Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

OT Archeology - Jericho

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #6
            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, 06:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              With the biblical narrative currently under a heavy cloud by scholarship, it is worth asking what, if any, are the theological implications.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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, 05:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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; 01-22-2018, 11:14 PM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X