![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/AltarEbal.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce wrote in his screed<\/span>,\u00a0\u201cDebunking the Exodus II: A Ridiculous Story with Ridiculous Claims\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(5-19-21):<\/span><\/p>\n They came out of the Sinai Peninsula to take over cities and take their homeland away from the Canaanites. Which was nice<\/span>.\u00a0[Little to absolutely no evidence of this.]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The red font is his own. He explains that \u201cwriting in red\u201d signifies why he thinks \u201cthe claim is entirely improbable\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n As usual, Jonathan leaves himself wide open to refutation, provides no scholarly back-up (I guess we are supposed to stand in awe of his bald claims regarding Israeli archaeology, as if they couldn\u2019t possibly<\/em> be disputed<\/em> by anyone<\/em>), and almost makes the elementary debate mistake of claiming a \u201cuniversal negative.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n Joshua\u2019s Altar on Mt. Ebal (?) \/ Shechem<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I wrote about one strong piece of archaeological evidence in 2014, right before I visited Israel:<\/span>\u00a0Joshua\u2019s Altar on Mt. Ebal: Findings of Recent Archaeology<\/a> (7-22-14). The article is very extensive, but to briefly summarize: Moses wrote about a future altar on Mt. Ebal, which is near the present city of Nablus in the West Bank (biblical<\/span> Shechem<\/a>). Joshua 8:30-35 describes it. Sure enough, there is a stone structure up there that seems to look very much like an ancient Israelite altar (the design of which is described in the Bible). Pottery sherds on the site were dated to the early part of<\/span> Iron Age 1<\/a> (1220-1000 B.C.): precisely the period in biblical chronology during which the Israelites conquered Canaan. The primary excavator,\u00a0Dr. Adam Zertal, wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n Yigael Yadin<\/strong>, original name\u00a0Yigael Sukenik<\/strong>, (born March 21, 1917, Jerusalem\u2014died June 28, 1984,\u00a0H\u0331adera<\/a>, Israel), Israeli archaeologist and military leader noted for his work on the\u00a0Dead Sea Scrolls<\/a>. Yadin, the son of an archaeologist, was educated at Hebrew University (M.A., 1945; Ph.D., 1955). He was a member of the\u00a0Haganah<\/a>\u00a0military organization from 1932 to 1948 and served as chief of the\u00a0general staff<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0Israel Defense Forces<\/a>\u00a0from 1949 to 1952. He was also deputy\u00a0prime minister<\/a>, 1977\u201381. Yadin, who was a leader of major archaeological expeditions in\u00a0Israel<\/a>, including those at Ha\u1e93or (1955\u201358; 1968), the Dead Sea Caves (1960\u201361), and\u00a0Masada<\/a>\u00a0(1963\u201365), became professor of\u00a0archaeology<\/a>\u00a0at Hebrew University in 1959. He received the laureate of Israel prize (1956) and the Rothschild humanities prize (1964). (Encyclopedia Britannica<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n Yohanan Aharoni<\/b>\u00a0(Hebrew<\/a>:\u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9)(7 June 1919 \u2013 9 February 1976) was an Israeli archaeologist and historical geographer, chairman of the Department of Near East Studies and chairman of the Institute of Archaeology at\u00a0Tel-Aviv University<\/a>.\u00a0. . .\u00a0<\/span>Aharoni studied archaeology at the\u00a0Hebrew University of Jerusalem<\/a>\u00a0and began to teach there in 1954. By 1966, he became a professor at the university. However, in 1968, he moved to Tel-Aviv University and became chairman of the Department of Near East Studies and chairman of the Institute of Archaeology. Aharoni participated in many excavations, including\u00a0Ramat Rachel<\/a>,\u00a0Tel Arad<\/a>,\u00a0Tel Be\u2019er Sheva<\/a>,\u00a0Tel Hazor<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Lachish<\/a>. He also studied ancient roadways in the\u00a0Negev<\/a>, and participated in the discovery of the Bar Kokhba caves while surveying and excavating the Dead Sea region in 1953. (Wikipedia<\/a>)<\/p>\n David Ussishkin<\/b>\u00a0(Hebrew<\/a>: \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05df; born 1935) is an\u00a0Israeli<\/a>\u00a0archaeologist<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0professor emeritus<\/a>\u00a0of archaeology. . . .\u00a0He studied archaeology and\u00a0Jewish History<\/a>\u00a0at the\u00a0Hebrew University of Jerusalem<\/a>\u00a0between 1955 and 1966. Received his\u00a0B.A.<\/a>\u00a0in 1958, his\u00a0Master of Arts<\/a>\u00a0degree in\u00a0Archaeology<\/a>\u00a0and Jewish History in 1962 (with distinction) and his\u00a0Ph. D.<\/a>\u00a0in 1966. His Doctoral\u00a0Thesis<\/a>\u00a0on \u201cThe Neo-Hittite Monuments, their Dating and Style\u201d was written under the guidance of professor\u00a0Yigael Yadin<\/a>.[2]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Beginning in 1966 and until his retirement in 2004 he taught\u00a0archaeology of Israel<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Hittite art<\/a>\u00a0at the\u00a0University of Tel Aviv<\/a>, receiving\u00a0full professorship<\/a>\u00a0in 1985. (Wikipedia<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Lachish<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Joshua 10:31-32<\/strong> And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to\u00a0<\/b>Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: [32] and the LORD gave\u00a0Lachish\u00a0into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II (c. 1400-1200 BC) between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys. Human activity was confined mainly to the large central tells\u2026. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that many additional Late Bronze sites will be discovered in the future, because it is difficult to overlook such major settlements. Other regions were also practically deserted during the Late Bronze period\u2026. In Iron I there was a dramatic swing back in the population of the hill country. About 240 sites of the period are known in the area between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys; 96 in Manasseh, 122 in Ephraim\u2026 and 22 in Benjamin and Judah. In addition, 68 sites have been identified in Galilee, 18 in the Jordan Valley and dozens of others on the Transjordanian plateau.<\/p>\n In addition, numerous, widespread, and catastrophic destructions separate the markedly different and more sophisticated \u201cCanaanite\u201d Late Bronze Age, and the cruder \u201cIsraelite\u201d Iron Age. Moving from north to south these cities are, Hazor (Tell el-Qedah), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), Succoth (Tell Deir\u00a0Alla<\/em>), Bethel (Beitin), Beth Shemesh (Tell er-Remeileh), Ashdod (Esdud), Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir), Eglon (Tell el-esi<\/em>), and Debir or Kiriath-Sepher (Tell Beit Mirsim or Khirbet Rabud). Of these cities, four are specifically said to have been destroyed by Joshua: Hazor (Josh 11:10-11), Lachish (Josh 10:31-33), Eglon (Josh 10:34-35), and Debir (Josh 10:38-39); Bethel is said to have been taken by the house of Joseph (Judg 1 :22-26).<\/p>\n The force of this argument is further enhanced by certain negative evidence. Some cities which the biblical sources exclude from the conquests have on excavation shown no signs of destruction in the thirteenth century.<\/p>\n These include Gibeon (el-Jib) (Joshua 9), Taanach (Tell\u00a0Taaannak<\/em>) (Judg 1:27), Shechem (Tell Balatah) (Josh 24), Jerusalem (el-Quds) (Josh 15:63; 2 Sam 5:6-9), Beth-shean (Tell el-husn<\/em>) (Judg 1:27-28), and Gezer (Tell Jezer) (Josh 10:33). Following the destructions at Hazor, Succoth, Bethel, and Debir (possibly also Gezer and Ashdod), unfortified and architecturally simple, even crude, settlements appear. (pp. 197-198)<\/p>\n [72] M. Kochavi, \u201cThe Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the light of Archaeological Surveys,\u201d\u00a0Biblical Archaeology Today<\/em>\u00a0(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 55.<\/p>\n [73] I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement<\/em>\u00a0(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 1988), 39.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce wrote in his screed,\u00a0\u201cDebunking the Exodus II: A Ridiculous Story with Ridiculous Claims\u201d\u00a0(5-19-21): They came out of the Sinai Peninsula to take over cities and take their homeland away from the Canaanites. Which was nice.\u00a0[Little to absolutely no evidence of this.] The red font is his own. He explains […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":57224,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,448],"tags":[4121,4129,13772,13769,13766,1043,258,522,1472,1473,525,524,2637,1633,1878,1720,1719,3141,1386,535,4068,140,2829,4107,951,1723,13763,13775,989,3143],"class_list":["post-57221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","tag-a-tippling-philosopher","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-ancient-hebrews","tag-ancient-israelites","tag-ancient-jews","tag-anti-theism","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-biblical-exegesis","tag-atheists-the-bible","tag-atheists-theology","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-conquest-of-canaan","tag-exodus","tag-hebrews","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jews","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-jordan-river","tag-joshua","tag-joshuas-altar-on-mt-ebal","tag-joshuas-conquest","tag-mt-ebal","tag-promised-land"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
[T]the bones, which were found in such large quantities in the filling, were sent for analysis to the zoology department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The bones proved to be from young male bulls, sheep, goats and fallow deer. . . . The first chapter of Leviticus describes the animals that may be offered as sacrifices. A burnt offering must be a male without blemish (Leviticus 1:3). It may be a bull (Leviticus 1:5) or a sheep or a goat (Leviticus 1:10). The close match of the bones we found in the fill with this description in Leviticus 1 was a strong hint as to the nature of the structure we were excavating.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n. . . 942 bones were examined, representing 50-100 specimens. These were attributed to four kinds of animals: goats, sheep, cattle, and fallow deer. The latter is a light-spotted animal which inhabited the woodlands of our country in antiquity. Examination of the sex and age of the animals revealed that all those that could be diagnosed were young males, approximately one year old. This correlates remarkably with the laws of sacrifice in the book of Leviticus [1:1-3] . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWith respect to the Mt. Ebal altar, . . . all the scientific evidence fits very well with the Biblical description. The three main factors that correlate precisely are the period, the nature of the site, and the location. (\u201cHas Joshua\u2019s Altar been Found on Mount Ebal?\u201d,\u00a0Biblical Archaeology Review\u00a0<\/i>XI [1985], pp. 26-44)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nNotice that not a single pig or wild boar bone has been found on the site (and they did inhabit this area). The Jews were forbidden in Mosaic law from eating the meat of pigs. They were permitted to sacrifice and eat all these other animals, including deer (Dt 14:4-5). Dr. Zertal added in a comment from November 2004:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
Reputable scholars have suggested that the entire story of the conquest is nothing more than a later, etiological tradition which sets out to account for various manifestations in the light of mythological traditions and folklore. Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 b.c.e.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin. The settlers used a characteristic type of pottery and their houses were generally built on a three- or four-room plan.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nSmithsonian Magazine\u00a0<\/i>took note of Dr. Zertal\u2019s claims<\/span> in May 2006<\/a>. As one would expect, the article shows a marked bias against the site as Joshua\u2019s altar, described in the Bible, and cites skeptical archaeologists at the end. But it\u2019s notable that Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University (probably the most well-known archaeologist of this school), admitted (in the article) that \u201cThere\u2019s definitely an Iron I site there, and there may even be evidence for cultic activity.\u201d <\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSo even he<\/em> agrees about the date and the possible sacrificial nature of the rocks. If the structure fits the description in the Bible of a Hebrew altar, and hundreds of bones are found near it (minus pigs), is that not significant hard evidence? It would sure seem so.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHazor<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n\n\n
Joshua 11:10-13<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) And Joshua turned back at that time, and took\u00a0<\/b>Hazor, and smote its king with the sword; for\u00a0Hazor\u00a0formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. [11] And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire. [12]\u00a0And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and smote them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. [13] But none of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except\u00a0Hazor\u00a0only; that Joshua burned.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe material following (except for the blurbs about archaeologists) is from:\u00a0Eero Junkkaala,<\/span>\u00a0Three Conquests of Canaan:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and\u00a0Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence<\/em><\/a> (Finland: Abo Akademie University Press, 2006).<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
In the Late Bronze Age Hazor was the largest city and the most\u00a0dominant city-state in Canaan. This has been confirmed both by the<\/span>
\narchaeology and by several ancient historical sources. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn Yadin\u2019s excavations the areas where Late Bronze II \u2013 Iron Age I\u00a0excavations took place are Areas A, B, BA, all of them in the Upper<\/span>
\nCity. A Late Bronze II level was also found in Areas H and 210\/A1 in\u00a0the Lower City. The large Late Bronze Age city (Strata XV-XIII) was\u00a0totally destroyed at the end of the period, probably in the second third of the 13th century. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe question of who destroyed Canaanite Hazor and who were the\u00a0inhabitants of the first Iron Age town is controversial. Following\u00a0Yadin\u2019s project it seemed clear that both were Israelites. Aharoni\u00a0claimed, the same as Yadin, that, \u201cthe total destruction of Hazor and\u00a0the attempted Israelite settlement conforms well to the biblical\u00a0tradition that the city was demolished by the Israelites\u201d. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAccording to Ben -Tor, the\u00a0most probable possibility is the Israelites. <\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nRafael Frankel, who recently carried out surveys in Upper Galilee<\/span> [see the book<\/a>],\u00a0came to the same conclusion. He maintains that \u201cin the case of the\u00a0conquest of Hazor too, the archaeological finds ostensibly correlate\u00a0with the biblical description: a Canaanite city was totally destroyed\u00a0and a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.\u201d\u00a0(pp. 230-231, 233-234)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nNotable Israeli Archaeologists<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBiographical blurbs for archaeologists mentioned above and below:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
Amnon Ben-Tor<\/b>\u00a0(born 1935, Hebrew: \u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05df-\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8) is an Israeli archaeologist and professor emeritus of\u00a0The Hebrew University of Jerusalem<\/a>. He is known for his excavations of\u00a0Tel Hazor<\/a>, and for his middle of the road approach to biblical validity considering the unified kingdom of David and the conquest of the land of Israel as probably true, though shaped by theology. In 2019 he was awarded the\u00a0Israel Prize<\/a>\u00a0for archaeology. (Wikipedia<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
\n
Lachish was one of the most important\u00a0city-states in southern Canaan at that time. . . .\u00a0Level VII, dated to the 13th century BCE, was destroyed by\u00a0fire. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAccording to Ussishkin, \u201cthe biblical description (in Josh.\u00a010:31-32) fits the archaeological data: a large Canaanite city destroyed\u00a0by fire; absence of fortifications, enabling the conquest of the city in a\u00a0swift attack; and complete desertion of the razed city explained by the\u00a0annihilation of the populace. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nComparing the results of Hazor and Lachish a similar story can be\u00a0found, although there is a little difference in the date. In both sites a\u00a0strong Late Bronze Age city collapsed and the poor Iron Age I\u00a0settlement appears after the destruction, that is, soon or after the\u00a0occupational gap. Later the Israelite Iron Age II city is built on the site.\u00a0The destruction of Hazor is dated to the 13th century and Lachish in\u00a0the middle or last part of the 12th century. The next habitation starts at\u00a0Hazor probably in 11th century and at Lachish in 10th century. (Junkkaala, ibid<\/em>., pp. 235-236, 238)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nBethel<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n\n
Judges 1:22-25<\/strong>\u00a0The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel; and the LORD was with them.\u00a0[23] And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. (Now the name of the city was formerly Luz.)\u00a0[24] And the spies saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him, \u201cPray, show us the way into the city, and we will deal kindly with you.\u201d\u00a0[25] And he showed them the way into the city; and they smote the city with the edge of the sword, but they let the man and all his family go.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe last Late Bronze\u00a0Age town was destroyed by fire. According to Albright and Kelso,\u00a0this took place sometime about 1240-1235 BCE. They do not tell how\u00a0they arrived at this date, possibly it comes from Yadin\u2019s dating about\u00a0destruction of Hazor.\u00a0 . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSome later scholars have agreed with this conclusion. After the\u00a0destruction of a Late Bronze Age city the first Iron Age I occupation\u00a0was poor and quite different in material culture. According to\u00a0Amihai Mazar, \u201cthis is one of the few cases where archaeology might\u00a0confirm a conquest tradition\u201d. Finkelstein in 1988 also agreed that\u00a0at Bethel there was a prosperous Canaanite city replaced by the\u00a0Israelites at the beginning of Iron Age I. He added, however, that the\u00a0date of the destruction had mainly been based on historical, nonarchaeological considerations. According to Finkelstein\u2019s study in\u00a01988, Bethel is one of the earliest Israelite settlement sites, together\u00a0with Mount Ebal, Giloh, Izbeth Sartah, Beth-zur, Tell el-Ful, and Tell\u00a0en-Nasbeh.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nComparison with Hazor gives similar results. The dating of Late\u00a0Bronze Age Bethel\u2019s collapse is not exact, but it may be around the\u00a0same as the one at Hazor, late in the 13th century BCE. The material\u00a0culture of the Iron Age I inhabitants seems to be quite different from\u00a0the previous one. (Junkkaala, ibid<\/em>., pp. 238-239)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nConquered vs. Unconquered Canaanite Cities<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJunkkaala draws his conclusion about these cities that are mentioned in the Bible in conjunction with Joshua and the Israeli conquest and subsequent settlement:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
This study has included 29 sites, which have been divided into two\u00a0main categories: the \u201cconquered cities\u201d and the \u201cunconquered cities\u201d.\u00a0The first category has been subdivided into three groups: excavated\u00a0cities, surveyed cities and others. In all of the \u201cunconquered cities\u201d\u00a0excavations have been carried out.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTwo questions were asked concerning each of the sites: were they\u00a0inhabited in the periods in question (Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age I\u00a0and II), and can we know something about the cultural backgrounds\u00a0of the inhabitants. In most cases it could be determined that the\u00a0culture was influenced either by the Coastal Plain culture (C) or the\u00a0Hill Country culture (H). The third possibility was the Sea People\u00a0culture (mostly Philistines, P). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe list of the \u201cconquered cities\u201d contains 19 sites. 12 of them have\u00a0been excavated, 5 have been surveyed and 2 neither have been carried\u00a0out. In 10 of the 12 excavated cities C-culture dominated in the Late\u00a0Bronze Age II and in 3 of them (Ai, Arad and Makkedah) there was no\u00a0identifiable settlement in that period. The cultural change between the\u00a0Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age I can be seen in all of the sites,\u00a0although in some it is not very obvious. This change does not happen\u00a0simultaneously, in Ai the H-culture begins in Iron Age I as in almost\u00a0all the other cities in this group, but Arad and Makkedah have no\u00a0settlement until Iron Age II.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn 8 of the 12 excavated sites the new settlers seem to represent H culture. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe list of the \u201cunconquered cities\u201d contains 10 sites, all of which\u00a0have been excavated. C-culture dominated in all the sites in Late\u00a0Bronze Age II. In the Iron Age I the same culture (C) has been found\u00a0in at least 4 of them and P-culture or its variations in 5 of them (Gezer,\u00a0Jarmuth, Dor, Aphek, and Achsaph). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe conspicuous difference between the archaeology of the\u00a0\u201cconquered\u201d and the \u201cunconquered\u201d cities is that in the former ones\u00a0the H-culture begins during Iron Age I (although not commencing\u00a0simultaneously), and in the latter it only starts in Iron Age II.\u00a0(pp. 299-300)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThis is strong archaeological confirmation of the biblical descriptions of the conquest. Remember that Pearce stated that there was \u201cLittle to absolutely no evidence\u201d of the conquest of Joshua and settlement of new Israeli residents.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn \u201cThe Date of the Conquest\u201d<\/a> (Westminster Theological Journal<\/em>\u00a052.2 [Fall 1990]: 181-200),\u00a0Bruce K. Waltke<\/a> summarizes archaeological data about Israeli settlement in Iron Age I:<\/div>\n\n
The sudden emergence of hundreds of new sites by pastoral nomads in Iron I contrasts sharply with the reduced number of sites in LB in comparison with MB. Kochavi [72<\/a>] wrote: \u201cDuring the Late Bronze Age, and especially towards its end, new small unfortified settlements are known. However, with the beginning of the Iron Age, they suddenly appear by the hundreds.\u201d I. Finkelstein [73<\/a>] elaborates:<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
See also:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cDid Hebron Disappear?:\u00a0Despite the overwhelming evidence, why do some archeologists claim that Hebron was uninhabited during the times of Moses and Joshua?\u201d<\/a> (Leibel Reznick)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThere are a host of problems and difficulties in this larger archaeological question yet to solve, and archaeologists differ in many ways, with several schools of thought about this \u201cIsraeli Conquest\u201d alone (which is why I didn\u2019t include in this survey, for example, Jericho: it\u2019s too inconclusive).
\n*
\nArchaeology is often a speculative and inexact science. But I submit that there is enough<\/em> verification in the above information to establish that the Bible was (yet again) substantially accurate in its claims, and certainly enough to counter Pearce\u2019s claim that there is \u201cLittle to absolutely no evidence\u201d of Joshua\u2019s conquests.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPhoto credit:<\/strong> Stone structure on Mt. Ebal (Joshua\u2019s altar?). Photograph by Daniel Ventura, 18 June 2007<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSummary<\/em>: Various summaries of archaeological findings are presented in order to scientifically verify the biblical claims regarding Joshua\u2019s conquest of Canaan, found in the book of Joshua.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"