Four Hypotheses for the Emergence of Israelite Society

four_hypotheses
https://people.creighton.edu/~ngr39382/four_hypotheses.htm
Page 1 of 2
7/26/2005
[RETURN]
THE EMERGENCE OF ISRAELITE SOCIETY
Four Hypotheses
I. CONQUEST HYPOTHESIS
A. Leading Proponents: W. F. Albright, G. E. Wright, and Yigael Yadin
B. Major features
1. Conforms most closely to the biblical account, affirming the biblical
view that Israel invaded Canaan from the east, conquering its
major cities through a military campaign.
2. Its proponents cite 13th C BCE destruction levels at places like
Hazor, Lachish, and Bethel.
3. Its proponents cite evidence for widespread cultural change at turn
of LB/IA
C. Challenges
1. Biblical “Israel” does not meet criteria for a mass migration.
2. There is no evidence of cultural discontinuity at any of the sites.
3. Many Transjordanian cities mentioned in the Bible did not exist at
within the narrow span of time the conquest would have had to
occur (13 th C BCE).
4. Some “conquest” sites west of the Jordan River / Dead Sea rift,
including Jericho and Arad, also show little or no habitation at the
13th C BCE level.
5. The demise of LB culture appears to have been a gradual process,
not a single event.
II. PASTORAL NOMAD HYPOTHESIS
A. Leading Proponents: Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth
B. Major features
1. States that Israel evolved from pastoral nomadism to agricultural
sedentarism.
2. Affirms singular identity of Israelites as immigrants into Canaan.
3. Posits that Israel waged war against the Canaanite city-states and
then engaged in territorial expansion only after it had consolidated
itself as a nation.
C. Challenges
1. Modern anthropological theory rejects assumptions that:
a) nomads were isolated from other societies
b) semi-nomadism marks a stage of development from nomadism
to village farmer to urban dweller
2. This nomadic origin cannot be located, nor can its path be traced.
III. PEASANTS’ REVOLT HYPOTHESIS
A. Leading Proponents: George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald
B. Major features
1. Affirms that “Israel” consisted mainly of oppressed Canaanite
peasants who rebelled against their overlords in the city-states and
sought refuge in the highlands.
2. Proponents cite datable destruction levels at some biblical sites
mentioned as having been “conquered.”
3. Proponents cite the decline of city-states in the LB period and
concurrent population increases in the highlands as additional
supporting evidence.

four_hypotheses
https://people.creighton.edu/~ngr39382/four_hypotheses.htm
Page 2 of 2
7/26/2005
4. Does not depend upon exclusive, external “Israelite” explanations.
C. Challenges
1. Unsupported by the archaeological record
a) evidence for destruction levels at various city-states is not
consistent.
a) no evidence for a sizable rural component in the LB period.
b) no evidence of a direct shift from lowlands to highlands LB/IA
2. Relies too heavily on the classical Marxist model of socioeconomic
change.
IV. RURALIZATION HYPOTHESIS
A. Leading Proponents: Lawrence Stager; now widely accepted.
B. Major features
1. Affirms that increased ruralization occurred largely as a result of the
Late Bronze Age decline of city-state systems, as peasant farmers
and pastoralists moved further away from the cities and settled in
rural highlands.
2. Does not depend upon exclusive, external “Israelite” explanations.
C. Archaeological Evidence
1. Nine areas were surveyed along both sides of the Jordan River.
Findings:
a) LB = 88 sites covering 500 acres = 50,000 people (100
persons / acre)
b) IA I = 678 sites covering 1,500 acres = 150,000 people (100
persons / acre)
2. Thus 93% of IA I sites were established as new foundations.
3. Such massive population growth (300%) can only be attributed to a
major influx of people into the highlands during the 12th--11th C
BCE, including both peasant farmers and pastoralists, and
perhaps some former urban dwellers as well.
D. Conclusion: The evidence appears to indicate that ancient Israel
emerged as a rural, kin-based tribal society engaged in both
agriculture and animal herding (primarily sheep and goats), bearing no
discernible cultural distinction from neighboring social groups. As
Stager writes, “The evidence from language, costume, coiffure, and
material remains suggest that the early Israelites were a rural subset of
Canaanite culture and largely indistinguishable from Transjordanian
rural cultures as well.”