Hi Rich,
It appears that Jar is not the only one who questions the literal meaning of Biblical verse. I previously stated that I don't care to debate this issue.
It has nothing to do with the literal reading of the text, you were going on about ‘historical verification’, I could actually ignore the Bible altogether and just examine the archaeological and anthropological evidence, which would lead to the same conclusion. There was no unified military campaign across Palestine in the 13th or 14th century BC, there is no evidence whatsoever, it simply didn’t happen.
As far as chronology or dates are concerned, I don't need to check my dates, they were correct as found by Callaway, and Kenyon.
Rich, trust me, you are at least a thousand years too early for Joshua, 2400 BC was one occupation period yes, but you really need to read some of the literature. If you posit a date of 2400 BC for the conquest, you have a date of around 2440 for the Exodus bang in the middle of Noah’s Flood! You also have the enslavement in Egypt way back in 2800 or so, BEFORE the Flood. You must be misreading something somewhere. You could even start with the Bible, read 1 Kings 6:1, it gives a date for the Exodus of around 1440 BCE, clearly then the Conquest of Canaan has to be later than this. It is generally accepted that the ‘conquest’ is dated to the 13th century BCE, one reason is that the Merneptah Stele, which was erected around 1205 BCE, is the FIRST mention of ‘Israel’ (if that is what it says) outside of the Bible.
Another reason is because of the ten fold increase in settlements in the Palestinian hill country at the transition of the late bronze age / early iron age transition, the increase in the number of settlements was attributed by many scholars to the Israelites, however, improved techniques prove that a new element did not enter Palestine, the collapse of the system of city-states, or the settlements of pastoralists with links to these states are only two modern day explanations for these new settlements. But there was no major new influx of people into Palestine, you will not find a single modern day scholar who supports the Biblical account of the conquest of Palestine.
Erosion is an obvious explanation (even stated by Kenyon in her works) for the lack of evidence to support the Biblical chronology.
Erosion was used as an explanation by Albright to try and counter the fact that there was no settlement at Jericho in the 14th century BCE, but erosion is not used to explain every single site that contradicts the biblical text, there are literally hundreds of archaeological surveys that you can read, you really do need to read some of them.
A lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, it only leaves it in question.
I know, archaeology, anthropology and texts do not prove anything, what they do is to ‘imply’, Lewis Binford calls it ‘inference justification’, no historical explanations are ‘proven’, that is the nature of the discipline. However, the evidence, and it is not a lack of evidence, implies that the Bible’s version of the settlement in Palestine is hugely incorrect. For a military campaign on the scale that the Bible claims there would need to be some evidence, there isn’t. But there is evidence against the military campaign. For example, some of the sites that Joshua was said to have conquered were not occupied, some of the sites show no signs of destruction levels and the ones that do cannot be harmonised, there is no break in the material culture and no signs of any new material culture in Palestine at this time.
As far as Hazor is concerned, I'm afraid your wrong Brian. Both Garstang(1920's), and Yadin(1950's) found evidence to support the outline of biblical narratives.
Rich, you are using data from excavations carried out in the 20's and 50’s! These surveys are out dated, archaeology doesn’t stand still, I gave you Dever’s example from 1992. This is a feature that I notice quite a lot with the Bible lot, they use out-dated surveys and out-dated quotes to support their fantasies, I suggest you read more recent literature, I suggest you read Amnon Ben-Tor’s surveys carried out in the 1990’s.
Can you give me ONE reference to a scholar who argues for a 2400 BCE Exodus and conquest?
Chronology is what is questioned once again.
It isn’t just chronology though, it is the total absence of a new culture in Palestine.
Why does chronology carrie so much more weight with the bible, than any other historical document to come under scrutiny.
Chronology is the backbone of history, without an absolute chronology a theory cannot be tested. Most of the Bible chronologies are artificial, they follow chronological schemes rather than trying to reflect reality. Look at how Moses’ life is split into three equal groups of 40 years, life is never that well organised.
Shouldn't all history be judged by the same standards?
I sincerely wish it was! If it was the Bible would be on the fiction shelf long ago, if any other text was as consistently incorrect or contained as many myths as the Bible does, it would be binned long ago, the Bible is the one that is given special treatment.
Joshua 1-12 and Judges 1: Judges 1 is not a chronological 'next' of Joshua, rather, it is a recount of the Israelite conquest or settlement of the Land.
According to Judges 1:1 the events contained within are ‘after the death of Joshua’. I quote from the KJV: Jud.1:1
Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?
If it is a recount, why is the description totally different from Josh.1-12, why are these things recorded said to have happened after Joshua died?
Incidentally, which text would you date as the earliest, which dates would you given to each text, and how do you conclude these?
Although it differs in context (Joshua: sweeping conquest, Judges: smooth settlement), they both cover Israelite entry into the land.
‘Differ in context’, they are two different accounts altogether. They ‘happened’ at two different times, once when the WHOLE of Israel was led by Joshua and another time by either a single tribe or an alliances of tribes AFTER Joshua died, the Bible is quite clear about this. How can you have a sweeping conquest AND a smooth entry?
This should answer your question concerning land back in the hands of original occupants.
Sorry, but it doesn’t.
As far as contradiction is concerned I would simply call it 2 different perspectives of the Israelite settlement of the land.
One perspective of a complete destruction under Joshua’s command, and another perspective of a smooth entry AFTER Joshua had died, interesting theory, care to support it with something a bit more substantial?
Cheers.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2