Journal: Grace Theological Journal
Volume: GTJ 03:1 (Spring 1982)
Article: Palestinian Archaeology and the Date of the Conquest: Do Tells Tell Tales?
Author: Eugene H. Merrill

---

GTJ 3:1 (Spr 82) p. 107

Palestinian Archaeology
and the Date of the Conquest:
Do Tells Tell Tales?

Eugene H. Merrill

The date of Israel’s conquest of Canaan is predicated basically, on the assumption that it was a military enterprise which, therefore, must have resulted in extensive destruction throughout the land. This being so, it is reasonable to expect that archaeological research would attest to this destruction. The date of the strata associated with the destruction would then yield the date of the conquest. The fallacy of this hypothesis is that the OT record does not allow for a conquest involving massive devastation; in fact, it takes quite the opposite position. It follows that any archaeological attestation of destruction cannot be used to date the conquest. Such dating must be deduced from the biblical literary data themselves, a process which allows a date compatible with the early date of the Exodus.

* * *

It may seem to be an exercise in futility and boring redundancy to explore once more the question of the date of Israel’s conquest of Canaan under Joshua. The two prevailing views, that of an early fourteenth century1 and that of a mid- to late-thirteenth century date,2 appear to be so firmly entrenched among the scholarly segments which hold them that there is no further need for discussion.

GTJ 3:1 (Spr 82) p. 108

Indeed, it may well be that the opposing schools of thought can never find rapprochement, particularly if archaeological evidence continues to be adduced and interpreted by both sides in support of their respective conclusions. The thesis of this paper is that while both parties in the debate have cited and utilized the same evidence to prove vastly different propositions, the biblical data themselves have strangely been largely overlooked. What does the OT have to say about any reasonable expectation that archaeology can shed light on the perplexing problem of dating the Conquest? Does it possibly suggest a via media, that archaeology, far from being friend or foe, has nothing at all to say to the question?3

Statement of the Problem

A few years ago Bruce Waltke pointed in the right direction when he argued that one should not expect archaeological documentation for an early or any other date for the Conquest since it was clearly Joshua’s policy not to destroy the population centers but only to “take” (לכד) them.4 That is, the biblical account itself presupposes an interpretation quite to the contrary of that held by the ...

visitor : : uid: ()