How did Israel become a people? Even skeptics have to deal with this question. They present a multitude of answers. Some posit that early Israelites were lower class Canaanites who revolted against the elite.1 Others assert that they originated as nomadic Shasu of Yahu who roamed east of Canaan.2 Still more claim that early Israel emerged after centuries of smaller exodoi. According to this last view, the Exodus is a collective cultural memory put to writing much later.3 The Bible tells a different story. I don’t plan to analyze each alternative proposal; that would make this article book length. Instead, I’ll focus on the biblical narratives to discover if they are consistent with archaeological finds.
Moses and the Amalekites (Exod 17)
It was the fifteenth day of the second month after the Exodus. The Israelites arrived at Rephidim, and Amalek came out to fight. It was a brutal hand to hand affair. Swords, maces, battle axes, and spears were everywhere. Moses was old. He managed to climb up and stand on a hill with arms raised. His goal: encourage the troops. It worked. Joshua the general prevailed. The Amalekites fled.
This battle was typical of ancient warfare. Cities were rarely destroyed. A few were burned. Winners accumulated stuff. As the picture above shows, these types of battles normally took place in unpopulated areas. What evidence can we expect to find now thousands of years later? Not much.
According to the scripture, the battle with Amalek happened at Rephidim. Where is Rephidim? Scholars are not sure. What if it could be found? Perhaps a sword might appear. I seriously doubt it would have Joshua’s name engraved. No conclusions could be drawn.
I suspect that many of Joshua’s battles were similar. Consider the Amorite city state kings (local heads) who warred by the waters of Merom. They had horses and chariots (Josh 11:4–5). How many? Who knows. Where are the waters of Merom? Many claim that it is the modern-day lake Hula (shown to the left). What might remain from this battle? Again, not much.
Perhaps archaeology could uncover the ruins of conquered cities. Joshua 24:13 quickly tempers expectations. It reads:
I gave you a land whereon you had not labored, and cities which you didn’t build, and you live in them. You eat of vineyards and olive groves which you didn’t plant.
The goal was not to destroy. It was to occupy. So, where does this leave us? The book of Joshua does record a few cities that were burned. Just maybe, remnants of these burnings remain.
Historical Context4
Throughout much of the twentieth century, the debate focused on a conquest narrative . This reading of the book of Joshua claims an ancient blitzkrieg. Israelite troops invaded, conquered, and destroyed everything in their path. All that breathed were put to the sword. Jericho was first, and its destruction was complete.
Is this what happened? Charles Warren found its location in 1868, a large mound (tell) overlooking the Jordan river. John Garstang carefully excavated the site 1930 through 1936. Then a breakthrough! He discovered walls that really did come tumbling down. He dated the destruction to somewhere around 1450 BCE. This was perfect. 1 kings 6 states:
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build Yahweh’s house.
We know that Solomon’s reign started in 970 BCE. Four hundred eighty years before his fourth year computes to 1446 BCE. Apparently, the biblical record was confirmed. Early date Exodus proponents were vindicated: “Archaeology proved the Bible.”
Not so fast. Sometime later (1952–1958), Kathleen Kenyon revisited the site with better methods. She dated the destruction to a hundred years earlier. Only a small unwalled village remained when Joshua came through. Carbon 14 dating of trees at the site confirmed her analysis. There was nothing for Joshua to conquer. No walls were there to tumble.
Bible believing archaeologists struck back. Bryant Wood analyzed the pottery and claimed that Kenyon’s dates were wrong.5 He noted that carbon dating of trees proves nothing. It doesn’t account for how long the trees were in the ground. An impasse remained for a time. But then, grain found at the site was tested. Kenyon’s dates were confirmed.6 Bryant Wood (and the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) for whom he works) refused to accept the finding.
Controversy continued. The skeptics declared victory saying:
Archaeology disproves the Bible. The conquest narrative of Joshua was written centuries after the events and therefore is of little or no historical value.
Some went even further. They pushed to rename the entire field of study, changing its name from Biblical Archaeology to Near Eastern Archaeology. Their goal was to separate the science from theological implications.
The Debate Continues
Enter Lorenzo Nigro.7 His excavations (1997–2022) discovered remnants of a twenty foot mud brick wall constructed on top of the previous destruction layer. He also uncovered remains of a palace that was renovated to serve as a governor’s residence. It was in use during the late 1200s BCE. He writes:
The Late Bronze Age, the age of internationalism, is a period characterized by intense interactions between the different regions and major political entities of the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean. . . . The site of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho fits well into this new political system of small, semi-autonomous city-states. Despite its reduced importance in the complex world system . . . the small city of Jericho still played a role in the general political framework, thanks to its strategic position at a crucial point of the interregional trade network.8
Nigro describes Jericho as a small, fortified thriving city in the late thirteenth century BCE that “fully reflects the characteristic settlement pattern and urban layout which characterized the southern Levantine Late Bronze Age urbanization.” He further explains that these discoveries were made despite extensive site-leveling done by later Greek, Roman, and Byzantine building activities.
The finds at Jericho are consistent with proposals made by late date Exodus proponents (dating the Exodus to around 1250 BCE). We have a stalemate. Skeptics remain unconvinced. Late date Exodus proponents are confident. Early date advocates downplay the evidence, holding fast to their 1400 BCE date.
Let’s consider the destruction of the city of Ai; Joshua’s second conquest. Where is it? The above map shows the tribe of Benjamin’s inheritance (Josh 11:18–28). Notice that Ai and Beth Aven have question marks after their names. Some even dispute the location of Bethel. It is hard to conclusively affirm much about the conquest of Ai if we don’t even know for sure where it was.
This being said, there are things we can know. Like Jericho, the city was burned. Only a few people lived there (Josh 7:3). Because it had a city gate (Josh 7:5; 8:29), it was likely fortified, perhaps shabbily built around a previous destruction.
The traditional location for Ai is Et-Tell. Archaeologist William Albright claimed this to be the only location with ruins satisfying the geographic requirements. Unfortunately, the walled city at that spot was destroyed and abandoned a thousand years too early. Joseph Callaway, a fervent Southern Baptist studied the site from 1964 through 1970. He concluded:
Ai is simply an embarrassment to every view of the conquest that takes the biblical and archaeological evidence seriously.9
This was a jolt to the evangelical community. Perhaps Et-Tell was not Ai. A search followed to check out other possible sites. One intriguing location is Khirbet el-Maqatir, about a mile due west and excavated by Bryant Wood. It features remnants of a small, fortified city with walls four meters (thirteen feet) thick, a gate on the north side, two towers, and some evidence of burning. The landscape appears consistent with the biblical account (Josh 7-8).10, 11
Scholars have issues with the el-Maqatir project. Not only does Bryant Wood propose a new location for Ai, but he also challenges the consensus for Bethel and Beth Avon. Scholars question the lack of evidence; published reports show mostly reconstructions. Questionable dating is another issue. The site appears to be from the Middle Bronze Age, which is too early for Joshua’s conquest.12 Things have changed a bit after two scarabs (beetle shaped talismans) were uncovered. These date to the reign of Thutmose III (1479–1426 BCE). They show that the site was still occupied in the Late Bronze Age.
So, where does this leave us. Skeptics tout the lack of evidence and assert that Joshua’s conquest of Ai never happened. Early date exodus advocates point to el-Maqatir. Late date proponents keep an open mind. Again, a stalemate.
Hazor13
Both Jericho and Ai were small outposts. Jericho guarded entry of those seeking to cross the Jordan to infiltrate from the east. Ai having a direct line of site to Jerusalem was a border garrison between north and south. One can see why Joshua would want to knock out these two strongholds. The Israelites then could begin occupying the sparsely populated hill country without interference from powerful city states like Jerusalem and Hazor. Unfortunately, that was not to be.
According to scripture, the king of Hazor heard about the incursions and immediately acted. He was well able to do this. The city of Hazor was huge by ancient standards. It covered a region of more than two hundred acres (thirty at the upper acropolis) and its population can be estimated to have been around twenty thousand. So, the king of Hazor summoned a coalition of surrounding city rulers. The biblical description fits. Hazor was the head of this coalition (Joshua 11:10).
Israel was in the fight for her life. A well-equipped army with horses and chariots prepared to rain down extermination. Similar to the six-day war in 1967 and beyond rational expectation, Israel prevailed. The kings were defeated; their cities were taken albeit temporarily. But then a surprise. Only Hazor was destroyed (Josh 11:13). We read later that Joshua’s headquarters remained at Gilgal (Joshua 14:6).
What does archaeology reveal? Unlike Ai, Hazor’s location is well-known. All agree. There was a massive destruction and burning dated to about 1200 BCE, exactly as late date Exodus proponents predict.14 Doesn’t this end the controversy? Well, no!
Early Exodus advocates cling to a date almost two hundred years earlier. They propose that this burn site actually refers to a battle in the time of Deborah (Judg 3, 4). That passage tells of a Canaanite king Jabin who ruled from a partially rebuilt Hazor. Unfortunately, the scripture never describes a burning, and the battle took place forty miles south at Mount Tabor.
Skeptics argue that the destroyers were not necessarily the Israelites. But who else could they be? Perhaps the Canaanites. But then, why would they mutilate their own idols? Maybe the Egyptians were responsible. Not likely. Egyptians did not burn cities; they taxed them. How about the Sea Peoples (Philistines)? Hazor was too far inland. The Sea Peoples clung to the coastal regions; they would not concern themselves with a powerful city state that was so far inland. This leaves the Israelites.
Conclusion
What can we conclude? Those with strong opinions are not likely to change their mind, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is especially true when theological implications come into view. I can say that for me, archaeology has not uncovered anything that shakes my confidence in the Bible.
My studies have affected how I read the books of Joshua and Judges. These are not books of conquest and destruction. They have a religious purpose. Blessings come when people adhere to the covenant. When they don’t, consequences follow. Repentance afterward leads to restoration. God is merciful and quick to forgive. I plan to expand on this in my next article. Stay tuned.
References
Mark D. Janzen, Five Views on The Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications , (2021), 83.
Jonathan Jefferson, “Moses, Akhenaten, and the Shasu: The Origins of the Israelites and YHWH,” Y Ddraig Goch: An Interdisciplinary Honors Journal , 1:2 (Spring 2000): 40–54.
Mark D. Janzen, Five Views on The Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications , (2021), 249–251.
Ralph K. Hawkins, How Israel Became a People , (2013), 91–104.
Bryant Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review , 16.2 (March/April 1990): 44–58, .
Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes Van Der Plight, “Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of Short-Lived Cereal and Multiyear Charcoal Samples from the End of the Middle Bronze Age,” Cambridge University Press (July 2016).
Lorenzo Nigro, “Jericho. From the Neolithic to the Bronze and Iron Ages: The Urban Diversity, ” Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East , Volume 2 (2023): 399–413.
Lorenzo Nigro, “Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Late Bronze Age: an Overall Reconstruction of light of Most Recent Research,” Sapienza University of Rome (2023).
J. A. Callaway, “New Evidence on the Conquest of Ai,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1968): 312-320.
Brian Windle, “Biblical Sites: The Lost City of Ai . . . Found,” Biblical Archaeology Report (April 12, 2019), .
Bryant G. Wood, “Locating ‘Ai: Excavations at Kh. el-Maqatir 1995–2000 and 2009–2014,” In the Highland’s Depth: Journal for the Study of Archaeology and History of the Highland’s region , Volume 6 (2016): 17–49.
Ralph K. Hawkins, How Israel Became a People (2013), 105–111,
The Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin
Ralph K. Hawkins, How Israel Became a People (2013), 112–117.
Thanks for listening,https://secondlooknow.com/
It seems like “inconclusive” is the verdict for most history before 1000 b.c. I studied under David Munson at wheaton, and he seemed pretty confident that Hazor matched up well with the biblical account.