The Quest For Historical Israel
Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel
Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial
Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular
Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005
Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar
edited by Brian B. Schmidt
Brill Leiden • Boston 2007
ISBN: 978-90-04-15738-5
The Patriarchs, Exodus, and Conquest Narratives
in Light of Archaeology
Amihai Mazar
The Exodus
No direct evidence on the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus can
be extracted from archaeology. The only evidence that one might seriously
consider is circumstantial.
Page 59
In spite of the late-second-millennium b.c.e. relics in the biblical nar-
rative and the few geographical features in the story that may be
identified, the Exodus story, one of the most prominent traditions in
Israelite common memory, cannot be accepted as an historical event and
must be defined as a national saga. We cannot perceive a whole nation
wondering through the desert for forty years under the leadership of
Moses, as presented in the biblical tradition.
Page 60
Archaeologists like John Garstang, William F. Albright, Yigael Yadin, and
others presented the Israelite conquest of the country as a short-lived
event that could be identified archaeologically. Yadin was perhaps the last
to present Joshua as a real military hero who conquered city after city in
Canaan in line with the biblical narrative. Since the 1960s, however, it
has become obvious that this was not the historical reality. Archaeological
investigations have shown that many of the sites mentioned in these
conquest stories turned out to be uninhabited during the assumed time of
the Conquest, ca. 1200 b.c.e. This is the case with Arad, eshbon, ¡Ai, and
Yarmuth. At other sites, there was only a small and unim- portant
settlement at the time, as at Jericho, and perhaps Hebron.
Page 61
It is thus now accepted by all that archaeology in fact contradicts the
biblical account of the Israelite Conquest as a discreet historical event
led by one leader. Most scholars of the last generation regard the
Conquest narratives as a literary work of a much later time, designed to
create a pan-Israelite, national saga.
page 62
At the same time, it must be noted that neither Joshua nor any other
Israelite tradition makes mention of a major historical reality of the
second millennium b.c.e., namely, that Canaan was underEgyptian domination
for three hundred years.
Page 64
In sum, archaeology negates the biblical “Israelite Conquest” as an historical
event, yet it may shed some light on the various ways in which
memories of actual situations and events rooted in the second millennium
b.c.e., early aetiologies and invented stories all found their way into
the later, “melting pot” we call today the Pentateuch and the book of
Joshua.
Page 65
Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel
Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial
Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular
Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005
Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar
edited by Brian B. Schmidt
Brill Leiden • Boston 2007
ISBN: 978-90-04-15738-5
The Patriarchs, Exodus, and Conquest Narratives
in Light of Archaeology
Amihai Mazar
The Exodus
No direct evidence on the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus can
be extracted from archaeology. The only evidence that one might seriously
consider is circumstantial.
Page 59
In spite of the late-second-millennium b.c.e. relics in the biblical nar-
rative and the few geographical features in the story that may be
identified, the Exodus story, one of the most prominent traditions in
Israelite common memory, cannot be accepted as an historical event and
must be defined as a national saga. We cannot perceive a whole nation
wondering through the desert for forty years under the leadership of
Moses, as presented in the biblical tradition.
Page 60
Archaeologists like John Garstang, William F. Albright, Yigael Yadin, and
others presented the Israelite conquest of the country as a short-lived
event that could be identified archaeologically. Yadin was perhaps the last
to present Joshua as a real military hero who conquered city after city in
Canaan in line with the biblical narrative. Since the 1960s, however, it
has become obvious that this was not the historical reality. Archaeological
investigations have shown that many of the sites mentioned in these
conquest stories turned out to be uninhabited during the assumed time of
the Conquest, ca. 1200 b.c.e. This is the case with Arad, eshbon, ¡Ai, and
Yarmuth. At other sites, there was only a small and unim- portant
settlement at the time, as at Jericho, and perhaps Hebron.
Page 61
It is thus now accepted by all that archaeology in fact contradicts the
biblical account of the Israelite Conquest as a discreet historical event
led by one leader. Most scholars of the last generation regard the
Conquest narratives as a literary work of a much later time, designed to
create a pan-Israelite, national saga.
page 62
At the same time, it must be noted that neither Joshua nor any other
Israelite tradition makes mention of a major historical reality of the
second millennium b.c.e., namely, that Canaan was underEgyptian domination
for three hundred years.
Page 64
In sum, archaeology negates the biblical “Israelite Conquest” as an historical
event, yet it may shed some light on the various ways in which
memories of actual situations and events rooted in the second millennium
b.c.e., early aetiologies and invented stories all found their way into
the later, “melting pot” we call today the Pentateuch and the book of
Joshua.
Page 65
I am a sovereign citizen of the Multiverse, and I vote!
