evidence for/against Jerico

[twohumble]

I have been told that the story of the attack on Jerico, and the falling walls has been proven false. I have been told that there is archeological evidence suggesting that Jerico was deserted at the supposed time of the story.

Does anyone have any info on this at all?

[JohnStevenson]

I have been told that the story of the attack on Jerico, and the falling walls has been proven false. I have been told that there is archeological evidence suggesting that Jerico was deserted at the supposed time of the story
Archaeologists continue to argue over the studies of the Jericho ruins. In the past, Biblical Archaeology Review has done a good job of presenting both sides of the arguments - see the Sept-Oct 1990 issue, Pg 45-ff.

[Dr T]

11-12-2003 @ 03:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281886#post281886)
twohumble:

I have been told that the story of the attack on Jerico, and the falling walls has been proven false. I have been told that there is archeological evidence suggesting that Jerico was deserted at the supposed time of the story.

Does anyone have any info on this at all?

At one time it did look like the evidence suggested that Jericho was abandoned at the relevant time. However more recent work has pointed out some errors in the way that the conventional cronology was drawn up, and in correcting these errors it has turned out that Jericho was indeed occupied and destroyed within the relevant time period.

This new interpretation hasn't been accepted by the mainstream establishment, although I think the errors that it addresses are.

The main work pointing to the new chronology was by David Rohl, the following is a link to some information on his work.

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/

I've got a copy of "A test of time" and it is an excellent book. Not sure the way the latest academic arguing is going.

[ilkhani'tus]

Well, here's some stuff (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/030BiblicalArchaeology.html) I found that seems to be against what Bryant Wood and his religious group claims about Jericho...how conclusive it is, I don't really know.
In fact, the date that Wood cited has been retracted by the British Museum who did the work, along with a whole batch of dates done around the same time because their instruments were wrongly calibrated. The proper date supports Kenyon's chronology. In 1995, Hendrik J Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht published results from high-precision radiocarbon measurements made on eighteen samples from Jericho. Six of these samples were charred cereal grains?dateable to the year?from the supposed Jericho destruction layer. The outcome was support for Kenyon, and refutation of Wood.

As for the dates of Garstang?s scarabs, Kenyon showed that Garstang was inaccurate. Finally, though Kenyon was a Christian she was not a loony one like Wood, but was devoted to report what she found, not what she wanted to find. Who would you believe?

[Celsus]

I don't understand the love for David Rohl among conservative Christians. He's a nutcase of the Graham Hancock type and only appeals to those who know nothing about archaeological dating systems and multiple corroboration of sources (see here (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html)). Even the Christian conservative favourite Kenneth Kitchen says he's "98% rubbish." You'll be much better served by looking at Christian scholarship that honestly traces the development of the Bible.

Oh, and as for Jericho, that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is whether a systematic invasion of the Canaanite cities in question (e.g. Jericho, Ai, Hazor, Bethel, Dan/Laish, etc.) can be proven to be within a single campaign. The short answer is, they can't. The long answer is that many of them are rebuilt by Egyptians (Lachish), Sea Peoples (Gezer, Dor), and Canaanites; they were little villages or otherwise unoccupied at the time; that they were indeed invaded at different times (a common occurence because of Canaan's position between Egypt and Mesopotamia), etc. For example, among the cities listed in Joshua, we can find destruction layers like Hazor--thirteenth century BCE; Bethel, Jokneam--late thirteenth; Megiddo, Taanach, Kedesh, Dor--twelfth century, etc. Otherwise, for Jericho--Meager occupation, no destruction layer in 13th/12th centuries; Ai--unoccupied between 2250 and 1200 BCE; Jerusalem--no destruction; Hebron--no destruction; etc.

Obviously, a conquest hypothesis is in serious trouble (and has long been abandoned in serious scholarship).

Joel

[markporter]

Ah well, my daily apologetics link, this is Glenn Miller's article on it http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html

[Celsus]

Oh dear. Glenn Miller likes Rohl as well? My estimation of him just dropped considerably. Does he actually realise which cultures conquered Dor, Laish, Hazor, Gezer, etc.? Does he honestly believe that the Canaanites simply gave up some of their cities without a fight? Does he honestly believe that 300 men at Ai fought off 30,000(!)? Does he have any clue what population estimates of Canaan in the Late Bronze are? (about 50,000, actually--the Israelites must have outnumbered the entire population of Canaan many times over) And finally, does he not realise that Egyptian hegemony in Canaan only ended in the 1100s (after the Menerptah stela!) while his date for an Israelite conquest in the 1200s still falls short? Mark... pull out some points at random and I'll tell you where Miller goes wrong (generally, he's been searching for anything to back his version of events, ignoring the bigger picture which in many cases makes his case extremely implausible).

Let me quote Lawrence Stager (in Coogan's Oxford History of the Biblical World):
To make a persuasive archaeological case for the mass migration of peoples from one homeland to another, certain criteria must be met:
The implanted culture must be distinguishable from the indigenous cultures in the new zones of settlement. If the intrusive group launches an invasion (as proponents of the Israelite "conquest" postulate), there should be synchronous discontinuities, such as destruction layers, separating the previous "Canaanite" cultures from newly established "Israelite" cultures in the zone of contention.
The homeland of the migrating/individual groups should be located, its material culture depicted, and temporal precedence established in its place of origin. In the case of invading Israel, this should be the Transjordan or in Egypt.
The route of migration/invasion should be traceable and examined for its archaeological, historical, and geographical plausibility. If the new immigrants took an overland route, the spatial and temporal distortion of the material culture should indicate the path and direction of large-scale migrations.p.94
As Stager goes on to note--the archaeological case fails at stage 1, which is why no modern archaeologists buy the Biblical account.

Joel

[markporter]

Oh dear. Glenn Miller likes Rohl as well?

hmm? I only saw one referencce to rohl in the article, perhaps I missed something.

And, I don't think that your point 1 is particularly relevant, as it is quite clear that in a lot of cases the Israelites didn't totally destroy but instead integrated themselves to a degree with the existing cultures.

[Celsus]

And, I don't think that your point 1 is particularly relevant, as it is quite clear that in a lot of cases the Israelites didn't totally destroy but instead integrated themselves to a degree with the existing cultures.
Hm, you seem to have forgotten the Pentateuchal commands that God says to wipe out those in the lands they are supposed to inhabit, surely? If you are going to base your evidence primarily on literary sources, then you'll not be able to come up with a complete picture. For example, ask how come the Canaanite cities show no evidence of transition: Israelites apparently "integrate" themselves into local populations despite Levitical commands? This is conjecture at best, inconsistent with the Bible, and the only solid example (Gibeon) in the Bible is quite specific as to the circumstances. That they didn't defeat all the Canaanites does not mean they ended up living in all their cities (certainly not Jerusalem, for example). Not only that, Miller is asking for something that has never happened to happen at several locations with no sign of contact: The Israelites would surely have Egyptian/Transjordanian vessels and wares on them, for example. The new pottery would have had to have left some mark if we're going to use the numbers of Israelites Glen Miller claims there were. Frankly, it's sad that apologists only seek confirmation of their preconceptions instead of learning the extent to what is out there in the field of archaeology.

Joel

Edited to add: the line is "There is also the very readable and well illustrated book by Rohl--PAK." but I was mistaken, it seems to be by one "PAK." Who is that?

[kofh2u]

In the light, be it true, of scholarship denying the epic origins of the Hebrews, is there any work to support some other reasonable explanatiion for their present existence?
That is to say, we do have record of the Jews as far back as King David, king Saul.

If the entire epic tale concerning the Exodus can not be supported in our archeology, with what, thrn, does archeology replace such an absence of evidence?

The arguments concerning the requirement that we find significant signs of such a large Israelite presence in places well beyond 1000 BC ought also demonstrate the actual case of their apoearance. That the scriptural story is not supported seems to require that it be replaced with evidence of sone other alternative explanation for a sudden and numerous Israeli presence in that area.
Am I wrong in such a request, or am I ignorant if one is already avaiable?

[Celsus]

Hi kofh2u

That is certainly a valid request. There are several models of the formation of the Israelite state. W.F. Albright's "Conquest Model" was quite different from the Biblical picture, since Albright acknowledged inconsistencies and problems with the Biblical account. Even then, he believed that a military conquest was likely, yet today, none of his interpretations are taken seriously by archaeologists.

It is possible that a Hebrew people emerged from Egypt, Midian or elsewhere in the Transjordan and invaded Canaan, possibly in waves over a few generations. However, putting a realistic date on it means that you must dispense with some of the biblical chronology (which is contradictory anyway with the period of the Judges being too long). Certain Egyptian finds have hinted that Midian (where Moses supposedly spent 40 years) was known by Egyptians to be the origins of Yahwism. This is Albrecht Alt's Migration model, which like Albright's, is hardly considered seriously today.

Another explanation for Israel's emergence include a peasant's revolt model in which peasants living in the rural areas took over the institutional governance as city-states declined (and there is certainly plenty of evidence of the waxing and waning fortunes of Canaanite city-states). George Mendenhall believed that a small group of slaves from Egypt arrived to incite the rural populations against the Canaanite cities. This theory, unfortunately, has been coloured by the influence of the national saga of modern Israel. Again, this theory has not received support because, frankly, very few cities did have signs of disturbance, and we now know that Sea Peoples (including Philistines) and Egyptians were responsible for much of the Late Bronze destruction.

The much maligned Israel Finkelstein (at least here at Tweb) showed that numerous settlements spring up in the Iron I especially in the Hill country. On the other hand, Judah was mostly uninhabited until 1000 BCE (circa Biblical David and Saul). The lifestyles of these new inhabitants were mainly farmers and horticulturalists, not nomads or warriors, and they were firmly Canaanite (or "proto-Israelite" as Finkelstein suggests). This means that the likely story is that Israel as we were to know it later simply didn't exist at this point, although an ethnic group by that designation may have (as in the Menerptah stela).

Quite likely, Israel simply evolved out of the Canaanite population--certain practices developed may have developed as a response to external pressure from the Philistines and Egyptians. For example, the Philistines were well-known for pig consumption, and it is around the 11th century that we start to see evidence of this practice disappearing from the rest of Canaan (unless of course the "Israelites" had a 1 to 3 century lag in obeying Moses). This theory of indigenous evolution is the best supported and is a relative consensus among archaeologists today, although the details may vary. However, some historians still try to find evidence of foreign origins--to date, there are no physical traces of such, no matter the Biblical record. Not only that, it would be impossible to establish that there was widespread migration even if a few foreign settlements were found because of the extensive regional surveys that have been carried out since the 1970s.

Joel

[markporter]

Hm, you seem to have forgotten the Pentateuchal commands that God says to wipe out those in the lands they are supposed to inhabit, surely?

Nope, merely remembering the fact that Israel seem to be pretty notorious for disobeying commands like that.


And so it started. Israel, under the leadership of Joshua, made some initial 'big wins' and left their archaeological mark in the dirt (e.g. Hazor, Jericho, Lachish). They began densely settling the initial areas. But much of the designated land was NOT 'conquered'--it was peacefully settled during the period of the Judges. The inhabitants of those later cities had abandoned them and taken up residence elsewhere (movement was quite simple, since they were already living in the nomadic lifestyle generally). YHWH had 'driven the inhabitants out' as He had promised (Josh 3.10). We would, therefore, expect to see significant population and settlement growth at the borders of central Palestine--which is exactly what we find.


Israel essentially took over the material culture of the inhabitants of central Palestine--with the general exception of their religious and cultic practices (later they even did this, and it was a big mistake). This was in keeping with Deut 6.10 ( When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you -- a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, 11 houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant... ). So, we would expect the material culture remains of Israelite IA sites to be largely 'canaanite', but with disuse and/or abuse of the temples/cultic objects (exactly what we find at the early destruction sites--Hazor, Jericho, Lachish). [This religious 'intolerance' is also difficult to explain in the gradualist/alliance views--the patterns previous to this were NOT exclusivistic and major shifts to an El or YAH deity are very difficult to explain in an 'emerging unity' movement.]

The new pottery would have had to have left some mark if we're going to use the numbers of Israelites Glen Miller claims there were

well how about we use a different number then?

Edited to add: the line is "There is also the very readable and well illustrated book by Rohl--PAK." but I was mistaken, it seems to be by one "PAK." Who is that?

Nah, you're not mistaken, PAK is the reference in his book library

Oh, and one more point, I trust Glenn Miller and his methods of working, I don't believe that he'd have written that article without surveying the arguments on both sides and coming to his conclusion with an honest mind. (btw, have you actually read it?)

[Dr T]

I don't understand the love for David Rohl among conservative Christians. He's a nutcase of the Graham Hancock type and only appeals to those who know nothing about archaeological dating systems and multiple corroboration of sources (see here (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html)). Even the Christian conservative favourite Kenneth Kitchen says he's "98% rubbish." You'll be much better served by looking at Christian scholarship that honestly traces the development of the Bible.

Oh, and as for Jericho, that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is whether a systematic invasion of the Canaanite cities in question (e.g. Jericho, Ai, Hazor, Bethel, Dan/Laish, etc.) can be proven to be within a single campaign. The short answer is, they can't. The long answer is that many of them are rebuilt by Egyptians (Lachish), Sea Peoples (Gezer, Dor), and Canaanites; they were little villages or otherwise unoccupied at the time; that they were indeed invaded at different times (a common occurence because of Canaan's position between Egypt and Mesopotamia), etc. For example, among the cities listed in Joshua, we can find destruction layers like Hazor--thirteenth century BCE; Bethel, Jokneam--late thirteenth; Megiddo, Taanach, Kedesh, Dor--twelfth century, etc. Otherwise, for Jericho--Meager occupation, no destruction layer in 13th/12th centuries; Ai--unoccupied between 2250 and 1200 BCE; Jerusalem--no destruction; Hebron--no destruction; etc.

Obviously, a conquest hypothesis is in serious trouble (and has long been abandoned in serious scholarship).

Joel


"David took his degree in Egyptology and Ancient History at University College, London, between 1987 and 1990, where he is currently completing a doctoral thesis entitled 'A Re-examination of the Chronology of the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt'. He has published numerous papers in academic journals and was the Editor of the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF) from 1986 to 1992. As an archaeologist, he has
excavated at ancient Kadesh-on-the-Orontes in Syria with the expedition of the Institute of Archaeology, London. He is currently Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences."

Not sure of the date of the above information.

If you have read the "Test of time" you would know that Rohl didn't approach this topic from a Biblical point of view at all. Based on the known problems with the existing chronology and new evidence, he proposed an alternative chronology giving his reasons for this alternative. His suggested new chronology may indeed be incorrect, but the intersting thing about it is that it places one of the destructions of Jericho in the same time period as the Bible, the new Chronology matches closely with the events described in the Bible including the invasion scenario.

Many advances in knowledge start with some one putting forward a controversal proposition, which may be or not correct but starts a new line of thought.

Here is some further information on the proposed new chronology.
David Rohl's "New Chronology"
by Charles N. Pope


A New Chronology - It's About Time!
The interrelated chronologies of ancient Egypt, Israel, and Mesopotamia are based on a single "essential synchronism"(1) established over 165 years ago.(2) In 1822, Jean Francois Champollion deciphered the Hieroglyphic Code using the Rosetta Stone, and inaugurated the field of Egyptology. Unfortunately, six years later, he dealt the new discipline a serious setback with his misinterpretation of a military campaign mural belonging to the Egyptian 22nd Dynasty Pharaoh Sheshonq I.(3)

Champollion thought he had found "Judah the Kingdom" among the hieroglyphs of subdued cities listed in Sheshonq's inscription,(4) and concluded that Sheshonq could be none other than the Biblical Pharaoh "Shishak."(5) Shishak, according to 2 Chronicles 12, "captured the fortified cities of Judah" five years after the death of King Solomon. The Bible goes on to say that Jerusalem was spared only after Shishak "carried off ... everything." By 1888, Champollion's "Judah the Kingdom" had been correctly translated as "Monument of the King,"(6) and associated geopgraphically with northern Israel by virtue of its position in the Karnak mural campaign itinerary.(7) However, the mis-identification of Shishak with Sheshonq was not overturned, and has remained the cornerstone of ancient chronology.

In the New Chronology model, the Pharaoh who besieges the fortified cities of Judah and subdues Jerusalem five years after the death of Solomon is re-identified as the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh Ramses II.(8) The well documented campaign of Ramses II against Palestine in his Year 8 corresponds much more closely to that of the Biblical Shishak than that of Sheshonq. Examination of the account of Sheshonq's invasion reveals that it was directed primarily toward the northern kingdom of Israel, and that Judah was deliberately bypassed by the Egyptian army.(9) Moreover, no mention is made in the Bible of the northern kingdom of Israel being humbled by Shishak. On the other hand, Ramses II's campaign did concentrate primarily on Judah and the Shasu nations of the Sinai and southern transjordan, and Ramses II specifically claims to have "plundered Shalom," i.e., Jerusalem.

Furthermore Rohl has determined that Shisha is an acceptable transliteration of the official Egyptian nickname (Sysw)(10) of the Pharaoh Ramses II, and that the liguistic path to the Biblical name Shishak is more straightforward than that of Sheshonq, especially if it is recognized that the final "k" was added as a play on words (a recognized practice used in the Bible when translating foreign names) to render the connotation of "assaulter" in Hebrew.(11)

The New Chronology determination that the Biblical King Rehoboam (besieged by Shishak) and the Pharaoh Ramses II were contempories is secured by several archaeological finds and a completely independent synchronism, that being the recording of a rare solar eclipse in the reign of the 18th Dynasty Pharaoh, Akhenaten.(12) Shortly after the death of his father Amenhotep III, Akhenaten received a letter from his vassal Abimilku(13) of Tyre informing him of a fire that destroyed half of the palace of King Nikmaddu II at the city of Ugarit (north of Tyre on the Syrian coast of the Mediterranean Sea). In the charred remains of that palace, archaeologists found a tablet describing an eclipse of the sun that occurred at sunset in the month of "Hiyaru" (mid-April to mid-May). As the setting sun was considered a goddess in the Ugarit pantheon, the eclipse represented a particularly evil omen, and it was indicated as such on the opposite side of the tablet. Computer retro-calculation has confirmed that an eclipse did occur thirty minutes before sunset on May 9th in the year 1012 B.C., and that this was the only total solar eclipse which occurred within one hour of sunset at this location during the entire 2nd millennium B.C. Rohl therefore deduces that the palace fire and Abimilku's letter to Akhenaten occurred after (and likely no more than a year after) the tablet recording the solar eclipse of 1012 B.C. was inscribed.

Circa 1012 B.C. is the accepted time (in the conventional chronology) for the rise of King David in Israel, however it has until now been believed that the Pharoah Akhenaten ruled in Egypt over 300 years earlier! The letter to Akhenaten was one of 340 political correspondences written primarily in Akkadian, the diplomatic language of the day, and dating to the reigns of Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun. The group of letters are collectively known as the Amarna tablets after the site in Egypt where they were discovered in 1887.

Comparisons between the frequently mentioned "Habiru" of the Amarna tablets and the Biblical descriptions of David and his band of "mighty men" (2 Samuel 10:7) have been made by noted scholars. However, due to the 300 year offset in the conventional chronology, an association with the Biblical accounts had not been seriously considered. A new study of the Amarna tablets by Rohl has revealed that the ethnic and political makeup of Palestine, and the activities of the Habiru are even more similar in their correspondence with the Biblical record that was originally suspected.(14)

King Saul (a symbolic name meaning "Asked For" by virtue of Israel's request that God appoint a king to rule over them) of the Bible is revealed in the Amarna letters as Labayu (meaning "Great Lion"), and "the Habiru who was raised up against the lands." In Psalm 57, Saul's bodyguards are referred to as lebaim ("great lions"). Specific details relating to Labayu's activities, betrayal, and death as recorded in the Amarna letters precisely match the Bible account of Saul's rise and ultimate fall on Mount Gilboa in battle with the Philistines. After Labayu's death, the Amarna tablets record the pleas to Akhenaten from his Jebusite vassal at Jerusalem, and from his Canaanite vassal at Gezer to send either reinforcement troops or an escort to allow them to escape before their cities were to fall to the Habiru who were now based in "Tianna" (Akkadian Tianna -> Hebrew Tsiyon -> English Zion). This sequence of events in the Amarna tablets closely corresponds to the Biblical account of David's capture of Jerusalem and his victories over the Philistines after the death of King Saul.

Finally, a letter from Labayu's son and successor, Mutbaal (identified as the Biblical Ishbaal, the sole surviving son of King Saul) to Akhenaten is a response to his being questioned by Egyptian authorities about the whereabouts of one Ayab (Akkadian translation of the Biblical Joab). Mutbaal states, "he has been in the field for two months. Just ask Benenima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask Yishuya..." The letter implies an intimate knowledge of the major proponents of the Hebrew movement on the part of Akhenaten, including the Biblical David, named by the Akkadian version of his name, Dadua.(15)

If the other associations are correct, then it would make perfect sense for Ishbaal to refer Akhenaten to David as to the whereabouts of Joab, as Joab was David's nephew and the commander of his Army (1 Chronicles 2:16, 2 Samuel 8:16)!.

The recent discovery at Tel Dan (in northern Israel) of an inscription containing the word "bytdwd" (translated by some as "House of David") created an international sensation.(16) However, a variant of this same name (i.e., Dadua), as well as numerous other Biblical name associations in the Amarna tablets have been overlooked for more than 100 years! This can only reflect the extent of the bias that the conventional chronology has imposed on historical scholarship.

David and Solomon are portrayed in the Bible as two of the greatest kings of the ancient world, yet within the conventional chronology, a suitable context for their reigns cannot be found. Quoting from the book, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, "The Bible is the only written source concerning the United Monarchy ,(17) and it is therefore the basis of any historical presentation of the period."(18) There is such a complete void of external sources that the archaeologist, author and leading authority on the era, Donald Redford writes in frustration that "such topics as the foreign policy of David and Solomon, Solomon's trade in horses or his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter must remain themes for midrash and fictional treatment."(19) Other researchers have arrived at even more dramatic conclusions. Quoting Phillip Davies' book, In Search of Ancient Israel (1992, JSOT Press, Sheffield, England), "The evidence recently accumulated by Jamieson-Drake(20) at least shows the impossibility of a Davidic empire administered from Jerusalem ... The range of indices considered by Jamieson-Drake make it necessary for us to exclude the Davidic and Solomonic monarchies, let alone their 'empire' from a non-biblical history of Palestine."

Ironically, the zeal of the early archaeologists to find evidence of the Biblical world led to a chronological framework in which it could not possibly have existed. The New Chronology convincingly resolves the long standing and disturbing 300 year discrepancy between the Bible and archaeology, and provides a more accurate, albeit radically different context in which the historicity of the Bible accounts and characters can be fully reconsidered, i.e., an infrastructure in Palestine of fine cities endowed with new temples and palaces, and political correspondences from palestine rulers to Egyptian Pharaohs that contain a reference to David, as well as many other Biblical associations.

[Dr T]

I have been told that the story of the attack on Jerico, and the falling walls has been proven false. I have been told that there is archeological evidence suggesting that Jerico was deserted at the supposed time of the story.

Does anyone have any info on this at all?

For some time there seems to have an increasing amount of evidence that that accepted chronology for the Egyptian dynasties has serious flaws.

Several new chronologies have been proposed.

One is the Rohl one mentioned in some of the above posts. It isn't the only one by any means.

The old chronology relies on the Bible to identify a key marker date.

Several alternatives have been suggested.

The following link may be of interest.

http://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm

Which has an alternative, but still new chronology.

On the link to the rubbish Rohl site there is an interesting article proving Rohl must be wrong because the explosion of Thera has been proven to be 1628 BC.

Interestingly new evidence (1998), which you will find references to in the above link, shows that the Thera explosion could not be 1628 BC.

Just shows that in this area, one years "proven" fact is show to be wrong not long afterwards.

[Celsus]

Hello again markporter and Dr T,

I will be away this weekend, and may not remember this in time (I'm currently studying for exams). I am not interested in arguing against a website (DrT), and I did read Miller's article thoroughly (thanks for asking). Miller's flaw is that he really has no idea of the big picture, and that he is only convincing to those not in the know--because they look good on their own, but do not stand up to what we know from systematic regional surveys of the region (as Coogan's book (above) and Finkelstein's paper The Archaeology of Israelite Settlement demonstrates well). I like Miller a lot because he's interesting, but in this case, he is misguided, and his portrayal of scholarship (as if the Exodus is still seriously considered a possibility) is disingenuous.

I'm not very familiar with Rohl other than knowing that no one in the field takes him seriously, credentials or not. I know he does not argue from the Bible, but his "revised" chronology is based on flimsy evidence, which, like Miller, does not stand up to the bigger picture. There are multiple ways of calibrating chronologies, particularly through independent king lists from Egypt and Assyria which we compare contemporaries, and Rohl only deals with one (Egypt's), completely ignoring what else we know of the region. All charlatans like to portray themselves as one-man-against-the-establishment, forgetting that the "establishment" does validly disagree on a great number of issues and is not homogenous, and that there are very good reasons why every single last one of those who know better reject their so-called scholarship. Conspiracies in academia are really old hat.

If the two of you are going to argue from authority or website, then I'm not interested in this debate. On the other hand, if you present some good arguments and show an understanding of both sides of the issue (and thus a good reason why you choose either Miller or Rohl over the establishment), I'll be quite happy to even go to a formal debate with you (though it would have to be next month at the soonest). The first stop is methodology, and I recommend this thread (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=183) at my own forum where I have written at length on this issue.

Joel

[Celsus]

One last point: David Rohl attempts to move the Israelite slavery in Egypt in line with the Hyksos period, if I understand him correctly. This means that he believes the Israelites in Egypt were Baal worshippers, as the Hyksos clearly are (and Baal's consort Anat). Also the history of the Hyksos--being seiged at Avaris, Rohl's proposed capital for Israelite slaves and then chased into Canaan and slaughtered, does not sit well with Miller's assertion that it's preposterous to have the Hyksos as the originators of Israel (I agree, but it happens to be something Josephus believed very strongly). Now I understand Kitchen's beef with him (along with the interview Kitchen was tricked into doing). I believe Christians will not find comfort in the implications of Rohl's revised chronology, if only they had an idea of that elusive bigger picture.

Joel

[markporter]

If the two of you are going to argue from authority or website, then I'm not interested in this debate. On the other hand, if you present some good arguments and show an understanding of both sides of the issue (and thus a good reason why you choose either Miller or Rohl over the establishment), I'll be quite happy to even go to a formal debate with you (though it would have to be next month at the soonest). The first stop is methodology, and I recommend this thread at my own forum where I have written at length on this issue.


I'm afraid there's no way I could do a formal debate, I know virtually nothing about the topic, I'm just trying to present the other side from an apologist whom I have a lot of trust in.

[markporter]

Also the history of the Hyksos--being seiged at Avaris, Rohl's proposed capital for Israelite slaves and then chased into Canaan and slaughtered, does not sit well with Miller's assertion that it's preposterous to have the Hyksos as the originators of Israel (I agree, but it happens to be something Josephus believed very strongly).

living proof that Miller didn't rely on Rohl then :tongue:

[Dr T]

Hello again markporter and Dr T,

I will be away this weekend, and may not remember this in time (I'm currently studying for exams). I am not interested in arguing against a website (DrT), and I did read Miller's article thoroughly (thanks for asking). Miller's flaw is that he really has no idea of the big picture, and that he is only convincing to those not in the know--because they look good on their own, but do not stand up to what we know from systematic regional surveys of the region (as Coogan's book (above) and Finkelstein's paper The Archaeology of Israelite Settlement demonstrates well). I like Miller a lot because he's interesting, but in this case, he is misguided, and his portrayal of scholarship (as if the Exodus is still seriously considered a possibility) is disingenuous.

I'm not very familiar with Rohl other than knowing that no one in the field takes him seriously, credentials or not. I know he does not argue from the Bible, but his "revised" chronology is based on flimsy evidence, which, like Miller, does not stand up to the bigger picture. There are multiple ways of calibrating chronologies, particularly through independent king lists from Egypt and Assyria which we compare contemporaries, and Rohl only deals with one (Egypt's), completely ignoring what else we know of the region. All charlatans like to portray themselves as one-man-against-the-establishment, forgetting that the "establishment" does validly disagree on a great number of issues and is not homogenous, and that there are very good reasons why every single last one of those who know better reject their so-called scholarship. Conspiracies in academia are really old hat.

If the two of you are going to argue from authority or website, then I'm not interested in this debate. On the other hand, if you present some good arguments and show an understanding of both sides of the issue (and thus a good reason why you choose either Miller or Rohl over the establishment), I'll be quite happy to even go to a formal debate with you (though it would have to be next month at the soonest). The first stop is methodology, and I recommend this thread (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=183) at my own forum where I have written at length on this issue.

Joel

I wasn't aware we were having a debate.

In the main I was replying to the original question about the fall of Jericho.

I repeat what I have already said on this matter, the old chronology (OC) doesn't allow a match to one of the falls of Jericho, but there are several new Chronologies, some of which do.

Rohl's chronology is one of these.

All the chronologies are at best educated guesses, there simply isn't sufficient data to say otherwise.

Some quotes on this topic from James.

http://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm

"We are not alone in drawing attention to the fact that egyptologists have been dishonest on this point. Independently, Jeremy Hughes (1990, 190), an Oxford expert on biblical chronology, has stated clearly:

Egyptian chronologists, without always admitting it, have commonly based their chronology of this period on the Biblical synchronism for Shoshenq's invasion.

The true situation was described with equal force by a Harvard authority on biblical chronology, William Barnes (1991, 66-7):

Although the present scholarly consensus seems to favor a date c. 945 B.C.E. for the accession of Shishak ..., apart from the biblical synchronism with Rehoboam (which as I have noted above remains problematic at best) there is no other external synchronism by which one might date his reign, and the Egyptian chronological data themselves remain too fragmentary to permit chronological precision."

The OC relies on one crucial identification, even though the descriptions of the events do not match. If this is wrong then it falls.

I did show some additional information about Rohl, this was in response to this comment

"He's a nutcase of the Graham Hancock type and only appeals to those who know nothing about archaeological dating systems and multiple corroboration of sources"

I gave a few details of his academic qualifications and of the work that he had undertaken.

Your response to this was to admit that he did have relevant academic qualfications, but still you insist that he is a charlaton (your word). This despite the fact that you are not familar with his work! Do you consider this a good example of your methodology?

Rohl may well be wrong, but that doesn't make him a charlaton.

I also resent your comment about referral to authority after this comment;

"Even the Christian conservative favourite Kenneth Kitchen says he's "98% rubbish."

What is this if it is not a referral to authority. Worse you don't even point out that this comment wasn't in an impartial review, or that Kitchen has a vested interest in Rohl being wrong.

As you may be aware the Assyrian name list correlations to the OC were drawn up at a time when the OC was assumed to be essentially true. This undermines there usfulness as evidence. For the James' chronology a similar exercise has shown as strong a correlation with these name lists as the OC does.

Be very careful of assuming that interpretations of data haven't been contaminated by the underlying assumption that the OC is true.


You also state that any new chronology must take into account the surrounding areas. This is true, but it is also true of the OC. In fact the OC would fail this test, except that the surrounding areas have been made to match the OC. Consider the following example;

In order to make Greek history match the OC a dark age had to be invented of 300 years for which there appears to be no evidence.

Consider the following.

"But by the beginning of the 20th century it became clear, again from archaeology and Egyptian dates, that the Mycenaean era ended no later than around 1200BC. According to Greek tradition the Mycenaeans were believed to have been overrun by the Dorians from Northern Greece, but no evidence could be found in Greece for people, alive or dead, to fill the yawning gap between the 12th and 9th centuries. To fill these empty years, the concept of the Dark Ages of Greece was invented.

No rational explanation has ever been offered to explain why the Greeks disappeared, where they went to, why they returned, and how they managed to resume their artistic and cultural development some half a millennium later with no apparent break in continuity. And worse, no Dark Age was heard of among any of the early classical Greek and Roman writers, who lived some two millennia nearer that time. So this idea was not well received by modern art and Greek historians. It led to many heated and bitter academic disputes. Around the turn of the century A S Murray, Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the British Museum, excavated a previously unopened tomb of Mycenaean age at Enkomi on Cyprus, and published some of the ivory carvings it contained. These showed such a striking resemblance to later Greek and Assyrian work that he unhesitatingly assigned the tomb and all its contents to the 9th-7th century. His conclusions were based on a long study of a uniquely extensive range of Mediterranean and Mesopotamian sculpture, pottery and other artefacts that daily surrounded him at the British Museum. This gave him no reason whatsoever to believe in a Greek Dark Age"

The problems described here, while rubbished at the time, have never been addressed.

A another recent posting states the following;

Revisionism, Biblical Chronology in the Light of Stratigraphy at Tell Brak

"There is a clear pattern of chronological discord from the Level 5 down to Level 1. Egyptian dates are consistently 200 to 500 years higher than their Assyrian counterparts. This is exactly what would be expected under a Velikovsky-like revision. The Geometric bowl's earliest date is 900 and the Mycenaean jar is 1260 at the latest. This makes the gap a minimum of 360 years, an amount that exceeds the revisions of James and Rohl. More probably, the gap is over 400 years."

"This demands a significant revision of Egyptian chronology based on the superior chronology of the Assyrian king lists. This confirms Velikovsky's revision in size and direction. Of greater importance is the fact that none of these evidences is dependent on any supposedly unconventional technique of moving "ghost" dynasties or any specific reordering of Egyptian dynasties"

Taken from http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/tellbrak.html

I can not comment on the standard of these reports, nor how they are received in the academic world.

Finally a few quotes about the James chronology

Barry Kemp (Reader in Egyptology, Oriental Institute, Cambridge):

"New Kingdom chronology is based on a complex web of arguments, including, it has to be admitted, reconstruction of the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period. During the latter, the internal political situation was indeed sufficiently complex to make it seem not out of the question that alternative reconstructions are historically feasible. It is easy to imagine that, on the documentary evidence, the arguments will run indefinitely. (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:2, 1991)

John Ray (Herbert Thompson Reader in Egyptology, Cambridge University):

"The period is an embarrassment. It would not be missed if it ceased to exist... The authors of Centuries of Darkness have seen that there is a problem with the Dark Ages, and have tried rationally to account for it. The answer they give is probably unworkable, but it would be wrong not to pay tribute to their courage in tackling the problem, and the range of learning they bring to it." History Today, Nov. 1991):

James Mellaart (Lecturer in Anatolian Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology London):

"Archaeology without dates somewhat resembles the proverbial house of cards: it produces sequences floating in time, not improved art-historical subjective arguments, nationalistic interpretations and the like. The great value of this book, in my humble opinion, is that it focusses our attention on all these deficiencies, and should engender further debate, and better dating methods." (Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 11, 1991/92)

Ian Morris (Lecturer in Classical Archaeology, University of Chicago):

"The sheer audacity of Centuries of Darkness commands respect. James et al.'s cross-cultural approach definitely exposes the serious limitations of the compartmentalized viewpoints adopted by the various regional specialists." (Colloquenda Mediterranea A/2, 1993)

Hyam Maccoby (Lecturer in Jewish History, Leo Baeck College):

"It is inevitable that this book will arouse strong opposition from those wedded to the conventional chronology. The authors do not claim to have provided the last word on the subject, but they have made an excellent case for scrapping the old chronology and substituting a new one on the lines here described." (Midstream, Oct. 1993)

Andrew & Susan Sherratt (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford):

"Its merit... is to draw attention to the architecture of the problem: in this case, the interlocking and often circular chains of reasoning which link sequences in different areas - constructions which are often houses of cards rather than solid frameworks... There is much that is wrong with conventional archaeologies for this period." (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:2, 1991)

Seems to me that academia has some problems with the OC as well, and even if all the new chronologies are wrong, you should not be wedded to the OC. The evidence just doesn't exist.

I will not be posting on this thread any further, I can not contribute from my own knowledge, and all other means have been ruled out by Celsus.

[Pilgrim]

Hey celsus, you seem to have a lot of really pertinant informatin rolling around in your head. I was wondering what your credentials are. Particularly because you quoted an old prof of mine, Lawrence Stager. (Who by the way, is a little fruity IMHO, not in the class room, but in regards to field work)

[djconklin]

To make a persuasive archaeological case for the mass migration of peoples from one homeland to another, certain criteria must be met:
The implanted culture must be distinguishable from the indigenous cultures in the new zones of settlement. If the intrusive group launches an invasion (as proponents of the Israelite "conquest" postulate), there should be synchronous discontinuities, such as destruction layers, separating the previous "Canaanite" cultures from newly established "Israelite" cultures in the zone of contention.

Always question the assumptions!

In this case, Israel didn't occupy Jericho so one should not expect to see an Israelite "layer" atop the original occupants destruction layer. Secondly, why should anyone in their right mind expect one Semitic culture that is replacing another to have a disticntly differenmt culture from the previous Semitic culture?

[djconklin]

.... Finkelstein's paper The Archaeology of Israelite Settlement demonstrates well).

One should note that Finkelstein is a minimalist who does NOT take the bible seriously.

[Celsus]

Hi all,
living proof that Miller didn't rely on Rohl then :tongue:
Or that Miller is unaware of the consequences of Rohl's chronology. :teeth: No worries about not going into the debate--I just thought that was where this was headed. Regardless, you should try reading Miller's numerous sources and see whether you think the picture painted by Finkelstein, Redford, Dever, Mazar, etc. looks anything like Miller's picture.
In this case, Israel didn't occupy Jericho so one should not expect to see an Israelite "layer" atop the original occupants destruction layer. Secondly, why should anyone in their right mind expect one Semitic culture that is replacing another to have a disticntly differenmt culture from the previous Semitic culture?
Firstly, that's a generic point made by Stager applying to the thirty or so cities said to have been invaded/destroyed/captured by Israelites coming into Eratz Israel. Secondly, because cultures don't work that way, not to mention the Biblical Israelites are supposed to have spent 400 years in Egypt--would you expect 400 years of cohabitation with no sign of influence? Do American Jews not wear american clothes and consume american products for the most part? Exactly the same idea, which I've already mentioned earlier.
One should note that Finkelstein is a minimalist who does NOT take the bible seriously.
One should also note that his Archaeology of Israelite settlement is also required reading for any biblical archaeology student, regardless of his theological views. It is published well before The Bible Unearthed and most of it has been shown to be systematic and thorough, while not particularly controversial (it says nothing of the Exodus, IIRC). And if you think Finkelstein is a minimalist, you'll have another thing coming when you encounter T.L. Thompson, P.R. Davies, N.P. Lemche and the other really "minimalist" minimalists :wink: (I'm talking about those who are considered minimalists in academia, not pop news).
Hey celsus, you seem to have a lot of really pertinant informatin rolling around in your head. I was wondering what your credentials are. Particularly because you quoted an old prof of mine, Lawrence Stager. (Who by the way, is a little fruity IMHO, not in the class room, but in regards to field work)
Actually, I have no credentials in this field, just interest. Tell me more about Stager--he was one of the contributors to Coogan's book which, personally, I dislike for a number of reasons unrelated to the work cited here. Regardless, I think Stager's summary of the 31 cities is a good one... what's wrong with his fieldwork (I'm genuinely interested)?

Finally, Dr T, I'm surprised that you still do not realise exactly why Velikovsky, Rohl, and others are outside the mainstream: Because their views do not correlate with the big picture. As I said, from something like the Amarna letters, Assyrian king lists, Hattusas documents, etc. we get rock solid ;) evidence of contemporary monarchs from various civilisations (in this case, direct communication between kings and petty rulers in Egypt, Canaan, and the Hittites). From the Egyptian king lists which are inscribed in stone at various locations, we get another set of independently corroborated chronologies.

From the Biblical Shishak/Shoshenq, we get one fixed point which destruction layers at Tel Rehov possibly corroborate (although Finkelstein disagrees, not that his disagreement helps Rohl in any way). From the Philistine/Sea People's invasion in the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, we get yet another fixed destruction layer based on which kings of Egypt had to deal with them (for example, Rameses III). Just prior to the destruction of Ugarit, we get another frenzy of desperate letters between Ammurapi (the last king of Ugarit) and various Egyptian and Syrian officials, in one case: Bay(a) "chief of the bodyguard of pharoah of Egypt" who served under Siptah (1194-1188 BCE) and Tewosret (1188-86 BCE--these dates being independently confirmed through C-14 accelerator mass spectrometry, pottery, destruction layers, etc. at Ugarit which give extremely precise ranges). The list of such things go on throughout Egypt and Mesopotamia. It's clearly not just Shoshenq's invasion as the only source of calibrating chronology that Egyptologists use, no matter what Rohl thinks or what his credentials are. Methodology is important, and choosing a specific set of examples to establish a new chronology (while ignoring countless else) sounds more like confirmation bias than good scholarship. In short, he's just like Velikovsky, Hancock, Ron Wyatt, Zechariah Sitchin or that Chariots of the Gods nutter. For some reason, this field attracts more than its fair share of fruitloops and Rohl is heading more and more in that direction the more he ignores contradicting evidence (Miller is not one of them, he's just honestly mistaken, IMO).

Joel

[markporter]

Regardless, you should try reading Miller's numerous sources and see whether you think the picture painted by Finkelstein, Redford, Dever, Mazar, etc. looks anything like Miller's picture.

I wouldn't expect it to end up looking anything like it whatsoever, Miller makes that quite clear himself:

" The vast majority of the sources I cite below would not consider themselves 'conservative' in the least, and many would not believe in a "conquest" or "exodus" at all. Only a very few would even remotely take many of the biblical narratives as even attempts at reliable history.
"

[Celsus]

I wouldn't expect it to end up looking anything like it whatsoever, Miller makes that quite clear himself:

" The vast majority of the sources I cite below would not consider themselves 'conservative' in the least, and many would not believe in a "conquest" or "exodus" at all. Only a very few would even remotely take many of the biblical narratives as even attempts at reliable history.
"
Ah honesty in advertising strikes again. :teeth: Perhaps you should then ask how come he is unable to get any conservative sources from professional archaeologists and historians that recount his version of events?

Joel

[markporter]

Ah honesty in advertising strikes again. :teeth: Perhaps you should then ask how come he is unable to get any conservative sources from professional archaeologists and historians that recount his version of events?

Joel
Well I presume it's either becuase they tend to have different opinions, that it's stuff that they're not particularly interested in, or that they have vested interests elsewhere.

[Celsus]

Hi again Mark,
Well I presume it's either becuase they tend to have different opinions, that it's stuff that they're not particularly interested in, or that they have vested interests elsewhere.
How about an exercise instead of continued presumption?: Try finding just one (a) professional archaeologist or historian (b) currently tenured at an accredited university (c) who has done fieldwork in Palestine and (d) who accepts Miller's version of events as the most plausible (as Miller himself claims) out of the thousands around the world. You do that and I'll send you a book on archaeology of your choice (out of my current holdings of course--hey some of them are expensive!).

Joel

[markporter]

Hi again Mark,

How about an exercise instead of continued presumption?: Try finding just one (a) professional archaeologist or historian (b) currently tenured at an accredited university (c) who has done fieldwork in Palestine and (d) who accepts Miller's version of events as the most plausible (as Miller himself claims) out of the thousands around the world. You do that and I'll send you a book on archaeology of your choice (out of my current holdings of course--hey some of them are expensive!).

Joel
I would attempt the excercise if I knew how to go about it, but I'm afriad I don't have a clue.

[Pilgrim]

Celsus,

This is second hand information so take it for what it is worth..Stager has a reputation amongst other archeologists as being very disorganized and a bit stand offish. Another former professor of mine, Douglas Stewart (Hebrew and OT at Gordon-Conwell) was his roomate at, IIRC, Harvard. Stager had been a born again, passionate Christian, went to the Holy Land for the first time and when he returned had given up faith all together. No one is clear why but it is more than simple atheism. In fact, at the first lecture of my class at Harvard with him (History of the A.N.E. to Alexander the Great) his very first sentance was, "There is no room religion in a conversation of history and archeology." He went on to explain this was so because there was no such thing as God (at least that is the summary of what he said.) I wanted to counter with the idea that even though he may not beleive in God and therefore not see religion as a proper cause of historical events, he must never-the-less recognize that the people we were studying were heavily influenced by faith be it imagined or not. I never got the chance as most of his lectures were delivered by his T.A.

But let's be honest, the man was bright. One of the best things I learned from him was that chronology is more important than actual dates. He taught early, middle, and late dating for the ANE and then left it up to us to argue the merits of each one and graded well as long as the actual sequencing was right. So I respect him as an expert in the field, let's face it, you don't get to be a full prof. at Harvard by being a dullard.

[Celsus]

Hi Pilgrim,

Thanks for all the info, very interesting.
In fact, at the first lecture of my class at Harvard with him (History of the A.N.E. to Alexander the Great) his very first sentance was, "There is no room religion in a conversation of history and archeology." He went on to explain this was so because there was no such thing as God (at least that is the summary of what he said.)
I disagree with that, of course, but I think that a lot of students coming into the field of Biblical archaeology will have that sort of preconception in their head. Therefore, it's not an entirely bad idea to try to debunk it straight off--it does play a role, but it isn't the way most people think of it. It goes without saying that the religion of the ancient Israelites and then Jews differs markedly from our time, and it's dangerous to retrospectively introduce our own values into their systems.

Secondly, the issue of deconversion is actually worth mentioning. I may still be a Christian today if I hadn't had a notion of "inerrancy" along the usual lines of Evangelical definition. What must be emphasised (and I believe this firmly), is that rightly or wrongly, the Bible (or at least precursors of it) took the Jews through their troubles from Babylon to Rome and became their source of identity and faith. It's almost unique in that respect. But we must understand that it was written from their own perspective, with their own flawed ways of recollecting history, and their own interpretation of faith and theology interwoven. To insist on inerrancy is actually to do a lot of discredit to the writers of the Bible because it precludes examination of the way their society and cultural milieu influenced their thought (and how they in turn turned their history into a witness of faith). I am of course, now an atheist, but I can agree that the Bible, for all its problems, is one of the most fascinating books in existence. Stager would do well to at least give a better reason for reducing the role of religion and theology in the study of the Bible.
I wanted to counter with the idea that even though he may not beleive in God and therefore not see religion as a proper cause of historical events, he must never-the-less recognize that the people we were studying were heavily influenced by faith be it imagined or not. I never got the chance as most of his lectures were delivered by his T.A.
I quite agree with your statement, and seem to have said as much. The OT is such a disparate field as it is, and the understanding the theology of the OT as opposed to the history, I think, cannot be meaningfully separated even if you believe the dates of the books differed markedly from the times they were written. Theology certainly influenced the writings, but that actually makes the histories more suspect.

Hope to chat with you more sometime!

Joel

[markporter]

But we must understand that it was written from their own perspective, with their own flawed ways of recollecting history, and their own interpretation of faith and theology interwoven. To insist on inerrancy is actually to do a lot of discredit to the writers of the Bible because it precludes examination of the way their society and cultural milieu influenced their thought (and how they in turn turned their history into a witness of faith).
Hmm, I find this statement intriguing, I wonder why you became an atheist rather than exploring more liberal branches or christianity?

Of course the Christian admits that the Bible is written from a particular perspective, through a certain theological lens, I don't see why this should make the perspective flawed however.

[Celsus]

Well it never really occurred to me at the time... I think the all-or-nothing attitude of fundamentalism that I was in just meant I headed straight for atheism. It would have been interesting had I been exposed to liberal christianity at the time... Anyway, this is all getting a little off-topic, and I won't have net access from Thursday on (going on holiday). If you have any questions, feel free to PM me and I'll respond when I get back.

As for the lens making it flawed--well it doesn't, it's the archaeological discoveries that make the Biblical account flawed, but the theological interpretation forms our basis of understanding that the recollection of events have changed to suit the contingencies of the time. However, from a sociological standpoint, understanding this means it doesn't necessarily diminish the witness of faith, it just acknowledges that these events were remembered as integral to the process of national identity formation (which is the real "miracle").

Joel

[Blake Reas]

One should note that Finkelstein is a minimalist who does NOT take the bible seriously.

I am reading Finkelstein's book right now and I do not consider him a 'minimalist' he is more like William Dever. Minimalist tend to deny the existence of the United Monarchy in any form, Finkelstein does not. I think you should do a little research I would suggest that you read Finkelstein The Bible Unearthed and then pick up A Biblical History of Israel by V.P Long, Iain Provan, and Tremper Longmann III all three are well respected and give the best case for the 'maximalist' position, which I am. Celsus, you may be interested in the last book there is also another one I am about to buy and I will get you the title to it.

In Christ,
Blake :wink:

[Celsus]

Thanks Blake (nice to see you again)!

I am actually looking for one good maximalist text for reference purposes. I have Mazar, Stern, and Coogan at the moment, but Mazar and Stern mostly ignore the Bible, while Coogan relies too much on it (neglecting archaeological finds). Particularly, I would like to see something along the lines of Mazar, but with greater reference to the Biblical account, as well as a theory of the formation of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history (perhaps not all in one book). I was very upset upon purchasing Coogan's book when he completely dismissed the minimalists without tackling any of the issues he raises. Someone else recommended me Bernhard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament. Have you read that? I had a look at it, but wasn't terribly impressed (in terms of what I wanted out of it).

Joel

Edited to add: I think I will have to look at Provan's, it looks like just what I'm looking for. Does he deal with minimalist critiques? Oh, and want to discuss Ziony Zevit's paradigms which I'm looking at here (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=1198#1198)? You should come over, Nomad would love some support. :wink:

[Robyn Banks]

I am reading Finkelstein's book right now and I do not consider him a 'minimalist' he is more like William Dever.

Right. Dever and Finkelstein are both moderates. Agreeing that the 'Conquest' model and 'Immigration' model are now thoroughly discredited, their main disagreement comes down to the primary way in which the settlements in the Cisjordan Highlands began - nomadic sedentarization or resettling of lowland villager-pastoralists.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

I have been told that the story of the attack on Jerico, and the falling walls has been proven false. I have been told that there is archeological evidence suggesting that Jerico was deserted at the supposed time of the story.

Does anyone have any info on this at all?

Archaeology has affirmed the date as being well before any Israelite 'Conquest'. Kathleen Kenyon dated it to c1550BC. However, she demonstrated that this was a part of the well-attested Egyptian campaigns in the course of expelling the Asiatic 'Hyksos' from Egypt.

Moreover, the only period in which a possible 'conquest' is dated is the 13th century - due to factors including the subsequent population increase in the Cisjordan Highlands and the founding of the city 'Ramses' mentioned in the Book of Exodus. However, Kathleen Kenyon has demonstrated that at this time, Jericho lay completely abandoned.

William Dever summarises:
"Simply put, archaeology tells us that the biblical story of the fall of Jericho, miraculous elements aside, cannot have been founded on genuine historical sources. It seems invented out of whole cloth."
- Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003)

But, even if you uphold the destruction of Jericho by 'Israelites', against all evidence, you run up against a pattern of false 'dstructions' in a host of other towns. The Biblical account of the Conquest is evidently a literary fiction.

One example is Ai, which was destroyed in 2200BC, completely deserted by 1500BC until 1200BC - but 'destroyed' by Joshua! :lol:

These findings, known since 1933-35, were reviewed by Joseph Callaway, an American archaeologist and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor. Undoubtedly, he set out to fault the findings. But to his horror, he could only conclude that they were correct. Here is what he concluded:

"For many years, the primary source for the understanding of the settlement of the first Israelites was the Hebrew Bible, but every reconstruction based upon the biblical traditions has floundered on the evidence from archaeological remains ... [Now] the primary source has to be archaeological remains."

Having concluded these results, Callaway resigned from his conservative teaching post on returning to the US. He preferred to avoid the inevitable conservative backlash that his honest search for truth would have resulted in.

[Blake Reas]

Thanks Blake (nice to see you again)!

I am actually looking for one good maximalist text for reference purposes. I have Mazar, Stern, and Coogan at the moment, but Mazar and Stern mostly ignore the Bible, while Coogan relies too much on it (neglecting archaeological finds). Particularly, I would like to see something along the lines of Mazar, but with greater reference to the Biblical account, as well as a theory of the formation of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history (perhaps not all in one book). I was very upset upon purchasing Coogan's book when he completely dismissed the minimalists without tackling any of the issues he raises. Someone else recommended me Bernhard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament. Have you read that? I had a look at it, but wasn't terribly impressed (in terms of what I wanted out of it).

Joel

Edited to add: I think I will have to look at Provan's, it looks like just what I'm looking for. Does he deal with minimalist critiques? Oh, and want to discuss Ziony Zevit's paradigms which I'm looking at here (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=1198#1198)? You should come over, Nomad would love some support. :wink:

Hey Joel,

How are you doing? I think you will enjoy Provan and company a great deal. The first section of the book deals with reading and misreading of the biblical texts, narrative, historiography. The rest of the book deals with each period of Israelite History. They are going for a balanced approach of Scripture, Archaeology, and other ANE documents. Their main goal is to give each aspect a fair and balanced hearing. They do deal with quite a few of the minimalist critiques and most importantly their historiography. I may have to take you up on your offer about discussing Zevit's paradigm,but it may be a few days before I can get back to it though (real busy!).

Keepin it real,

Blake :lol:

[Celsus]

Hi Blake,
How are you doing?
Terrific. Just got back from the UK having got my hands on Silberman & Small's The Archaeology of Israel (who says Sheffield Academic Press only prints frothing minimalists?) and am really looking forward to Hesse's article on pig bones. <insert geek smiley here>
I think you will enjoy Provan and company a great deal. The first section of the book deals with reading and misreading of the biblical texts, narrative, historiography. The rest of the book deals with each period of Israelite History. They are going for a balanced approach of Scripture, Archaeology, and other ANE documents. Their main goal is to give each aspect a fair and balanced hearing. They do deal with quite a few of the minimalist critiques and most importantly their historiography.
Ok, that's on the waiting list. Thanks!
I may have to take you up on your offer about discussing Zevit's paradigm,but it may be a few days before I can get back to it though (real busy!).
Ok, I hope you will join in soon. I intend to throw a couple of spanners in the works, particularly explaining why Dever is a propagandist and why no one .needs to pay attention to him :teeth: (I've just finished his What did the Bible writers know...? and am reading his Who were the early Israelites...?, both not very convincing at all). It will be quite a mess as I go Feyerabendian on everyone...

Joel