EXCAVATION REPORT: HAZOR (original) (raw)
Related papers
Hazor, Archaeology, and the Bible
Prevail Magazine posted an intriguing entry on their website in 2013 entitled, "How Archaeology Proves the Bible." If the title is not enough to evince their perspective, certainly this concluding comment is, "Has archaeology proven the Bible? The evidence is there for all to see, and the answer is a resounding yes!" 1 The article argues multiple times that archaeology has provided irrefutable evidence that the Bible is the word of God. Unfortunately, in the opinion of this Bible believer, their case is overstated. The author of the Prevail article has misunderstood the nature and purpose of Palestinian archaeology. Like every other historical discipline, archaeology cannot prove the certainty of an event nor its metaphysical meaning. Instead, archaeology does (among other things) support the claim that the Bible is an historically reliable document. 2 In the light of these comments this paper will proceed, the goal of which is two-fold:
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2008
Much debate has ensued over the Bible's claim that the Israelites destroyed Late-Bronze-Age Hazor under the leadership of Joshua. Most attempts at identifying this conflagration have centered on the violent destruction of the city at the very end of the Late Bronze (IIB/III) Age. Adherence to a literal, biblical chronology, however, would require a destruction under Joshua that dates to the end of the earlier LB I Age. Is such a destruction at this time observable in the archaeological record? This paper attempts to answer that very question by a thorough examination of the relevant data.
Tel Aviv , 2000
The history of Hazor in the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I and the relationship between Hazor and the Iron Age I sites in the Upper Galilee played a major role in the 1950s-1960s dispute over the nature of the 'Israelite Settlement' in Canaan. Yadin (e.g., 1972:131-132; 1979) argued that the destruction of Late Bronze Hazor opened the way to the 'Israelite' settlement in the north and hence interpreted the finds at Hazor as supporting the Albright military conquest theory. Aharoni (1970:262-263; 1979:220-229) argued that settlement activity in the isolated, rugged and wooded Upper Galilee started before the destruction of Hazor and thus interpreted the finds there as supporting Alt's peaceful infiltration theory. Both dated the beginning of the Iron I activity at Hazor no later than the 12th century B.C.E.
Presented at the ASOR 2011 Annual Meeting, San Franciso, 17 Nov 2011, 2011
The lack of archaeological evidence for destructions at Jericho and Ai at the end of the Bronze Age has long plagued those interpreters that would see a correlation between the Joshua narrative and archaeology, i.e., proponents of the so-called "conquest model." Indeed, the problems at those sites hastened the move of mainstream scholars to other models for the emergence of Israel. In the meantime, however, Hazor has continued to provide data that can be viewed as consistent with some type of an Israelite conquest. This paper examines evaluation of the three sites, especially by "biblical maximalists," and demonstrates inconsistencies in treatment of the archaeological data and characterization of the biblical material. Certain presuppositions have led to interpretations so stretched that meaningful dialogue with mainline scholarship is nearly impossible. These presuppositions are identified and challenged with respect to Jericho, Ai, and Hazor.