Bryant G. Wood<\/b><\/p>\n
In today\u2019s climate of biblical scholarship, the vast majority believe that the Israelites first appeared in the land of Canaan at the end of the 13th century BC. Those who take the Bible seriously (a distinct minority), however, object to this dating since it conflicts with the Bible\u2019s own internal chronology which would place that event about 200 years earlier.<\/p>\n
In a recent review of the archaeological evidence from the beginning of the Iron Age (12th century BC), German scholar Volkmar Fritz has made an important contribution to our understanding of the Israelite settlement in \u201cConquest or Settlement?: The Early Iron Age in Palestine,\u201d Biblical Archaeologist,<\/i> 50\/2, June, 1987.<\/p>\n
Fritz concludes that the material culture of the small settlements from the 12th century BC, many of which undoubtedly were Israelite, was a continuation of Late Bronze Age material culture (with the exception of architectural design). This continuity, argues Fritz, \u201cis best explained by intensive, prolonged contact with the Canaanite culture. This contact must have occurred in the Late Bronze [Age]\u201d (p. 97). He further concludes that the Israelite tribes were not entirely nomadic prior to the advent of permanent villages:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe various groups that settled in the country from the 12th century onward cannot merely be regarded as former nomads. Periods of a partially sedentary life must have interspersed their nomadic existence; otherwise the wide-ranging adoption of Canaanite culture during the last phase of the Late Bronze Age cannot be explained\u201d (p.98).<\/p>\n
Fritz goes on to point out that, according to the Bible, particularly Judges 1, the Canaanites continued to live among the Israelite tribes for a considerable length of time after Israel\u2019s entry into the country. This can only be explained, he says, by the fact that the country was \u201coccupied by a process of settlement that took place over a longer period of time\u201d (p.99).<\/p>\n
Fritz\u2019 reconstruction is exactly what one would expect, based on the information given in Exodus-Judges. Prior to their entry into Canaan, the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years and prior to that they were slaves in Egypt. As a result, they had no material culture of their own. There were no potters to make pottery, no masons to build houses, and so on. After they entered the Promised Land, the Israelites lived in tents side-by-side with Canaanites for a prolonged period. It was during this time of \u201csymbiosis\u201d that the Israelites learned their crafts, probably from the Canaanites.<\/p>\n
Fritz\u2019 conclusions are especially important because he has determined from extra-biblical<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1988) p. 21<\/p>\n
evidence that the Israelites were in the land long before the appearance of the small agricultural villages in the early 12th century BC. This is yet a further reason for giving serious consideration to the thesis that the destructions which occurred at the end of the 15th century BC could very well have been caused by invading Israelites.<\/p>\n
Redating the Conquest<\/b><\/p>\n
Friends of the Associates for Biblical Research will be familiar with our suggestion (via John Bimson) that the end of Middle Bronze II, with the widespread destruction of the cities of that period, marks the military onslaught of Israel conquering the Promised Land. Bimson\u2019s definitive book, Redating the Exodus and Conquest<\/i> (which can be ordered through ABR Books), has been available to scholars Since 1978. Now John Bimson and Archaeology and Biblical Research<\/i> editor, David Livingston, have coauthored an article entitled \u201cRe-dating the Exodus\u201d in Biblical Archaeology Review<\/i> (9\u201310\/87). The article is really about redating the Conquest. But since the two are interrelated, it amounts to the same thing.<\/p>\n
Bimson makes two recommendations. His first is that scholars should return to the biblical date (about 1400 BC) for the Conquest. This date is calculated by using the 480 years mentioned in 2 Kings 6:1 to go backward in time from Solomon\u2019s founding of the Temple. The recommendation is prompted by an almost complete lack of archaeological evidence for a Conquest in the 13th century (about 1230\u20131220 BC), thus leaving no compelling reason to continue to peg it at that time.<\/p>\n
The second recommendation, heavily buttressed by a masterful grasp of the archaeological evidence, is that the widespread destruction of powerfully fortified cities at the close of the Middle Bronze II period represents the Conquest by Israel. The generally accepted date for these destructions has been about 1550 BC. But Bimson marshalls convincing evidence to demonstrate that this date has no basis in fact. He suggests lowering the date 130 years to about 1420 BC, linking the biblical date with the archaeological evidence close to the end of the 15th century.<\/p>\n
The authors also consider the question, \u201cWhere were the Israelites during Late Bronze II (1400\u20131200 BC)?\u201d After considering the evidence, they conclude that Late Bronze II was not strictly a \u201cCanaanite\u201d culture. Israel was there along with the Canaanites, but lived in tents in the countryside, while the Canaanites reoccupied destroyed cities. This seems in line with the picture conveyed by the book of Judges.<\/p>\n
One point we should mention is that brought up by Bryant Wood\u2019s \u201cJericho\u201d article in the Premiere Issue of Archaeology and Biblical Research.<\/i> Scholars may eventually realize that some of what has been thought<\/i> to be Middle Bronze II material from excavations may actually<\/i> be Late Bronze I. If that is the case (that some Late Bronze material may not have been recognized for what it is) Bimson\u2019s date for the end of Middle Bronze II may be 50 or so years earlier which would coincide with a date put forward by a number of scholars based on other consider-at-ions. This would put Late Bronze I at about 1470\u20131400 BC. This possibility is mentioned in a footnote on page 52.<\/p>\n
Along with the discussion on the<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1988) p. 22<\/p>\n
date of the Conquest, considerable attention is given to the problem of the identification ofAi. Khirbet Nisya, the site being excavated by the Associates for Biblical Research, is suggested as a possible alternative to the currently-accepted site of Et-Tell. Bimson\u2019s and Livingston\u2019s material is heavily footnoted and well-documented. The full article is worth digesting by serious biblical archaeology students.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Baruch Halpern, who seeks to refute the article in the November-December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review<\/i> loses much of the force of his arguments with his bombastic attitude. In scholarly discussion, it is not necessary to completely denigrate those with whom one disagrees. It is unfortunate that such a stimulating and important magazine as Biblical Archaeology Review<\/i> publishes articles with this kind of attitude. It seems unnecessary when carrying on a discussion of new ideas. Does everyone have to agree with the status quo<\/i>?<\/p>\n
Certainly, Halpern\u2019s strongest point is the shortness of time given to the Late Bronze I period by Bimson. But, in this regard he obviously ignored or misunderstood Bimson\u2019s concession (footnoted on page 52) regarding his redating timetable.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 1:1 (Winter 1988) p. 23<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bryant G. Wood In today\u2019s climate of biblical scholarship, the vast majority believe that the Israelites first appeared in the land of Canaan at the end of the 13th century BC. Those who take the Bible seriously (a distinct minority), however, object to this dating since it conflicts with the Bible\u2019s own internal chronology which … Continue reading “REVIEW:
\nVOLKMAR FRITZ ON THE ISRAELITE SETTLEMENT OF CANAAN”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}