There is an ongoing debate in scholarly circles of OT studies on how Israel became established in the land of Canaan. There are three contemporary positions vying for ascendancy: 1) the traditional "conquest" model; 2) a "migration" or "infiltration" model; 3) a "peasant revolt" model. There is no present consensus, although it seems that the current general trend is to move away from the traditional "conquest" model.

a.    The traditional conquest model.

Those who hold to the "conquest" model are of the opinion that Israel invaded the land from outside its borders, broke organized resistance by a series of swift attacks, and then settled down to complete the occupation of the land in the various tribal territories.

Traditionally adocates of this view have appealed to archaeological evidence, usually from destruction levels of various Canaanite cities in the late 13th century B.C., and have accepted the picture given in the biblical narrative as either completely or at least generally historically reliable. Advocates of this view belonging to the Albright school usually qualify historical reliability by maintaining that historicity must not be pushed to details.

The conquest model is supported by evangelical scholars (e.g. K. A. Kitchen, David Howard, Richard Hess), by W. F. Albright and a number of his students, as well as by such Israeli scholars as Yigael Yadin and Abraham Malamat. In recent years a more nuanced version of the conquest view (sometimes termed a "modified conquest model") has developed in which the destruction levels of the late 13th century B.C. Canaanite cities are not cited as evidence for the view. Eugene Merrill (Kingdom of Priests)and David Howard (Joshua NAC, pp, 36-40, 1998) are among those who argue that according to the biblical text only three Canaanite cities were destroyed (Jericho, Ai and Hazor). Merrill comments: "Once one understands that the mrj under which Canaan stood applied only to populations and not places (Jericho, Ai and Hazor excepted) the archaeological verifiability of the conquest is shown to be an exercise in irrelevance" (BibSac 152 [1995] 145 162).
 
J. Bimson (1989, see bib.) has supported a conquest model with a 15th century date by suggesting that destruction levels at the end of the Middle Bronze Age are to be associated with the Israelite conquest. This suggestion involves a revision, downward, of the end of the MBA from about 1500 to about 1400.

b.    The migration or infiltration model.

Advocates of this view conclude that there was no military assault on Canaanite cities, but rather there was a gradual infiltration by pastoral nomads from the deserts of the south and east (the Israelite tribes) into the sparsely populated hill country of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B.C.) and Early Iron Age (1200-1000 B.C). These nomads are said to have lived on good terms with the Canaanites, even intermarrying with them, and not to have engaged in serious conflicts until the 11th century when they moved into the fertile plains where the strong Canaanite cities were located.

This thesis was initially proposed by Albrecht Alt in 1925 and was followed by M. Noth. More recently it has been supported by Manfred Weippert, J. M. Miller and the Israeli scholars Yohanan Aharoni and M. Mochavi (see course bibliography).

According to Alt the real process of settlement was a peaceful process of transition on the part of nomads to a sedentary way of life. Only at a second stage did the Israelites seek possession of the valleys and plains and in the process occasionally engage in military activity. Alt termed this second stage "territorial expansion." Both Alt and Weippert dismiss archaeological evidence as either "silent" or inconclusive.

c.    The peasant revolt model

According to this view the occupation of Canaan is not to be viewed as an invasion from outside, but rather as an uprising within the land of Israel. G. Mendenhall claims that there was no "conquest" in the sense in which that is usually understood, but rather that rural peasants who were unhappy with the Canaanite city state system "rejected the old political ideologies in favor of the covenant community of Yahweh."

Mendenhall argues that: "there was no statistically important invasion of Palestine at the beginning of the twelve tribe system of Israel. There was no radical displacement of population, there was no genocide, there was no large scale driving out of population, only of royal administrators (of necessity!). In summary, there was no real conquest of Palestine in the sense that has usually been understood; what happened instead may be termed, from the point of view of the secular historian interested only in socio-political processes, a peasant's revolt against the network of interlocking Canaanite city states" ("The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine," The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 3, 107)."

He says further: "the Hebrew conquest of Palestine took place because a religious movement and motivation created a solidarity among a large group of pre-existent social units, which was able to challenge and defeat the dysfunctional complex of cities dominating the whole of Palestine and Syria at the end of the Bronze age." ("The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine," The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 3, 107)."

The "internal revolt" model took a new turn with the publication of Norman Gottwald's The Tribes of Yahweh A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250 1050 B.C.E in 1979 and his The Hebrew Bible - A Socio-Literary Introduction in 1985. Gottwald approaches his analysis of biblical traditions from a Marxist orientation. The result is a radically new reading of the biblical material from a sociological perspective. Gottwald agrees with Mendenhall that the origin of Israel is to be traced to a revolutionary social movement within Canaanite society, but he departs from Mendenhall's original thesis in that he denies that the revolution was inspired at least to some extent by Yahwistic religious belief. In fact he argues that the order is to be reversed. Yahwism only arose as a function of the revolution. It was the revolution that created the conditions under which Yahwism emerged. Religion thus becomes a function of class relations, employed either by "the powerful to justify their superior class position or the powerless to validate their class struggle" (P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. "A Major New Introduction to the Bible," Bible Review 2/2 (1986) 44). Mendenhall himself has strongly rejected Gottwald's modification of the peasant revolt hypothesis (see G. Mendenhall, "Ancient Israel's Hyphenated History," in Palestine in Transition eds., David Noel Freedman and David F. Graf [Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1983].

Before leaving discussion of this matter it is instructive to notice the shift in emphasis and even
viewpoint on this issue reflected in the 3 successive editions of John Bright's A History of
Ancient Israel (as noted in E. Noort, "Geschiedenis als Brandpunt over de Rol van de
Archaeologie bij de Vestiging van Israël in Kanaän, GTT 78 [1987] 84-102).

J. Bright, A HISTORY OF ISRAEL, 1960, 126-127.	J. Bright, A HISTORY OF ISRAEL, 1972, 138,139	J. Bright, A HISTORY OF OF ISRAEL, 1981, 142.
In the latter half of the thirteenth century there took place, as archaeological evidence abundantly attests a great onslaught upon Western Palestine, which, however, incomplete it may have been, broke the back of organized resistance and enabled Israel to transfer her tribal center there. There is not reason to doubt, that this conquest was, as the Book of Joshua depicts it, a bloody and brutal business. It was the Holy War of Yahweh, by which he would give his people the Land of Promise. At the same time, it must be remembered that the herem was applied only in certain cases; the Canaanite population was by no means exterminated. Much of the land occupied by Israel was thinly populated and much inhabited by elements who made common cause with her.	My own earlier presentation has been revised in the light of the important article of G. B. Mendenhall... Though Mendenhall has perhaps expressed himself incautiously in places ... In any event, whatever the size of the group coming from the desert may have been (and it may have been larger than Mendenhall seems to suggest), its crucial role in what took place must receive full stress (p. 133, n. 69). . . . in the latter part of the thirteenth century when, as archaeological evidence suggests a violent convulsion shook Western Palestine, as a result of which organized resistance was broken and Israel was enabled to transfer her tribal center there. In view of the complexity of the evidence we cannot undertake to reconstruct the details of the action by which this was accomplished. But there is no reason to doubt that it was, as the Bible depicts it, a bloody and brutal business. It was the Holy War of Yahweh by which he would give his people the Land of Promise. At the same time, it must be remembered that the herem was applied only in the case of certain Canaanite cities that resisted; the population of Palestine was by no means exterminated. Indeed there is every reason to believe that large elements of that population - specifically Hebrews but others as well - made common cause with the Israelites and rendered them willing assistance.	The presentation offered here follows in all essentials that of G. E. Mendenhall... (p. 137, n.76). Especially must disaffected elements among the Hebrew population have been set to wondering if they too might not hope to get free from their hated masters. It was inevitable that the conflagration should spread. And this it did as the thirteenth century gave way to the twelfth... Indeed it is not impossible that uprisings against the city lords on the part of individual tribes, of groupings of tribes had been taking place there even before the coming of Yahwism But it was the new faith that drove the conflagration out of control and provided the catalyst that brought Israel together as a people. The process by which this came about was complex and doubtless of long duration in view of the nature of the evidence, we cannot undertake to reconstruct it in detail. But there is no reason to doubt, that it was, as the Bible depicts it, a bloody and brutal business. It was the Holy War of Yahweh by which he would give his people the Land of Promise. At the same time it must be remembered that the herem was applied only in the case of certain Canaanite cities that resisted: the population of Palestine was by no means exterminated. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that large elements of that population - specifically Hebrews, but others as well - made common cause with the Israelites and rendered them willing assistance.