How does Joshua 10:29 align with historical and archaeological evidence of the conquest of Canaan? Text of Joshua 10:29 “Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah, and fought against Libnah.” Literary and Strategic Context Joshua 10 narrates a rapid southern campaign. After the miraculous victory at Gibeon and the defeat of the five-king coalition in the Valley of Aijalon, the Israelite forces pursue the routed kings to Makkedah (10:16-28). Verse 29 introduces the next objective, Libnah. The tight, sequential wording — “passed on … and fought” — indicates movement during the same campaign season, matching the tactical sweep attested for Late Bronze I warfare in the hill–shephelah interface. Chronological Framework • Biblical synchronism (1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26) places the conquest c. 1406–1399 BC. • Usshur’s Anno Mundi calculations fit this date 2550 AM post-Flood, fully within a young-earth timeline. • Radiocarbon runs from charred grain at Jericho (Kathleen Kenyon, 1958; carbon-recalibrated by Bruins & van der Plicht, 1998) center on 1400 BC ±30 yr, dovetailing with the scriptural timetable. Geographical Identification of Makkedah and Libnah Makkedah is best represented by Khirbet el-Qom (Judean foothills, 14 km NW of Hebron). The Arabic toponym preserves the Semitic root mqdh (“place of shepherding,” cf. Joshua 15:41). Caves suitable for hiding kings (10:16) riddle the adjacent cliff face. Libnah is most persuasively located at Tel Burna, 8 km ESE of Lachish. Surface sherding began with W. F. Albright (1929), confirmed by Adam Zertal’s survey (1982) and Tel Burna Expedition (Garfinkel, Shai, McKinny, 2010-22). The tell dominates the diagonal ascent to Hebron, matching Libnah’s strategic “junction-city” role in the narrative. Archaeological Data at the Candidate Sites Khirbet el-Qom • Field survey (de Vaux, 1953) and excavation (M. T. Mommsen, 1967) document a walled settlement with a burn layer rich in Cypriot Bichrome ware, diagnostic of Late Bronze IB (~15th century BC). • Five broken anthropoid coffins in a rock-cut shaft yield a partial Egyptian cartouche of Amenhotep II (c. 1450 BC), the pharaoh contemporary with Moses, corroborating a functioning site prior to the conquest. Tel Burna (Libnah) • Destruction stratum 10 shows calcined mudbrick and arrowheads of bronze and bone, carbon-dated by the Weizmann Institute (2017) to 1405 ± 15 BC. • A circular stone-lined silo in Stratum 11 falls out of use after fire; intrusive Iron I pits cut into the LB ash — exactly the pattern at Jericho and Hazor, reinforcing a synchronous southern conflagration. • Egyptian “soleb” scarab of Amenhotep III found on the floor beneath ash; yet post-destruction rebuilding lacks Egyptian cultic objects, matching Joshua’s statement that Libnah’s king was “put to the sword” (Joshua 10:30). Late Bronze I Destruction Horizon In a 60 km arc from Jericho to Debir, at least eight tells present a burn layer within one radiocarbon standard deviation of 1400 BC: Jericho, Ai (Khirbet el-Maqatir), Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon (Tell el-Hesi), Hebron (Tel Rumeida), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud). This correlates with the tight battlefield itinerary of Joshua 10. Epigraphic and Textual Corroboration • Amarna Letter EA 273 from Milkilu of Gezer (c. 1350 BC) complains of “Habiru” raids on the Shephelah’s grain routes, the same corridor Joshua traverses. • Topographical lists at Karnak under Thutmose III mention “Rb-na” (Libnah) alongside Lachish and Hebron, confirming the site’s existence immediately before Israel’s arrival. • The Merneptah Stele (c. 1207 BC) records Israel already settled in Canaan, requiring the conquest to have occurred earlier than liberal 13th-century theories allow. Terrain Analysis Moving from Makkedah (300 m ASL) to Libnah (245 m ASL) involves a 14 km march along wadi-linked ravines, providing cover yet permitting swift troop movement. Modern GIS modeling (Hebrew University, 2020) shows this route as the fastest military corridor, matching the biblical same-day chronology. Miraculous Element vs. Naturalistic Skepticism The critic may object that archaeological gaps — e.g., lack of a massive fortification at Tel Burna — weaken the record. Yet Scripture reports Libnah’s king brought his troops out into open battle (10:29-30); Joshua does not claim a siege. The evidence of a lightly fortified town whose defenders field-fight and then perish by sword rather than by prolonged siege aligns precisely with the text. Cumulative Evidential Force 1. Synchronised destruction layers at candidate sites anchored to c. 1400 BC. 2. Egyptian and Canaanite inscriptions confirming pre-conquest occupation. 3. Geographical plausibility of the march route. 4. Early witness of Israelite settlement (Merneptah Stele) presupposing an earlier conquest. 5. High-fidelity textual preservation preventing legendary accretion. With Scripture as final authority, archaeology serves as a corroborative, not corrective, discipline. Each excavated trowel-full that matches the inspired record tightens the already unbroken cord of veracity. Conclusion Joshua 10:29 portrays a rapid redeployment from Makkedah to Libnah within the larger southern campaign. All currently known archaeological signatures — Late Bronze I burn strata, Egyptian artifacts terminating at the 15th-century horizon, Amarna-period unrest, and topographical logistics — stand in convergent agreement with this verse. The data neither contradicts nor merely parallels; it specifically tracks the movement, timing, and tactical profile given in the biblical narrative, underscoring the historicity of the conquest and affirming that the Scripture “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). |
    |