Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: OT Archeology - Jericho

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,523
    Amen (Given)
    221
    Amen (Received)
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    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.
    He does, implicitly. As I read it, it says that Kitchen is hand waving away inconvenient evidence and providing a weak justification for it. There are other reviews that are far less charitable. One in ETL said that Kitchen couldn't identify the genre of ANE literature.

    I'm overall sympathetic to Kitchen's project, but the book doesn't do it particularly well.

  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    894
    Amen (Given)
    129
    Amen (Received)
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    He does, implicitly. As I read it, it says that Kitchen is hand waving away inconvenient evidence and providing a weak justification for it.
    But in what way is it weak? You claim it is nonsense, but Kitchen's explanation as to why "Joshua's Jericho" (if it existed) wouldn't have left traces does not seem unreasonable to me. What's the issue with it?
    Last edited by Terraceth; 01-22-2018 at 11:55 PM.

  3. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,523
    Amen (Given)
    221
    Amen (Received)
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    But in what way is it weak? You claim it is nonsense, but Kitchen's explanation as to why "Joshua's Jericho" (if it existed) wouldn't have left traces does not seem unreasonable to me. What's the issue with it?
    Beyond the fact that it's totally ad hoc?

    In the ancient world, cities were built on top of each other. I guess they still are to some extent. Even if we grant Kitchen's argument that the ruins eroded (which I don't), that doesn't eliminate the fact that pottery doesn't erode. Garbage doesn't erode.

  4. #14
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,657
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    But in what way is it weak? You claim it is nonsense, but Kitchen's explanation as to why "Joshua's Jericho" (if it existed) wouldn't have left traces does not seem unreasonable to me. What's the issue with it?
    Jericho is a ruin of the type that matches what could be expected from the Biblical descriptions of its fall. The ruins don't match what can be expected from normal attacks of the time. On that basis, the idea [that a second attack - matching the particulars of the first - all trace of which was removed by erosion, leaving no trace whatever, and then the previously fallen Jericho IV was buried] doesn't hold water.

    Basically, two time frames advocated for the Exodus. The more popular, currently, is around the time of Ramses II. That makes the Exodus entirely mythical.
    The less popular frame is consistent with estimates that accord with the Biblical record: during the time of Tuthmosis III's reign - about 100 years after the calculated time of the fall of Jericho. (and until discussion here made me rethink, the theory that I favoured).

    Assuming that the Biblical account of the fall of Jericho is accurate, the Biblical record of the time between the Exodus and Solomon would be shortened somewhat. That is going to take a bit of research, but if it pans out, it might show that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Hyksos-Egypt's ruler, not the Egyptian-Egypt's ruler. Goshen was in Hyksos territory (not 100% certain on this), the Hyksos did have slaves, and Avaris (later subsumed into the city of Ramses) was a Hyksos holding. Still - the amount of investigation involved in considering a hypothesis that (to the best of my knowledge) has not been floated by any-one is no small undertaking.
    Last edited by tabibito; 01-23-2018 at 05:14 AM.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    413
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Jericho is a ruin of the type that matches what could be expected from the Biblical descriptions of its fall. The ruins don't match what can be expected from normal attacks of the time.
    This echos what I have learned as well. There is definitely evidence for a city, that was attacked with walls falling outward and subsequently set on fire. The only controversy is the chronology.

    Is that a fair assessment?

  6. #16
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,657
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    544
    That is a fair assessment.
    Jericho, A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence is as good as any write-up that I have seen

    Garstang's conclusion, based on his findings at Tel Es Sultan (Jericho) 1930 - 1936, was that Jericho fell around 1400BC "Garstang concluded that City IV came to an end about 1400 B.C.E., based on pottery found in the destruction debris, on scarabs recovered from nearby tombs and on the absence of Mycenaean ware. He ascribed the destruction to invading Israelites."


    From her work in the 1930s, and the follow-up work of 1952 to 1958, Kenyon concluded that Jericho fell roughly 1550 BC - 150 years (roughly) earlier than Garstang's estimates. However, her write-up of the latter excavations hasn't been published.


    recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in Canaan.


    Douglas Petrovich weighs in on the debate
    ... dating the destruction of Jericho to 1558 BC. Not only does the archaeological record for Jericho, as articulated by Dr. Wood, prohibit such a date, but the archaeological record for Hazor also prohibits such a date. For this, you can consult my article on Hazor, which was published both in JETS and on ABR's website.



    There are questions about the reliability of carbon-dating accuracy for periods in the second millenium BC
    My dating of the destruction of Jericho to ca. 1400 B.C. is based on pottery, which, in turn, is based on Egyptian chronology. Jericho is just one example of the discrepancy between historical and C14 dates for the second millennium B.C. C14 dates are consistently 100150 years earlier than historical dates.


    Wood's claim about carbon dating finds support from a PDF Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 17001400 B.C.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  7. Amen element771 amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

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