Why does Joshua 16:5–9 list towns that some excavations claim were never fully occupied by Israelites at that time? I. Historical and Geographical Context Joshua 16:5–9 describes the borders of Ephraim’s territory and lists several towns within those boundaries. The passage reads in the Berean Standard Bible: “This was the territory of the descendants of Ephraim by their clans: The border of their inheritance went from Ataroth-addar in the east to Upper Beth-horon and continued to the sea. From Micmethath on the north it curved eastward toward Taanath-shiloh, passing by it to the east of Janoah. Then it went down from Janoah to Ataroth and Naarah, touched Jericho, and ran along to the Jordan. From Tapuah the border went westward to the Brook of Kanah and ended at the sea. This was the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, clan by clan, along with all the cities and villages set apart for the descendants of Ephraim within the inheritance of Manasseh.” (Joshua 16:5–9) These verses outline Ephraim’s allotted portion in the promised land. Some archaeological surveys, however, have concluded that certain towns named here were not heavily or fully occupied by the Israelites during the initial settlement period. To reconcile these claims with the biblical account, several factors must be considered. II. Purpose of Listing Boundaries and Towns 1. Identification of Territory The passage in Joshua often delineates the boundaries of each tribal inheritance. These descriptions function as a land grant—similar to how ancient Near Eastern texts would record boundary markers for clarity, legal rights, and group identity. 2. Potential Absence of Large-Scale Settlement It is important to note that listing a town in a boundary record does not necessarily imply continuous or robust habitation there by every member of the tribe at all times. The biblical text can list locations that marked limits or were associated culturally with a particular tribe. 3. Gradual Settlement The Book of Judges (e.g., Judges 1:27–36) and other historical records show that Israel’s occupation of the land was sometimes piecemeal and took place over time. Some regions came under effective occupation later, even if they were recorded in the initial assignment. III. Archaeological Claims and Their Limitations 1. Incomplete Excavations Many archaeological sites in Israel and across the Levant remain only partially excavated. Conclusions about lack of occupation sometimes rest on the absence of large fortified structures or a paucity of pottery finds. However, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of true absence—especially if only a portion of a tell (ruin mound) has been excavated. 2. Ephemeral Habitation Patterns Smaller or pastoral communities may leave fewer archaeological traces, such as permanent fortifications or monumental architecture. The Israelites often lived in tented or simpler structures in the early settlement period, which can result in fewer archaeological remains. 3. Complex Stratigraphy Layers at ancient sites can be destroyed or eroded over time. Earthquakes, warfare, subsequent building phases, or simply the progression of centuries can eradicate or complicate evidence of earlier occupation. Archaeologists like Kathleen Kenyon, Yigael Yadin, and others highlight the complexities in correlating biblical texts with site stratigraphy because remains are not always straightforward to interpret. 4. Regional Shifts in Populations Historical sources (e.g., the Merneptah Stele, ca. 1208 BC) show that a people called “Israel” were recognized in the land of Canaan. This indicates Israel’s presence in the region around the time assessed by many scholars, although precise timelines differ. Nomadic or semi-nomadic patterns and forced labor of the remaining Canaanite population (Judges 1) further complicate attempts to pinpoint who occupied each settlement fully. IV. Possible Explanations for the Alleged Discrepancy 1. Territorial Claims vs. Actual Settlement The Book of Joshua often records tribal boundaries in anticipation of Israel’s future occupation of those areas. While the boundaries served as a legal or covenantal framework, the actual settlement process might have lagged behind. Hence, an early reference to a town could predate its substantial occupation or reflect the region’s inclusion in a tribal claim, even if the community living there remained small. 2. Shared or Partial Occupation Some towns could have been inhabited by Canaanites or a mixture of Israelites and local populations. The biblical text sometimes reports that the original inhabitants were not fully driven out (Joshua 16:10). Such a situation could yield confusing archaeological footprints, where evidence for a distinct “Israelite” material culture might not predominate at every occupation layer. 3. Documentation from a Later Editorial Perspective The Book of Joshua may contain editorial updates that reflect the knowledge of subsequent generations. However, consistency among ancient manuscripts—supported by textual critics such as Dr. Dan Wallace—demonstrates remarkable stability of the text. Thus, the named towns likely correspond to known locations in the early monarchy or post-conquest period, even if their full occupation by the tribe of Ephraim only became clearer with time. 4. Diverse Settlement Types Not every location with a Hebrew name in the biblical text necessarily had an Israelite fortification or “city gate.” Some could have functioned as agricultural outposts or seasonal encampments rather than major settlements with extensive remains. Over time, these places could grow into larger towns, leaving patchy archaeological evidence from that earlier period. V. The Reliability of the Biblical Record 1. Consistency with Other Historical and Archaeological Data Even when archaeological data appear to pose questions, many discoveries continue to affirm the overall historicity of biblical narratives. Examples include the Babylonian siege ramps at Lachish corroborating 2 Kings 18:13–17, or the Tel Dan Stele referencing the “House of David.” Though regarding a later period, these findings illustrate how artifact and inscription eventually overlap with the biblical account. 2. Textual Preservation and Internal Consistency The remarkable preservation and transmission of the Old Testament text through the Masoretic Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and later manuscripts aligns well with the textual evidence weighed by scholars such as Dr. James White. These manuscripts show strong internal consistency. In addition, the mention of specific towns in boundary lists, though challenged by some excavations, underscores the detailed nature of the scriptural narrative. 3. The Broader Theological Message The allocation of land in Joshua does not merely serve as a historical record but also bears theological weight: it demonstrates faithfulness to the promises given to the patriarchs. In that sense, the text’s primary purpose is not to catalog population sizes or architectural remains; rather, it communicates the covenant fulfillment, set within real geography. VI. Conclusion Archaeological claims that certain towns listed in Joshua 16:5–9 were not fully occupied by the Israelites at the time do not necessarily negate the biblical record. The boundaries described intend to define allocated tribal regions, and actual settlement patterns may have grown or shifted gradually. Moreover, partial or minimal discoveries do not constitute definitive proof of non-occupation. A variety of factors—from incomplete excavations to the nature of early Israelite habitation—can obscure a site’s archaeological footprint. When interpreted within the broader biblical narrative and corroborated by ongoing archaeological work, these texts stand consistent with the historical and theological purpose for which they were written. Ultimately, Joshua 16:5–9 sets forth Ephraim’s inherited borders, reaffirming the covenant promises and anchoring Israel’s identity in the land. Observations about potential gaps in occupation at certain towns are best understood in light of the fluid historical processes of settlement, the complexities of archaeological interpretation, and the biblical emphasis on Yahweh’s faithfulness in granting the land to His people. |
    |