exodus and Conquest." Rev. of Redating the Exodus and Conquest, by John J. Bimson. The Biblical Archeologist 1981: 252-253.

Hansen, David G. "The Cities are Great and Walled Up to Heaven:" Canaanite Fortifications in the Late Bronze I Period. Near East Archaeological Society. Frederick: Associates for Biblical Research, 2000. 2-11.

Mattingly, Gerald L. "The Exodus-Conquest and the Archaeology of Transjordan: New Light on an Old Problem." Grace Theological Journal 4:2 (1983): 245-262.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Palestinian Archaeology and the Date of the Conquest: Do Tells Tell Tales?" Grace Theological Journal 3 (1982): 107-121.

Rea, John. "The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus." Grace Theological Journal 2:1 (1961): 5-14.

Wood, Bryant G. "Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski is Wrong on All Counts." Biblical Archaeology Review 16:5 (1990): 45, 57.

Wood, Bryant G. "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look At the Archaeological Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review 16:2 (1990): 44-57.