Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions, The

The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions. By David Merling, Sr. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 23. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1997, xvii + 353 pp., $19.99 paper.

This doctoral dissertation provides an up-to-date summary of the major interpretative approaches to the question of the relationship between the appearance of Israel in Canaan and the role of archaeology in the issues. The first half of the book considers the five major approaches to Israel's appearance: conquest, peaceful migration, peasant revolt, economic and environmental. This is a valuable summary of the theories and an analysis of their strengths and criticisms. It concludes with a review of the archaeological evidence pertaining to the sites associated with the place names mentioned in the "conquest" accounts of Joshua 1-12. Merling argues that none of the archaeological evidence has relevance for the presence or absence of Biblical Israel.

The second half of the book considers the nature of the book of Joshua. Merling denies that the main concern of Joshua is with the conquest of the land. Instead, he prefers to see the book as focused upon God's presence with Israel in order to confirm and allocate the land as God's gift to the people of Israel. This is followed by a discussion of the limitations of archaeological evidence in identifying historical acts of conquest and destruction and in perceiving the presence of a new people or ethnic group. Merling questions the use of nonevidence as a basis for denying historical value due to the absence of conquest and destruction levels of evidence. From the standpoint of Joshua and of Israel's historical reality, its adherence to monotheism becomes the single most important factor for its unique identity.

This study provides much of value in its analysis. It is clearly written with detailed outline of the models of interpretation and their difficulties. Merling also incorporates some valuable analysis of the broader typological studies regarding what evidence may be expected in a historical conquest and what evidence exists for the presence of a new people group in an area.

There remain several questions about this work. First, there are the lengthy discussions of each of the sites related to place names conquered by Israel according to Joshua. Merling's conclusion from all of these is that there is no evidence associating any of the sites with Israel's conquest. This is true even for Hazor, which in the view of many best fits the description of the LB/Iron I transition conquest by Israel. According to Merling, it would seem that no amount of material culture can determine Israel's presence or conquest. What is necessary? Is some sort of inscriptional evidence required? If so, why review all the archaeological evidence? A paragraph justifying the need for inscriptional evidence and concluding that none exists would be much more useful.

Second, there is a consistent attempt to argue for an early date for Israel's appearance in Canaan, and by implication, an early date for the exodus. There is nothing wrong with taking this position except that it puts Merling in a position of using the methods that he criticizes. For example, in order to justify a 15th-century Bc appearance of the city of Ramses in Exod 1:11, he opts for anachronistic editorial insertions (p. 227). This is the sort of selective bias of which Merling accuses Gottwald, Alt and Noth. It would also be helpful if Merling would recognize that this is merely one interpretation of the (biblical and archaeological) evidence and provide some justification for it.

Third, the identification of Amarna apiru with Biblical Israel overlooks linguistic issues that remain unresolved in this equation (pp. 69-74, 231). The Philistines cannot be equated with the sociological concept of apiru because they were an established social grouping apart from others (such as Egypt). Instead, references to Amarna apiru normally describe a group that became disaffected from the society in which they formerly lived.

It would appear that Merling does ultimately opt for a conquest model that is earlier than Albright's. It is also smaller and less apparent in the archaeological strata. Nevertheless, at no time does Merling deny that Israel came from outside of Palestine nor does he question any of the Biblical accounts that describe conquests of the various cities.

Merling has made a significant contribution in this thesis. He has provided the first substantial analysis and presentation of the archaeological and textual data that takes the Biblical text seriously and refuses to ignore the weaknesses of the archaeological interpretations.

Richard S. Hess Denver Seminary, Denver, CO

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Dec 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved