Matthew Morhart

BIBL 1201 Orientation to the Old Testament 2

Dr. Steve Cook
December 4, 2020
Annotated Bibliography—The Hebrew Origins in Palestine

Bandstra, Barry L. 2009. Reading the Old Testament. Belmot: Wadsworth.

In chapter 6, “Joshua: The Conquest of Canaan,” Bandstra answers the question of how Hebrew
origins in Palestine by noting that “all indications point to a complicated and gradual process
whereby an (sic) Israel established an identifiable presence in Canaan” (215). Bandstra then
outlines four different models that have been suggested to explain this process of Hebrew
colonization: 1) Military conquest; 2) Migration; 3) Internal revolt; 4) Political propaganda.
Bandstra’s personal viewpoint is that the book of Joshua is “a theopolitical idealization” and that
no one model is able to explain the historical data satisfactorily, but that a combination of them is
the best approach to understanding Hebrew origins in Palestine (216-17). Bandstra is a respected
scholar and his many publications focus on various aspects of religion and scripture. As a
specialist in Hebrew Bible and Biblical Hebrew language, Bandstra’s perspective is well worth
considering in developing one’s views on the topic at hand. While this author doesn’t concur
with Bandstra’s conclusions, his research and writing are extremely helpful as an introduction to
various other perspectives on this topic.

Earl, Douglas S. 2010. Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
As indicated by the title, Earl seeks to inform Christians as to the proper way in which to read
and understand the book of Joshua. He seeks to do this by highlighting the theological, historical,
and ethical “problems” found within the biblical text. Earl proposes that the solution to these
“problems” is to understand and read this book as a “myth.” Earl views the book of Joshua as
containing “a number of ‘traditional motifs’,” and sees the relation of the biblical book to other
ANE texts to be key in helping “one to understand the nature and significance of the text of
Joshua” (91). These arguments are followed by a brief sketch of the textual variants of this book
and how they affect one’s interpretation. Finally, Earl concludes with a chapter-by-chapter
“commentary” on the book, highlighting the symbolism contained in each chapter, before
finishing his dissertation by stating how these various elements come together to inform a
Christian in the proper reading and application of the book of Joshua. Earl’s interest and
expertise regarding the book of Joshua are evident from his various publications on the topic and
should be explored by any serious student of the book. Although Earl understands the Hebrew
origin in Palestine and the biblical narrative to be mainly connected by the “collective memory”
strand (as mentioned elsewhere in this bibliography), one of the most pertinent points that he
highlights is the clear differentiation that can be made between the book of Joshua and other
ANE “conquest account(s)” (93). This point lends itself well to this author’s case for a clear
distinction between the literature of Scripture and extrabiblical texts.

Hess, Richard S.; Klingbeil, Gerald A.; and Ray, Paul J. 2008. Critical Issues in Early Israelite
History. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
The “Classical Models for the Appearance of Israel in Palestine” section of this book is
particularly relevant to the subject matter in question. This section consists of a series of four
 Morhart 2

chapters with one by Paul that covers the classic models regarding Hebrew origins, one by
Patrick Mazani on how recent scholarship views Israel’s appearance in the land, one by
Klingbeil dedicated to the archaeology of religion in the Late Bronze period, and a chapter by
Mark W. Chavalas on the sociological context of early Israel in light of archaeology. While each
of these chapters have pertinent information regarding the period in which the Hebrews appeared
in the land of Canaan, as the latter two deal mainly with archaeology and its relation to the
geographic and social context of Palestine, it is the former two that deserve further mention in
light of the subject at hand. Mazani’s chapter deals with modern attempts that seek to understand
Hebrew origins via study of archaeological surveys, artifacts, architecture, social-scientific
models, and extrabiblical texts. He notes however, that “recent theoretical models have been
rather narrow in their approach…and have failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the origin
of Israel” (109). Notwithstanding, Paul’s chapter is more informative as he begins by reviewing
the Peaceful Infiltration model, the Unified Conquest model, the Sociological model, as well as
the Symbiosis and Pressured-Infiltration Hypotheses. Paul sums up his perspectives on these
models by saying that “none of the models, by itself, fully does justice to the archaeological
evidence or the textual data” (91). While proposing a conservative hermeneutic that allows the
biblical text to affect one’s preunderstandings, Paul advocates caution towards “hypothesizing…
too little” as well (93). This results in a balanced picture and perspective on Hebrew origins.
Each of these authors have specialized in the specific fields addressed in their respective chapters
and have produced a variety of other publications on these topics as well. There is much here to
consider in regard to Hebrew origins and this author will seek to draw from the presentation of
models, both past and present, in drawing conclusions on this topic.

Masalha, Nur. 2016 Nov. The Concept of Palestine: “The Conception of Palestine from the Late
Bronze Age to the Modern Period.” Journal of Holy Land & Palestine Studies. 15.2: 143-
202.
Essentially an excursion through history to discover the development and usage of the term
“Palestine,” Masalha argues that the disciplines of science all recognize the predominance and
importance of “Palestine” verses “Cana’an” (Canaan). Masalha views ancient Israel as an
invention of Western scholarship (145), and while he does not dispute that Moses might have
been a historical figure (146), he argues that “the legend of the ‘Israelites’ conquest of Cana’an”
is a “myth-narrative” and is not based on evidence (143). While Masalha views the biblical texts
as “sacred literature” and “social memory” that “evolved across many centuries,” he also states
that the term “Cana’an” appears in, and only in, the Late Bronze Age while the term “Palestine”
dominates the rest of history after its appearance around the same time (149). As a Palestinian
writer, academic, and historian, Masalha no doubt brings his own set of preunderstandings to the
table along with his very full resumé (which includes a Ph.D. in politics). In spite of Masalha’s
attempt to discredit the biblical account, his acknowledgement that the term “Cana’an” is very
time-restricted actually serves to support this author’s claim to a much earlier dating of the
biblical text than is often ascribed to it. As opposed to nullifying the historicity of Scripture, this
insight actually lends greater veracity to it, which serves to bolster the Bible’s claims as to
Hebrew origins by extension.

Meier, S. A. 2005. "History of Israel 1: Settlement Period." In The IVP Bible Dictionary Series:
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Ed. by Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M.
Williamson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Retrieved 19 Oct. 2020 from:
 Morhart 3

https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/
entry/ivpold/history_of_israel_1_settlement_period/0? institutionId=7676.
Meier’s entry regarding Israel’s settling of Canaan includes much more than a brief overview of
the various theories surrounding this event. Meier begins by looking at integrity of the biblical
sources along with potential problems that arise from various methods of interpretation (e.g. not
making room for hyperbole). This is followed by an overview of the five historical stages of
biblical interpretation with insights as to how each of these stages have affected our
understanding of the settlement narrative. Finally, Meier concludes the article with an in-depth
look at archaeology and how different findings and theories (e.g the Hyksos and the ‘apiru) fit
into the biblical account of Hebrew origins. With his Ph.D. in Hebrew and Semitic Languages
and Literatures from Harvard, Meier continues to teach, write, and research on biblical history
for the benefit of all biblical scholars and students. This particular article will provide much
needed perspective regarding systems of interpretation regarding the biblical account and the
archaeological evidence in relation to Hebrew origins in Canaan.

Naʼaman, Nadav. 2000. “Ḫabiru-like Bands in the Assyrian Empire and Bands in Biblical
Historiography.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4: 621–24. Retrieved 20
Nov. 2020 from:
https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001397441&site=ehost-live.
In seeking to determine the origin of the Hebrews, many attempts have been made to connect the
nation of Israel with the Habiru that are mentioned in Assyria’s annals. Using the Assyrian
inscriptions that mention the Habiru, Na’aman shows how the Habiru are best associated with a
mercenary-type warrior class that developed out of groups of fugitives fleeing in the face of
Assyrian conquest (this is supported by an etymological connection to the word arbūtu, which
means “flight”). Na’aman cites seven biblical passages where mercenary-like groups appear
which he understands these references to be literary constructs based upon the authors’ exposure
to the Habiru mentioned in the Assyrian chronicles. Na’aman cites the weak kingdom of Judah in
the seventh century as fertile breeding grounds for the Habiru, which explains their rather “late”
appearance in the archaeological record. Na’aman’s background and education in archaeology
and more than three hundred published articles lend a considerable amount of credibility to his
ability to speak into the subject of Hebrew origins. Given Na’aman’s understanding of the
Habiru, this article will provide sufficient support to rebut theories that seek to tie the origin of
Israel to the Habiru.

Naʼaman, Nadav. 2011. “The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historigraphical
Composition.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. 11.1: 39-69. Retrieved 20
Nov. 2020 from: https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=66444732&site=ehost-live.
This article consists of a clever polemic against scholars that suggest the entire Exodus story and
Israelite origin from Egypt is nothing more than a myth. Na’aman notes that his explanation for
“the absence of Egypt from all biblical texts” is sheer hypothesis (63) but he uses this hypothesis
in an attempt to rectify what he sees to be a disparity between the biblical account and the
historical record. Na’aman’s hypothesis suggests that, due to the collective memory of society,
the Israelite captivity actually took place in Canaan during the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Dynasties as Egypt exerted extensive control over Palestine. Na’aman asserts that Egypt’s
 Morhart 4

withdraw from Canaan in the mid-twelfth century BCE is the source for the biblical narrative of
Israel’s being freed from Egyptian power and control. Due to what Na’aman views as a much
later composition date for the Exodus narrative (seventh century BCE), he posits that during the
intervening years, Israel adapted Egypt’s withdraw and shaped it to provide a cultural backdrop
for “Israelite consciousness for all generations to come” (67-68). In spite of (or possibly due to)
Na’aman’s credentials cited in the previous entry, he has taken an extremely minority position
regarding the Exodus and Hebrew origins. While not a position this author supports, this article
does highlight some “problematic” areas regarding Egyptian history that could be dealt with in
an article on Hebrew origins.

Provan, Iain; Long, V. Philips; and Longman, Tremper. 2105. A Biblical History of Israel. 2nd
ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
In chapter 7 of their book, the authors examine the biblical books of Joshua and Judges in an
attempt to determine their historical veracity as part of the biblical narrative in light of
archeological and extra-biblical evidence. They examine the various “models” (i.e. Conquest,
Peaceful Infiltration, Revolt, and other Endogenous Models) proposed to explain Israel’s
“appearance” on the historical scene. The authors posit a “hybrid” of the Conquest and Peaceful
Infiltration models which views Joshua’s conquest of Canaan as more “localized” and hyperbolic
in regard to statements such as he “left none remaining” (Josh. 10:33, 11:8), the authors point to
archeological evidence that support his conquest of Jericho, Hazor, etc. Coupling this with a sort
of “Peaceful Infiltration” that points to texts like Joshua 17:12 and Judges 1:19-21 as evidence
that the children of Israel didn’t wipe out all the Canaanites but co-existed in the land with them.
Provan, Long, and Longman are each respected and authoritative scholars in their own right with
a plethora of articles and books to their credit—the majority of which deal with the biblical text.
This classic tome will prove indispensable to any attempt to deal with the subject in question as
it lends significant credibility to a more “literal” reading of the biblical text in regard to the
conquest of Canaan.

Redford, Donald B. 1965. “Land of the Hebrews in Gen 40:15.” Vetus Testamentum. 15.4: 529-
32. Retrieved 20 Nov. 2020 from:
https://login.elibrary.johnsonu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000708872&site=ehost-live
Redford’s article focuses on an apparent anachronism that appears in Joseph’s speech to the
butler when he says that he had been “kidnapped from the Land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15).
Redford points out that while various interpretations have been offered to explain this, it is
important to search for a time period when this term would have carried significant meaning for
Israelites and Egyptians alike. He goes on to note that the proper context has been discovered
with the discovering of a certain Vienna papyrus. This Demotic Papyrus uses this very term and
leads Redford to conclude that this reference would have been salient during Saite times in
Egypt, thus highlighting a much later origin for the Joseph narrative as opposed to the rest of
Genesis. This explanation is best understood in light of Redford’s position as an Egyptologist
and award-winning archaeological author. While Redford’s article no doubt speaks more
intuitively to his fellow Egyptologists, this author found his argument against viewing
understanding this term to have arisen from “pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine” as particularly
applicable to the question of Hebrew origins. Redford notes that there were other, more
 Morhart 5

acceptable terms available to the author to reference pre-Israelite inhabitants. His arguments here
can be well applied to understanding the biblical origin of the Hebrews.

Wolbe, Yaakov. “Ep. 62: Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan.” The Jewish History Podcast.
Podcast audio. N.P. Retrieved 20 Nov. 2020 from: http://rabbiwolbe.com/ep-62-joshua-
and-the-conquest-of-canaan/.
In this podcast, Rabbi Wolbe utilizes a very literal hermeneutic as he goes through the whole
book of Joshua to explain how the nation of Israel came to inhabit the land of Canaan. With
frequent references to the Talmud, Wolbe stresses the traditional Jewish interpretation of the
book of Joshua and emphasizes the connection between the conquest and the divine command
given to Joshua to conquer the land. Wolbe notes how the Talmud attributes the “pockets of
uncaptured Canaanite strongholds” as a direct result of Joshua’s disobedience (which cost him
10 years of his life). According to the Talmud, had Israel not sinned, Joshua would have been the
final book of the Hebrew canon. Rabbi Wolbe has lectured and taught widely on variety of
subjects. His many podcasts and advanced Hebrew works on the Talmud qualify him as a
reliable source on Jewish Philosophy. This particular podcast is significant because it highlights
a traditional approach to understanding Hebrew origins in the land of Canaan and will prove
useful in the author’s defense of the historicity of the biblical account.