Most sections of the wall fell outward as the Bible says allowing the Israelites to walk up and into the city.In this last of my posts on archaeology and early Israel, I will focus attention on what is perhaps one of the biggest hang-ups that critics have with the historical trustworthiness of the Old Testament – the Exodus & Conquest.Modern Old Testament scholarship no longer even discusses an Exodus. Joshua speaks of cities being taken and kings being killed, but only three cities—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor—are said to have been burned.” As to the archaeological evidence for settlement in the land, Provan, et al., say “Thus, on the basis of the archaeological evidence alone, we know that (1) at the beginning of the Iron Age hundreds of new villages sprang up in the central hill country; (2) those who settled these villages apparently eschewed pig consumption, in contradistinction to their Canaanite neighbors on all sides; and (3) the new settlers may have been new arrivals from elsewhere, or (if we follow Finkelstein’s studies that find evidence of large number of pastoralists in the area throughout the crisis years of the Late Bronze Age) they may have already been in the area .Dever was quoted earlier saying that in spite of Albright’s arguments that there was a 13th century Moses who was a monotheist, “the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure, that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel’s history, probably not until the Exile and Return (see the state-of-the-art studies gathered in Miller, Hanson, and Mc Bride 1987).” For those who believe in the biblical Exodus, its date continues to be a vexing problem from the point of view of relating the biblical data (and date) to the extra-biblical material (archaeological and historical). As Hoffmeier succinctly remarks, ‘the villages do not tell us how long the settlers had been pastoralists in the area before settling, or whether they had moved about inside or outside of Canaan, or both, before becoming sedentary.’” The Amarna tablets coming from the 15th and 14th centuries should not be lightly dismissed as having a possible bearing on the entry of the Israelites.their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel.If this is multiplied up to reach the number in the nation we see that somewhere between 1 and 2 million people were involved.This would explain some of the diverse traditions which have become interwoven into the biblical documents. Albright believed in a conquest, but he thought it was in the thirteenth century. Provan says, “Today, most scholars regard Albright’s conquest model as a failure, which is not surprising since, as L.
Pages 211-214 are not cut to match the rest of the book's pages. Albright assigned a hieratic inscription dated to “regnal year four” found at Lachish to the fourth year of Merenptah and used it to date the conquest to ca.1230 BC, based on the high Egyptian chronology in use at the time. 77) is that there were Israelites in Canaan while other Israelites were in Egypt. Albright argues first that contemporary “civilizations” have little right to sit in judgment on others with regard to total warfare.These two linked up through a gradual infiltration into Palestine by the Egyptian Israelites. Secondly, he says, “It was fortunate for the future of monotheism that the Israelites of the Conquest were a wild folk, endowed with primitive energy and ruthless will to exist, since the resulting decimation of the Canaanites prevented the complete fusion of the two kindred folk which would almost inevitably have depressed Yahwistic standards to a point where recovery was impossible.” This issue will be taken up further in the next lecture on Canaanite religion.