In the biblical account, the first move of David before his attack against Jerusalem was to conquer all regions around it that were under Philistine control. This action is recorded in the Book of Second Samuel 4:21: "Once more the Philistines came up and spread out in the Valley of Rephaim". The conquest of this region has a perfect synchronism with the Amarna Archive. The Amarna Letter number 289 has the King of Jerusalem naming cities from Gath, all the way through the Valley of Rephaim, to Arrabah that were his control but were eventually lost by the conquests of Dagi and Ilu-miliku. No doubt their synchronisms with kings David and Ahimelech only grew stronger since the letter writes: "This was what Ilu-Miliku and Dagi did: they captured Arrabah. Now as for Jerusalem, if this land belongs to the king, why isn’t it of concern to the king, like Hazzatu? The Carmel at Gath belongs to Dagi, and men of Gath are the garrison in Beit She'an."

In the biblical account, the first move of David before his attack against Jerusalem was to conquer all regions around Canaan that were under Philistine control. This action is recorded in the Book of Second Samuel 4:21: " Once more the Philistines came up and spread out in the Valley of Rephaim". The Amarna Letter number 289 and 290 has the King of Jerusalem listing the cities in the coalition marching against Jerusalem: "They commanded troops from Gezer, troops from Gath, and troops from Keilah. They seized Arrabah. The lands of the king have been abandoned to the Habirus.". It is just amazing to see the cities the three leaders of the coalition Ilu-Miliku of Gezer, Suwardata of Gath, and Dagi of Keilah together. Or should I just use their biblical names: Ahimelek, Achish, and David?

Baal of the Amarna ruler, who wrote the letters 255 and 256, is translated as "Man of the Lord". There is a similar name that also has the same translation in Hebrew. The name of the son of Saul who took over his father leadership of the Hebrew Revolt is Ish-Baal that also means "Man of the Lord" in Hebrew. The Book of Second Samuel 2:10 records how "the tribe of Judah remained loyal to David" while the son of Saul named Ish-Baal rose as the king "over Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel". This division of the Hebrew forces would lead to a war between the two factions.

Download video explaining the chronology correction (only 2 minutes): "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rkl3VLSIy-hPhZtSwBQCLzm7W5ubEB1V/view?usp=sharing"

In this paper, the literary tradition describing a military coalition united against an enemy is explored in three contemporary sources, belonging to different literary genres: Shalmaneser III’s Kurkh Monolith, Zakkur’s victory and thanksgiving stele and the biblical stories of the conquest of the land (Josh 10–11). A common underlying literary tradition shaped the motifs utilized in these disparate descriptions – the assembling of the forces, their depiction and enumeration, and the subsequent victory of the one against the many by means of divine assistance. Moreover, in this tradition, the coalitions are always assembled by the enemy force. Even within this common literary tradition, distinctive motifs characterize the local viewpoint vs. the imperial one. The common motifs and their unique utilization will help to shed light on biblical historiography, placing the situation of a conflict against a military coalition not in its correct historical frame, but at the beginning of the people’s history: in the description of the divinely assisted conquest of the land, when God fought for Israel (Josh 10:14).

The historicity of the biblical Conquest, as presented in the book of Joshua, continues to be challenged by secular archaeologists and scholars, causing many to question the reliability of Scripture. Among the challenges facing those who defend the authenticity of Scripture is that there is allegedly no evidence/documentation for the Conquest outside the Bible. Furthermore, skeptics are quick to point out that the Bible is a religious text, so the Conquest account could have been exaggerated or even invented to support a particular regime or theology. To counter this, Christians can appeal to the ever-growing archaeological evidence in support of the Bible's historical trustworthiness.

We live in an amazing time in history when almost every month another discovery is unearthed that in some way validates the details of the biblical text. Yet, despite the mounting evidence for the Bible's authenticity, skepticism and challenges to the historicity of the biblical text remain prevalent in the halls of academia. Our universities and mainstream media have largely embraced a minimalistic philosophy that continues to designate the biblical text as an agenda-driven treatise that cannot be trusted objectively since they allege biased authors wrote it long after the events it describes. Even some in Christendom have waved the white flag of surrender and gone as far as to declare that archaeology has proven that the Exodus and Conquest did not happen as the Bible describes. According to our postmodern culture, truth is relative and unobtainable unless it is delivered by people of "science" as opposed to those who can only posit arguments of "faith." What many fail to understand is that every unearthed piece of pottery or bone requires an interpretation that is inevitably filtered through one's presuppositions. In many cases, it can take several years for the often-differing interpretations to be parsed and weighed to determine which is better supported by the evidence. It is my objective to always remember the scriptural mandate found in 1 Peter 3:15: "…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." And I would contend, as one who has studied archaeological and apologetic matters carefully while completing my PhD and working in the field for several years, that it truly takes more faith to reject the biblical account of the Conquest than it does to accept the historicity of the events recorded in Joshua and Judges. I have targeted the five specific sites of Jericho, Ai (Khirbet el-Maqatir), Mount Ebal, Hazor, and Shiloh to best demonstrate substantial archaeological evidence for the biblical account of the Conquest during the Late Bronze Age, ca. 1400 BC.