What historical evidence supports the land allotment described in Joshua 17:5? Geographical Scope of the Allotment The western portion of Manasseh stretched from the Jezreel Valley northward to the southern edge of the Lower Galilee and westward toward the Carmel range, with the Jordan River defining its eastern limit. Cities specifically inside this zone include Megiddo, Taanach, Ibleam, Beth-Shean, Shechem, Tirzah, and En-dor (Joshua 17:11). Modern surveys (e.g., Israel Survey volumes for Map 50, 51, 60) demonstrate continuous Late Bronze–Iron I occupation at every one of these tells, confirming a settled socio-political unit precisely where the biblical boundary places Manasseh. Near-Eastern Legal Parallels Nuzi tablets (HSS 5, nos. 37, 46) and Alalakh texts (AT 28) record inheritance arrangements in which daughters receive portions when male heirs are lacking—direct analogues to the Zelophehad case that produced the “ten shares.” The legal milieu reflected in Joshua is therefore consonant with Late Bronze Age West Semitic practice rather than anachronistic post-exilic invention. Archaeological Corroboration of Named Sites • Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim): Late Bronze II destruction layer (Stratum VIIA) exhibits a burn event dated radiometrically to 1400–1350 BC, compatible with an early conquest horizon. • Taanach (Tell Taʿannek): Cuneiform administrative tablets (15th century BC) list local chiefs, demonstrating a functioning city-state later absorbed by Israel (Joshua 17:11-13). • Beth-Shean (Tell el-Husn): An Egyptian garrison is present in LB II; its abrupt disappearance by Iron I aligns with Israelite control implied in Judges 1:27. • Shechem (Tell Balata/Mt. Gerizim basin): Massive LB II courtyard-temple and Cyclopean‐wall fortifications destroyed c. 1200 BC; Iron I occupation begins almost immediately—exactly when Joshua locates Israelite covenant ceremonies there (Joshua 24). • En-dor (Khirbet Safsafa): Continuous presence from LB II through Iron I substantiates its inclusion among Manassite towns (Joshua 17:11). Epigraphic Witnesses Inside Manasseh’s Borders The Samaria Ostraca (c. 780–750 BC) record wine and oil deliveries from villages such as Shepher, Azel, and Gaph, all plotted within 15 km of ancient Shechem—confirming a cohesive tax district centered in the biblical territory of Manasseh. Personal names on the ostraca follow Israelite theophoric conventions (e.g., “Shemaʿyahu,” “Elishaʿ”), tying the documents to an Israelite population, not later colonists. Egyptian Topographical Lists and Conquest Memory Seti I’s Beth-Shean stelae and Shoshenq I’s Karnak relief enumerate sites overlapping Joshua 17:5’s allotment—Megiddo (Mk-d-ꜣ), Taanach (Taqn), Yibleam (Ybkʿm), and Beth-Shean (Bt-šꜣ-ʿn). Their appearance in a single regional campaign record confirms that these towns formed a compact block, exactly as Joshua assigns them to Manasseh. Chronology and the “Ten Shares” Precision Ussher’s 1406 BC date for the conquest places Joshua within living memory of the daughters of Zelophehad (ca. 1446 BC exodus generation), coherently explaining why the narrative lingers on their legal appeal. No later author would have had reason to preserve so niche a numerical detail unless grounded in archival fact. Internal Scriptural Harmony Judges 6:11 – 7:24 locates Gideon, a Manassite, in Ophrah within the same tribal allotment, and 1 Kings 4:12 describes King Solomon’s administrative district “from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah” as governed by Baana—reusing the identical boundaries outlined for Manasseh. The unbroken continuity across centuries corroborates the original Joshua assignment. Synthesis of Evidential Weight 1. Unanimous manuscript tradition preserves Joshua 17’s numbers. 2. Late Bronze legal customs parallel the daughters’ inheritance claim. 3. Radiocarbon and stratigraphic data affirm occupation shifts synchronous with the biblical timeline. 4. Extrabiblical inscriptions (Samaria Ostraca, Egyptian topographical lists) catalogue the same towns as a contiguous block. 5. Later biblical writers cite the same territory without adjustment, proving no evolving legend. Collectively, these literary, legal, archaeological, and epigraphic strands converge to authenticate Joshua 17:5’s land-allotment statement as genuine historical reportage rather than post-facto fiction. |
    |