The Date of the Conquest -- By: Bruce K. Waltke
Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 52:2 (Fall 1990)
Article: The Date of the Conquest
Author: Bruce K. Waltke
WTJ 52:2 (Fall 1990) p. 181
The Date of the Conquest
I. Introduction
The date of the Exodus depends in part on the chronology of Israel’s taking of territory on both sides of the Jordan River, about forty years after the Exodus according to the Bible. Israel’s chronology in taking of this land, however, depends on the theoretical model used to represent this occupation. Three primary models have been proposed: immigration, revolt, and conquest. The last is further analyzed into the double-conquest theories, the early-date theories, and the late-date theory.
The Bible, however, does not present a pure model. For example, the conquests of Jericho and Ai stand in contrast to the settlement reached with the Gibeonites, and both of these leave unexplained how Israel occupied Shechem, where whey renewed covenant with Yahweh. Archaeological results strengthen the supposition that the process of Israel’s entrance and occupation of the land was complex. Nevertheless, although most moderns think that the nature and chronology of Israel’s entrance into the land does not lie absolutely in one of these three alternatives but in a combination of them, they generally accept one as the more adequate and dominant model. In this essay the writer presents the three models, mentions their leading exponents, analyzes their sources, and critically appraises them by considering their strengths and weaknesses with an aim to establish the chronology of the conquest and so of the Exodus.
II. The Immigration Model
The immigration, or peaceful settlement model, created by Alt,1 developed by M. Noth,2 defended by Weippert,3 followed by Fohrer4 and
WTJ 52:2 (Fall 1990) p. 182
Hermann,5 and adapted by Kochavi,6 Finkelstein,7 et al., based itself originally on extrabiblical texts, especially on the annals of Thutmose III and on the Amarna Letters, and secondarily on archaeology. It reconstructs the development of the biblical narratives to fit the model in keeping with historical criticism. Many of the individual narratives in Joshua 2–11 are designated as late aetiologies, composed to give historical support to Israel’s claims to the possession of the land.
From the list of rebel city-states in the military annals of Thutmose III (1479 BC), Alt discerned a basic difference in the territorial division of the...
Click here to subscribe