Early Israelite campaigns: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:34, 3 January 2015 editYobot (talk \| contribs)Bots4,733,870 editsm Removed invisible unicode characters + other fixes, replaced: → (24), added Empty section (1) tag using AWB (10652)← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:05, 9 January 2015 edit undoProfGray (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,034 edits →top: review of scholarship begunTag: Visual edit Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{{Campaignbox Early Israelite Campaigns}}		{{Campaignbox Early Israelite Campaigns}}
	Biblical narratives of an Israelite conquest have long been a subject of religious inquiry and, in the 20th century, a debate over the archaeological evidence and historicity of the putative conquest. According to the Bible, after the ] from ] (thought by some scholars to have been c. 1450 BCE and by many other scholars to have never taken place), the ] wandered into ], seeking a home that they could make their own. After two fierce battles, they gained control.		Biblical narratives of an Israelite conquest have long been a subject of religious inquiry and, in the 20th century, a debate over the archaeological evidence and historicity of the putative conquest. According to the Bible, after the ] from ] (thought by some scholars to have been c. 1450 BCE and by many other scholars to have never taken place), the ] wandered into ], seeking a home that they could make their own. After two fierce battles, they gained control.

			== Scholarship on the Israelite campaigns ==
			In early 20th Century academic scholarship, the historicity of the early Israelite campaigns were taken for granted (e.g., Paton). However, by the 1930's Martin Noth issued what Albricht termed "a sweeping criticism of the legitimacy of using biblical data in Joshua as material for history." (Albricht, April 1939, p.12). Noth was a student of Alt, who emphasized ] and the importance of ]. (Abricht, ibid.) Albricht himself questioned the "tenacity" of etiologies, which were relevant to the analysis of the campaigns in Joshua. Archaeological evidence in the 1930's showed that the city of Ai, an early battled in the putative ''Joshua'' account, had existed and been destroyed, but in 22nd century BCE (Albricht, p.16). Hence, it was argued that the early Israelite campaign could not be historically corroborated, but rather explained as an etiology of the location and a representation of the Israelite settlement.

			In 1955, Wright discusses the correlation of archaeological data to the early Israelite campaigns, which he divides into three phases per the ''Book of Joshua''. He points to two sets of archaeological findings that "seem to suggest that the biblical account is in general correct regarding the nature of the late thirteenth and twelfth-eleventh centuries in the country" (i.e., "a period of tremendous violence"). (Wright, p.107) He gives particular weight to what were recent digs at Hazor by ].

			In later years of the 20th century, academic analysis tended to be increasingly skeptical of the historicity of the early Israelite military campaigns as described in Joshua. To be sure, scholarship remained somewhat divided with some more deferential to the Biblical account. For example, Kennedy argues that "a vast amount of archaeological evidence indicates that the sites of Jericho, Hazor, Shechem, and Dan were occupied, destroyed, and resettled at the specific times and in the manner consistent with the records from the books of Joshua and Judges."

			On the other hand, the work of Dever and Van Seters, among others, pulls back considerably from the presuppositions of early scholars.

	== Campaign ==		== Campaign ==

Revision as of 15:05, 9 January 2015

An editor has nominated this article for deletion.
You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it.Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. For more information, see the guide to deletion.
Find sources: "Early Israelite campaigns" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FEarly+Israelite+Campaigns%5D%5DAFD

The Bible and warfare

Hebrew
Bible
battles

Torah / Pentateuch battles	Battle of Siddim Crossing the Red Sea Battle of Refidim Golden calf War against the Midianites
Joshua and Judges battles	Fall of Jericho Battle of Ai Battle of Hazor Battle of the Waters of Merom Battle of Mount Tabor Gideon's campaign (Well of Harod) Micah's Idol / Sack of Laish Benjamite War / Battle of Gibeah Battle of Aphek Battle of Mizpah
United monarchy period	Battle of Michmash David or Elhanan versus Goliath Battle of Mount Gilboa Pool of Gibeon Siege of Jebus Battle of the Wood of Ephraim Baal-perazim Jeroboam's Revolt Shishak's raid of Jerusalem Battle of Mount Zemaraim
Israel and Judah period	Battle of Zephath Israelite–Aramean War Syro-Ephraimite War Sennacherib's campaign in Judah Siege of Lachish Assyrian siege of Jerusalem Battle of Megiddo (609 BC) Judah's revolts against Babylon Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)
Exilic period	Purim war (Book of Esther)

Bible Portal

Biblical narratives of an Israelite conquest have long been a subject of religious inquiry and, in the 20th century, a debate over the archaeological evidence and historicity of the putative conquest. According to the Bible, after the Exodus from Egypt (thought by some scholars to have been c. 1450 BCE and by many other scholars to have never taken place), the Israelites wandered into Canaan, seeking a home that they could make their own. After two fierce battles, they gained control.

Scholarship on the Israelite campaigns

In early 20th Century academic scholarship, the historicity of the early Israelite campaigns were taken for granted (e.g., Paton). However, by the 1930's Martin Noth issued what Albricht termed "a sweeping criticism of the legitimacy of using biblical data in Joshua as material for history." (Albricht, April 1939, p.12). Noth was a student of Alt, who emphasized form criticism and the importance of etiology. (Abricht, ibid.) Albricht himself questioned the "tenacity" of etiologies, which were relevant to the analysis of the campaigns in Joshua. Archaeological evidence in the 1930's showed that the city of Ai, an early battled in the putative Joshua account, had existed and been destroyed, but in 22nd century BCE (Albricht, p.16). Hence, it was argued that the early Israelite campaign could not be historically corroborated, but rather explained as an etiology of the location and a representation of the Israelite settlement.

In 1955, Wright discusses the correlation of archaeological data to the early Israelite campaigns, which he divides into three phases per the Book of Joshua. He points to two sets of archaeological findings that "seem to suggest that the biblical account is in general correct regarding the nature of the late thirteenth and twelfth-eleventh centuries in the country" (i.e., "a period of tremendous violence"). (Wright, p.107) He gives particular weight to what were recent digs at Hazor by Yigael Yadin.

In later years of the 20th century, academic analysis tended to be increasingly skeptical of the historicity of the early Israelite military campaigns as described in Joshua. To be sure, scholarship remained somewhat divided with some more deferential to the Biblical account. For example, Kennedy argues that "a vast amount of archaeological evidence indicates that the sites of Jericho, Hazor, Shechem, and Dan were occupied, destroyed, and resettled at the specific times and in the manner consistent with the records from the books of Joshua and Judges."

On the other hand, the work of Dever and Van Seters, among others, pulls back considerably from the presuppositions of early scholars.

Campaign

The Israelites attacked the Canaanites. The ensuing Battle of Ai was an Israelite victory. Soon, a coalition of Canaanites and other northern city-states of Canaan sent a force to halt the Israelite invasions of their country. However, an Israelite counterattack caught their enemies by surprise and routed them. Afterwards, the Israelites became established in their "Promised Land".

References

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (January 2015)

Misplaced Pages