Israelite Settlement Model

Israelite Settlement Model

1.   The Land

1.1.              Promise of the Land

1.2.              Imperative of the Land

1.3.              Theology of the Land

2.   The Settlement in the Land

3.   Models proposed by different Scholars

3.1.              Conquest Model

3.1.1.                Key aspect of the model

3.1.2.                Critic of this model

3.2.             Peaceful Infiltration model

3.2.1.                Key aspect of the model

3.2.2.                Critic of this model

3.3.             Peasant Revolt Model

3.3.1.                Key aspect of the model

3.3.2.                Critic of this model

4.   Conclusion

1.   The Land

For Israelite the Land is the most significant thing for their life. Finally, a slave group with no name and having no place to call as their own land has reached to the goal of finding a land which is there for them to claim as their own inheritance.

1.1.              Promise of the Land: Entering in to the land is the fulfilment of the promise made to their ancestor Abraham in Torah. Genesis 12 describes how God called Abraham and blessed the nations through him. And also He promised him and his children to inherit the land of Canaan.

1.2.              Imperative of the Land: the book of Joshua from chapter 1 till 12 describes that the people of Israel need to acquire the promise land and settle down. Jos 1:6 and 13:6-7 says that Joshua was commanded to divide the land among the tribes as an inheritance and he divided it.

1.3.              Theology of the Land: Inheritance is a theologically rich concept that guided Israel's relationship to the land. The basic idea is that the land is Yahweh's land. "The earth is the Lord's," says Yahweh (Lev. 25:23). Throughout Joshua 13-19, land is first and foremost an inheritance given to Israel by Yahweh. Land is Yahweh's gift to be passed on from generation to generation.

2.   The Settlement in the Land

The origin of ancient Israel, their settlement in the land of Canaan and transformation into an organised kingdom is one of the most stimulating and full of debate. Various models have been proposed to account for the emergence of Israel in Canaan.

The major source which gives the Israelite settlement is Biblical, extra biblical and archaeological. The Biblical sources are heavily dependent upon the book of Joshua and Judges. The extra biblical sources are the famous Merneptah Stela and Amarna letters.

3.   Models proposed by different Scholars

3.1.              Conquest Model

This model is traditionally believed as the most biblical compared with other approaches. This model is proposed by scholars W.F. Albright and Wright from America and Y.Yadin from Israel. They seriously consider the Israel’s enter to the Canaan involved military conquest.

3.1.1.               Key aspect of the model

·         Joshua 1-12.The scholars of this school attempts to 13^th century destruction of Bethel, Debir, Eglon, Hazor and Lachish to the invading of Israelites.

·         Judges 1. – Retaking of sites that have been retaken before. It depends largely on destruction (burn) layers at Bethel, Lachish, and Hazor 

·         Biblical evidence and calculation dates the exodus of Israelites in 15^th Century not on 13^th Century. 1 King 6:1 cites the exodus to the 4^th year of Solomon’s reign as the 480^th year after Israelites came out of Egypt. If Solomon’s reign begins in 970 BC then his fourth year would fall on 966 BC and biblical date of exodus would fall on 1446 BC. But Wright and many came up with solution that biblical generation cannot be taken strictly as 40 years which resulted in the calculation of 480 years of 12 generation up to Solomon. But a generation can be calculated as 25 to 30 years and by doing so Solomon’s 4^th year would be 300 years late dating the exodus into 1270 BC.

3.1.2.               Critic of this model

·         Today most scholars regard Albright’s conquest model as a failure because of its simplistic, literal reading of Joshua.

·         Conquest model assumes massive destruction property as well as populations, whereas book of Joshua suggest no such things. He speaks of cities being taken and kings being killed. Only there cities Jericho, Ai and Hazor being burnt.

3.2.             Peaceful Infiltration model

While the conquest model was gaining momentum in America and Israel, European scholars seemed more attracted to Albrecht Alt’s co called “peaceful infiltration model. His Hypothesis was Israel’s enter to canana was neither sudden nor military rather it was quote gradual and largely peaceful at least at first.

3.2.1.               Key aspect of the model

·         According to Noth the early Israel consisted of a twelve tribe amphictyony- namely a federation of tribe bound together by allegiance to a common God and a common cult center.

·         Noth regarded the book of Joshua’s account of “the conquest” as largely etiological in nature. An etiology being a story whose chief purpose is to explain the existence of certain features I the land or certain customs, names of beliefs.

3.2.2.               Critic of this model

·         The peaceful infiltration theory has been criticized on a number of grounds. Based as it was on classical Greek models, the amphictyony hypothesis seemed out-dated and out of consensus with the biblical testimony that early Israel was bound together ethnically as well as religiously.

·         This view is also has been faulted for having a deficient view of how pastoralism actually operates

3.3.             Peasant Revolt Model

The previous two models proposes the exogenous (entering from outside) while the next two represents the endogenous model (early Israel emerging from existing populations within the Canaan.

3.3.1.               Key aspect of the model

·         George Mendenhall propounded the model. This approach primarily holds that Israel emerged in Canaan not primarily by conquest or peaceful infiltration but by sociocultural transformation within.

·         Facing heavy taxation and little to no access to property or power, the Canaanite peasants grew increasingly dissatisfied with what they saw as oppressive conditions. Eventually, these individuals came together and violently revolted against the city-state system. These dissidents were later joined by a small group of Transjordan slaves who recently had escaped from their own slavery in Egypt. As these various oppressed people converged in their interests and combined in their efforts, a wide-scale revolt began that sought to establish an egalitarian socio-political order in direct opposition to the power structure of the city-states and their rulers.

3.3.2.               Critic of this model

·         Even Mendenhall recognized that he did not derive from sufficient data and he believes to be lacking.

·         His model has been characterized as sociological frame work.

4.   Conclusion

·         In light of the three settlement theories discussed, conclusions can be drawn about the emergence of Israel in Canaan that none of the theories on its own can fully account for the biblical and archaeological data.

The emergence of ancient Israel, however construed, cannot be fully understood in an ideological vacuum. While religious experience and practice all certainly played a role in the history of Israel, so too did other factors such as ecological, economic, social, and political circumstances, to name just a few. By attending to these various influences and how they might have affected the emergence of Israel, we can better situate certain interpretive questions about the lived realities of past communities.