Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: OT Archeology - Jericho

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    805
    Amen (Given)
    244
    Amen (Received)
    264

    OT Archeology - Jericho

    Hi All,

    I realize that I may be posting in the wrong forum but I wanted to get a thorough yet not dogmatic view of the topic.

    I have been reading about the archeological evidence for the Battle of Jericho. As usual, these things don't seem at cut and dry as one would like.

    Has anyone looked into this research? I read quite a number of articles but I have to admit that I am out of my depth.

    My current understanding is that Jericho did exist, a massive event which caused the walls to fall, and the city was torched. The controversy seems to stem from the dating of all of this. Bryant Wood contends that the proper date is 1400 BC while Kenyon maintains that the date is 1550 BC, which violates the Biblical narrative. Apparently C14 dating doesn't help because the latest samples gave ranges that would cover both of these dates.

    Has there been any updates on this debate or has it pretty much ran its course?

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,575
    Amen (Given)
    235
    Amen (Received)
    620
    You've summed it up pretty well. I'd add that Wood's dating has been pretty thoroughly dismantled by others like Piotr Bienkowski. The vast majority of archeologists and Biblical scholars today agree with Kenyon's dating. There's an additional issue that Wood's date is dependent on an Exodus date that makes little sense.

    It's very well discussed here: https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/09/...em-of-jericho/

    K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament has argued that the destruction layer eroded over the last 3200 years. The book reviews have (rightly) called that idea nonsense.

  3. #3
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    805
    Amen (Given)
    244
    Amen (Received)
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    You've summed it up pretty well. I'd add that Wood's dating has been pretty thoroughly dismantled by others like Piotr Bienkowski. The vast majority of archeologists and Biblical scholars today agree with Kenyon's dating. There's an additional issue that Wood's date is dependent on an Exodus date that makes little sense.

    It's very well discussed here: https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/09/...em-of-jericho/

    K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament has argued that the destruction layer eroded over the last 3200 years. The book reviews have (rightly) called that idea nonsense.
    The problem with James' post is that he said that there was no evidence of a fire. That is not the case and was confirmed by numerous people including Kenyon. Wood also rebutted Bienkowski's points against the date.

  4. #4
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,575
    Amen (Given)
    235
    Amen (Received)
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by element771 View Post
    The problem with James' post is that he said that there was no evidence of a fire. That is not the case and was confirmed by numerous people including Kenyon. Wood also rebutted Bienkowski's points against the date.
    Wood's rebuttals are thought unpersuasive by the huge majority of scholars. Yes, City IV had a fire. The destruction layer has been dated to around 1500 BCE and the carbon dating agrees.

    Assuming the date that Wood wants to for the Exodus makes a mess of the Biblical narrative and raises many more questions than it can answer.

  5. #5
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,658
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    You've summed it up pretty well. I'd add that Wood's dating has been pretty thoroughly dismantled by others like Piotr Bienkowski. The vast majority of archeologists and Biblical scholars today agree with Kenyon's dating. There's an additional issue that Wood's date is dependent on an Exodus date that makes little sense.

    It's very well discussed here: https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/09/...em-of-jericho/

    K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament has argued that the destruction layer eroded over the last 3200 years. The book reviews have (rightly) called that idea nonsense.
    From the source that you cited.

    Secondly, Wood argued that Garstang was correct in dating the fall of Jericho to about 1400 BC, which supported not only the historicity of the Jericho story but also the early date of the exodus. However, Enns explains that “Wood’s interpretation has gained no traction among archaeologists for evidentiary (not ideological) reasons.


    Questions regarding the lack of ideological considerations do however arise:

    https://ancientneareast.org/2012/04/28/230/
    King Solomon died in 930 BCE after a reign of 40 years, so we can place his ascension to the throne in 970 BCE. He began to build the great Temple in Jerusalem four years later, in 966 BCE. To this last number we can add the 480 years specified in 1 Kings 6:1, and we arrive at a date of 1446 BCE (Dever 2003: 8)... A date of 1446 BCE places us square in the reign of ... Tuthmosis III.
    Obviously a great conqueror like Tuthmosis III was not going to allow a bunch of escaped slaves to upset his hegemony. Simply put, Tuthmosis III could not have been the pharaoh of Exodus. As it is, almost no self-respecting, gainfully employed, professional historian would try to argue otherwise.


    And certainly, the Biblical record states that the pharaoh of the time DID NOT allow it.

    Kenyon's dating of the fall of Jericho is very much in doubt on the basis of the evidence that has become available in the time since her study. Digs in Jericho's cemetery have unearthed scarabs associated with Pharaohs, in unbroken succession right up until, and including, Tuthmosis III. After that, no more scarabs - which underpins Wood's assessment.

    “scarabs and a seal recovered from a cemetery northwest of Jericho … scarabs bearing the names of Tuthmosis III (c. 1504-1450 B.C.E.) … contradicting (the)claim that the city was abandoned after 1550 B.C.E.”
    http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Evidence.aspx
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  6. #6
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,182
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament has argued that the destruction layer eroded over the last 3200 years. The book reviews have (rightly) called that idea nonsense.
    Hrm, what's the problem with the argument? You said book reviews have called it nonsense so I looked around some, but I couldn't really find any reviews that really addressed this point. Perhaps this article is one, but lacking a subscription I cannot read it to see.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 01-21-2018 at 11:11 PM.

  7. #7
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,035
    Amen (Given)
    1464
    Amen (Received)
    3899
    With the biblical narrative currently under a heavy cloud by scholarship, it is worth asking what, if any, are the theological implications.
    For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

    All cruelty springs from weakness. - Seneca the Younger

  8. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,575
    Amen (Given)
    235
    Amen (Received)
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Hrm, what's the problem with the argument? You said book reviews have called it nonsense so I looked around some, but I couldn't really find any reviews that really addressed this point. Perhaps this article is one, but lacking a subscription I cannot read it to see.
    That's one of them, another in Catholic Biblical Quarterly makes a similar remark. If you want, I can email you the CBQ review.

  9. Amen Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.
  10. #9
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,575
    Amen (Given)
    235
    Amen (Received)
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    From the source that you cited.

    Secondly, Wood argued that Garstang was correct in dating the fall of Jericho to about 1400 BC, which supported not only the historicity of the Jericho story but also the early date of the exodus. However, Enns explains that “Wood’s interpretation has gained no traction among archaeologists for evidentiary (not ideological) reasons.


    Questions regarding the lack of ideological considerations do however arise:

    https://ancientneareast.org/2012/04/28/230/
    King Solomon died in 930 BCE after a reign of 40 years, so we can place his ascension to the throne in 970 BCE. He began to build the great Temple in Jerusalem four years later, in 966 BCE. To this last number we can add the 480 years specified in 1 Kings 6:1, and we arrive at a date of 1446 BCE (Dever 2003: 8)... A date of 1446 BCE places us square in the reign of ... Tuthmosis III.
    Obviously a great conqueror like Tuthmosis III was not going to allow a bunch of escaped slaves to upset his hegemony. Simply put, Tuthmosis III could not have been the pharaoh of Exodus. As it is, almost no self-respecting, gainfully employed, professional historian would try to argue otherwise.
    The article points out that Tuthmosis III was a well-known conqueror and that Egypt's influence was felt throughout the region. The article doesn't get into it in sufficient detail, but there are multiple good reasons to suppose the Exodus occurred under Ramses II. I will admit that the minimalist slant does create some issues, which Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt fleshes out quite nicely.

    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Kenyon's dating of the fall of Jericho is very much in doubt on the basis of the evidence that has become available in the time since her study. Digs in Jericho's cemetery have unearthed scarabs associated with Pharaohs, in unbroken succession right up until, and including, Tuthmosis III. After that, no more scarabs - which underpins Wood's assessment.

    “scarabs and a seal recovered from a cemetery northwest of Jericho … scarabs bearing the names of Tuthmosis III (c. 1504-1450 B.C.E.) … contradicting (the)claim that the city was abandoned after 1550 B.C.E.”
    http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Evidence.aspx
    Even if we grant Garstang/Wood's argument, Wood's conclusion doesn't follow. I can think of multiple other ANE sites where the living space has been abandoned, but use of the cemetery continues. The Qumran site, for example, has a cemetery where bodies were buried into the Byzantine period, which would've been several hundred years after the community's destruction.

  11. #10
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,182
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    That's one of them, another in Catholic Biblical Quarterly makes a similar remark. If you want, I can email you the CBQ review.
    Actually, that was one I did read when I was looking for reviews (no need to e-mail anything, it's right here). However, its sole treatment of his argument regarding Jericho is to apparently dismiss it for not being in depth enough... but that doesn't actually do anything to say what's wrong with his argument. Indeed, I find it a bit ironic that it dismisses his argument for not being in depth while providing no depth of analysis of the subject in the review.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •