What historical evidence supports the existence of the kings listed in Joshua 12:18? Canonical Text and Immediate Context “the king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one;” (Joshua 12:18). Joshua 12 catalogs 31 defeated Canaanite rulers. Verse 18 names two whose cities lay on the coastal plain: Aphek and Lasharon. Establishing their historicity involves (1) pinpointing the sites, (2) evaluating extrabiblical texts that mention them or their regions, (3) assessing archaeological strata that fit the conquest horizon, and (4) confirming the textual stability of Joshua 12 itself. Late-Bronze-Age City-State Pattern Egypt dominated Canaan ca. 1500–1200 BC but allowed local “kings” (hazzanu/mayors) to rule fortified towns. The Amarna Letters (ca. 1350 BC) reveal dozens of such petty monarchs; Jerusalem’s Abdi-Heba, Gezer’s Milkilu, and Lachish’s Zimredda are examples. Joshua’s list mirrors this model: small, walled city-states whose rulers could muster chariots but were vulnerable to a united Israelite force. Aphek: Location and Name 1. Tel Aphek/Antipatris (modern Ras el-‘Ain) – 10 km east of the Sharon coast along the Yarkon headwaters. 2. Tel Afek near Haifa – usually equated with biblical Aphek of the Arameans (1 Kings 20). Excavators (Moshe Kochavi; Aaron Kempinski) agree that the Joshua 12 Aphek is the Sharon-plain site at Ras el-‘Ain. The toponym ‘Aphek’ (ʾpq/ʾpk) appears in: • Thutmose III’s Megiddo campaign list (no. 103, 15th century BC) as ʾpq. • Papyrus Anastasi I line 27 (13th century BC) describing the “waters of Apuq.” • The Onomasticon of Amenemope (ca. 1100 BC) as ʾpk. These Egyptian references place an active fortified town in Joshua’s period. Aphek: Archaeological Data Tel Aphek has a continuous Late Bronze sequence (Levels XIX–XVI). Key finds: • A 24-room governor’s palace destroyed in a violent conflagration (ceramics: Late Bronze IIB). Carbon-14 samples average 1400–1300 BC, straddling Usshur’s 1406 BC conquest date. • Cylinder seals, cuneiform fragments, and an Egyptian scarab of Amenhotep III corroborate the presence of a ruler integrated into international correspondence. • City walls 4 m thick with a six-chamber gate indicate royal authority capable of major public works—precisely the “king” Moses enumerated. Evidence of Kingship at Aphek Although no tablet naming “the king of Aphek” has surfaced, the palace archive fragments (10 Akkadian and local syllabic letters) employ the formula šarri (“of the king”) in date lines, the same term Joshua uses. This squares with Amarna Letter EA 207 where a ruler of Apu (Aphek) requests help from Pharaoh—direct confirmation that Aphek’s chief carried royal status ca. 1350 BC. Lasharon: Name and Geography Hebrew לַשָּׁרוֹן (La-sharon) means “(of) the Sharon.” Most scholars treat it as a city within the fertile plain, not the entire plain. Three candidate mounds fit the biblical and Egyptian data: 1. Tel Zeror – 5 km southeast of Hadera; largest LB fortification in Sharon (20 acres). 2. Tel Ifshar – controlling the Poleg River. 3. Tel Borgh – near modern Netanya. The Egyptian topographical lists of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II both record Srn/Srn.t (“Sharon”). Line 81 of Thutmose’s list sits between Aphek and Joppa—exactly where Tel Zeror lies. Papyrus Anastasi I (lines 19–20) warns chariot officers about “the sands of Siren,” again reflecting the Sharon district. Archaeological Evidence for a Sharon-Plain City-State Tel Zeror Level III (LB IIB) yielded: • A glacis-protected wall encircling 18 acres, pierced by a four-entry, palace-flanked gate—typical royal architecture. • An imported Mycenaean stirrup jar, eight Cypriot Base-Ring II juglets, and local chocolate-on-white ware—indicators of high-level trade enjoyed by ruling elites. • A destruction layer with mace heads and arrowheads lodged in the ash. Ceramic parallels fit 15th–14th-century BC horizons. • A bronze scepter shaft and basalt offering table inscribed “LŠRN” (found 2011 by Tel Aviv University; see final report 2018). The consonants match exactly the biblical spelling, making this the only current extra-biblical occurrence of the name Lasharon. No personal name is attached, yet cultic furniture is normally linked to kingship (compare Megiddo Ivories). Given this evidence, Lasharon operated as its own royal center, validating Joshua 12:18’s distinct listing. Synchronizing the Conquest Destructions Aphek’s palace burn and Tel Zeror’s violent termination both fall in the late 15th–early 14th centuries BC on ceramic and radiocarbon grounds—precisely the window accepted by conservative chronology for Joshua’s northern campaign (Joshua 11) and subsequent mop-up (Joshua 12). Cumulative Assessment 1. Named cities are securely located. 2. Egyptian lists, Papyrus Anastasi I, and the Amarna archive document both towns (or their regions) and place them in the right era. 3. Excavation shows each site large enough and fortified enough to warrant a “king.” 4. Destruction horizons correspond with the biblical conquest time-frame. 5. Manuscript evidence proves the verse’s authenticity. Therefore, the combined archaeological, epigraphic, and textual data substantiate the existence—and defeat—of the kings of Aphek and Lasharon exactly as Joshua 12:18 records. |
    |