Difficult Evidence

Jericho

The biblical account describes the dramatic collapse of Jericho's walls followed by Israelite destruction (Joshua 6). However, Kathleen Kenyon's extensive excavations determined that Jericho was destroyed around 1550 BCE, approximately 150-300 years before any proposed conquest date. Furthermore, during the Late Bronze Age (when the conquest supposedly occurred), Jericho was either abandoned or only sparsely occupied with no evidence of walls or fortifications that could have "come tumbling down."

Ai

Biblical narratives describe a major battle at Ai where Israelites conquered and burned this Canaanite city (Joshua 8). Archaeological excavations at et-Tell (the site identified as biblical Ai) reveal the city was abandoned by 2400 BCE and remained uninhabited until approximately 1200 BCE. This means Ai was an abandoned ruin for over a millennium during the purported conquest period, making the detailed battle account historically problematic.

Gibeon

According to Joshua 9, Gibeon was a "great city" that made a treaty with Israel. Excavations at el-Jib (identified as biblical Gibeon) reveal minimal or no occupation during the Late Bronze Age when the conquest supposedly occurred. The settlement only became significant during the Iron Age (after the proposed conquest period), contradicting the biblical description of an important city existing at the time.

Chronological Contradictions

The biblical chronology places the conquest either in the 15th century BCE (based on 1 Kings 6:1) or 13th century BCE (based on Exodus 1:11). However, many sites allegedly destroyed by Joshua show no evidence of destruction during these periods. Other cities mentioned as conquered were either nonexistent or unfortified during the proposed conquest periods, creating irreconcilable chronological contradictions with the biblical narrative.

Settlement Patterns

Rather than evidence of violent conquest by outsiders, archaeological surveys of central highlands settlements (dated 1200-1100 BCE) reveal gradual, peaceful establishment of villages with material culture showing strong continuity with Canaanite traditions. These settlements contain pottery, architecture, and agricultural practices consistent with indigenous Canaanite development rather than introduction by foreign invaders. This contradicts the biblical portrayal of Israelites as culturally distinct outsiders conquering the land.

Demographic Impossibilities

Based on Exodus 12:37, the biblical account implies an Israelite population of approximately 2 million people entering Canaan. Archaeological surveys establish the entire population of Canaan during this period at only 50,000-100,000 people. Such a massive population influx would have caused catastrophic agricultural strain, widespread societal collapse, and enormous archaeological footprints - none of which are evident in the archaeological record.

Egyptian Control of Canaan

During both proposed conquest periods (15th and 13th centuries BCE), Egypt maintained strong military control over Canaan. Archaeological evidence includes Egyptian administrative centers, military garrisons, and detailed records of tribute collection. The Amarna Letters (14th century BCE) document Egyptian oversight of Canaanite vassals. No Egyptian records mention Israelite invasion or conquest, which would have been a significant challenge to Egyptian authority and certainly documented in their meticulous historical records.

Merneptah Stele Contradictions

Dating to approximately 1208 BCE, this Egyptian victory monument mentions "Israel" as already established in Canaan - but as a people group rather than a political state. This contradicts the biblical chronology, especially the early conquest model (15th century BCE), as it would place Israel in Canaan centuries after their supposed conquest. The stele's context suggests Israel was just one of several indigenous Canaanite entities rather than recent conquerors from outside.

Hebron and Transjordanian Cities

Joshua 10-12 describes conquests of Hebron and cities in Transjordan, including Heshbon. Archaeological excavations at Hebron show minimal or no Late Bronze Age occupation, while Tell Hesban (biblical Heshbon) was uninhabited during this period and only established in Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE). These anachronisms suggest the conquest narratives were composed centuries later when these cities existed, projecting contemporary geography onto tales of earlier periods.

Material Culture Continuity

The archaeological hallmarks of early Israelite settlements (12th-11th centuries BCE) show strong continuity with Canaanite material culture rather than Egyptian or foreign influence. Housing designs, pottery styles, cooking installations, and agricultural techniques all evolved directly from Canaanite precedents. This material evidence directly contradicts the biblical narrative of foreigners bringing distinct cultural practices from Egypt into Canaan.

Absence of Destruction Layers

Joshua 10-11 describes widespread destruction of Canaanite cities, yet archaeological excavations show no consistent pattern of destruction layers dating to either proposed conquest period across Canaan. Many sites supposedly destroyed by Israelites show continuing occupation without interruption, while others show destruction at times that don't align with biblical chronology, undermining the historical accuracy of the systematic military campaign described in Joshua.

The Biblical Account

According to the books of Joshua and Judges, after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years following the Exodus from Egypt, the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. The biblical narrative describes:

  • Military campaigns against Canaanite cities including Jericho, Ai, and Hazor
  • The collapse of Jericho's walls after Israelites marched around the city
  • Complete destruction of many Canaanite settlements
  • Subsequent distribution of land among the Israelite tribes
  • Gradual rather than immediate conquest of the entire land

Modern scholars and archaeologists have extensively debated the historical accuracy of this account, with significant evidence challenging the biblical narrative.

Major Scholarly Perspectives

1. Traditional Conquest Model

Supports the biblical account of Israelites conquering Canaan from outside. This view is divided between:

  • Early Conquest (15th century BCE): Aligns with 1 Kings 6:1 dating of Exodus 480 years before Solomon's temple
  • Late Conquest (13th century BCE): Associated with William F. Albright and Yigael Yadin, based on archaeological dating of destruction layers

2. Infiltration/Migration Model

Proposed by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth, suggests Israelites gradually infiltrated Canaan as peaceful semi-nomadic herders who settled in the highlands. Military conflicts came later and were smaller in scale than described in Joshua.

3. Peasant Revolt Model

Developed by George Mendenhall, proposes that "Israel" formed from an internal revolution among Canaanite peasants against their overlords. The conquest narrative would be a theological retelling of this social transformation.

4. Indigenous Development Model

William Dever suggests Israelites were mainly indigenous Canaanites who moved from the lowlands to the highlands, developing a distinct identity over time. Archaeological evidence shows approximately 300 new small agricultural villages appeared in the hill country during the 13th-12th centuries BCE.

Conclusion

The archaeological evidence presents substantial challenges to the historicity of the conquest of Canaan as described in the biblical narrative. The absence of destruction layers at key sites, chronological discrepancies, material culture continuity, and demographic considerations all point toward a more complex emergence of Israelite identity than a military conquest by outsiders.

The evidence instead suggests that early Israel likely emerged largely from within Canaanite society through a combination of social transformation, limited migration, and gradual cultural differentiation. The biblical conquest narrative appears to represent a later theological interpretation of Israel's origins rather than a historically accurate account of events.

Modern archaeological scholarship increasingly views the conquest narrative as a foundation myth that served important theological and national identity purposes for later Israelites, rather than as a historically reliable account of Israel's beginnings in Canaan.