The Historicity of the Canaanite Conquest

Dates of Composition for Conquest Narratives

The books that describe the Israelite conquest of Canaan, primarily Joshua and parts of Numbers and Deuteronomy, were likely composed much later than the events they purport to describe. This temporal distance raises questions about their historical reliability.

Joshua

Most scholars date the final form of Joshua to the 7th or 6th century BCE, during or after the Babylonian Exile:
- Linguistic analysis shows late Biblical Hebrew features, such as Aramaic loanwords.
- The book references the Exile (Joshua 20:9), indicating a post-exilic perspective.
- Archaeological evidence contradicts many conquest accounts, suggesting later composition.
This places its composition about 600-700 years after the supposed conquest (traditionally dated to around 1200 BCE):
- The gap allows for significant mythologizing and reinterpretation of events.
- Comparable to writing about the Norman Conquest of England (1066 CE) in the present day.
The book likely incorporates earlier traditions and sources, but these were shaped by later theological and political concerns:
- Deuteronomistic ideology emphasizing centralized worship and covenant loyalty.
- Justification for Judahite territorial claims in the 7th-6th centuries BCE.
- Reflection of post-exilic concerns about land promises and divine judgment.

Deuteronomy

Generally considered part of the Deuteronomistic History, which includes Joshua:
- Shares common theological themes and linguistic style with Joshua-2 Kings.
- Shows evidence of multiple redactions, with final form in exilic or post-exilic period.
Most scholars date its composition to the 7th century BCE, during the reign of King Josiah:
- Parallels between Deuteronomy and Josiah's reforms (2 Kings 22-23).
- Emphasis on centralized worship aligns with Josiah's policies.
- Linguistic features consistent with late pre-exilic Hebrew.
It may incorporate some older material, but its final form reflects the concerns of a much later period:
- Possible incorporation of older legal codes and traditions.
- Reinterpretation of these traditions in light of 7th-6th century BCE political and religious contexts.
- Addresses issues relevant to exilic and post-exilic communities.

Numbers

Part of the Pentateuch, with a complex composition history:
- Evidence of multiple sources: Priestly (P), Jahwist (J), and Elohist (E) traditions.
- Shows signs of extensive redaction and compilation.
Final form likely dates to the post-exilic period (after 539 BCE):
- Contains late Biblical Hebrew features and Persian loanwords.
- Reflects post-exilic priestly concerns about ritual purity and social organization.
- Genealogies and census data suggest late compilation and idealization of Israel's past.
Contains various source materials, some potentially older, but heavily edited and shaped by later priestly writers:
- Possible incorporation of older wilderness traditions and legal materials.
- Evidence of priestly editing in genealogies, ritual laws, and narrative framing.
- Thematic connections to other post-exilic texts like Ezra-Nehemiah.

"The conquest narrative in the book of Joshua is best viewed as a foundation myth for Israelite society in the monarchic period, using traditions of various origins to justify territorial claims and promote national unity."

Ann E. Killebrew, archaeologist and professor at Penn State University

The late composition dates of these texts, centuries after the events they describe, suggest that they are not contemporaneous historical accounts but rather later theological and political interpretations of Israel's past. This temporal distance increases the likelihood of legendary embellishment and the projection of later concerns onto earlier periods.

Archaeological Evidence Against the Conquest

1. Lack of Destruction Layers

Many cities mentioned in the conquest narrative show no evidence of destruction during the proposed conquest period (Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age, c. 1200 BCE):

Jericho: Excavations by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s showed that the city was unoccupied and in ruins during the proposed conquest period.
Ai: The site identified as ancient Ai (et-Tell) shows no occupation between 2400 BCE and 1200 BCE, long before and after the supposed conquest.
Heshbon: No evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation has been found at the site.

There is no evidence of a unified conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the thirteenth century BCE. The story of the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land must be considered as a pious saga rather than as a historical account.

William G. Dever, archaeologist and professor emeritus at the University of Arizona

2. Continuity in Material Culture

Archaeological evidence shows continuity rather than disruption in Canaanite material culture:

Pottery styles evolve gradually without sudden changes that would indicate a new population.
Building techniques and architectural styles show continuity from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age.
Religious practices and cultic objects show gradual evolution rather than abrupt change.

3. Gradual Settlement Pattern

Evidence suggests a gradual process of settlement rather than a rapid military conquest:

Small, unfortified villages appear in the central hill country during the early Iron Age.
These settlements show continuity with Canaanite material culture, suggesting internal population movement rather than external invasion.

Textual and Historical Issues

1. Anachronisms in the Biblical Text

The Book of Joshua contains details that appear to be anachronistic:

Mention of the Philistines, who did not arrive in the region until after 1200 BCE.
References to cities like Ai and Arad, which were uninhabited during the proposed conquest period.
Use of the term "Canaanites" as a unified group, which is not supported by historical evidence.

2. Lack of Extra-Biblical Evidence

There is no contemporary textual evidence outside the Bible that supports the conquest narrative:

Egyptian records from the period do not mention a large-scale invasion of Canaan.
The Amarna Letters (14th century BCE) describe conflicts in Canaan but do not mention Israelites.

3. Conflicting Biblical Accounts

Different parts of the Bible present conflicting views of the conquest:

The Book of Joshua describes a rapid, total conquest.
The Book of Judges suggests a more gradual process of settlement and conflict.

The conquest narrative in Joshua is best viewed as an origin myth for the Israelite people, composed long after the events it purports to describe.

Israel Finkelstein, archaeologist and professor at Tel Aviv University

Alternative Models

1. Gradual Infiltration Model

This model suggests that the Israelites gradually infiltrated Canaan over a long period:

Small groups of pastoral nomads settled in the sparsely populated hill country.
Over time, these groups coalesced into the Israelite identity.

2. Peasant Revolt Model

Proposed by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald, this model suggests:

The Israelites emerged from the indigenous Canaanite population.
A social and religious revolution led to the formation of a new ethnic identity.

3. Gradual Emergence Model

This model, supported by many current scholars, proposes:

The Israelites emerged gradually from within Canaanite society.
A combination of factors, including climate change, political collapse, and social transformation, led to the emergence of a distinct Israelite identity.

Conclusion

The archaeological and historical evidence does not support the biblical account of a rapid, violent conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Instead, it suggests a complex process of gradual social, cultural, and religious change within Canaan itself. The conquest narrative in Joshua likely reflects later theological and political concerns rather than historical events. However, this does not negate the importance of the narrative in understanding the development of Israelite identity and religious thought.

The actual emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it.

William G. Dever, "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?"