Kenyon etc (Peter Kirk)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Sun Jan 24 16:56:21 EST 1999
>So my revised scenario is this: When Joshua and his army neared
>Jericho they saw a city surrounded by walls which were several
>centuries old and partially buried by debris and/or wind-borne
>detritus (sand? dust?) but still standing (the same ones which are
>still standing today). Inside these walls a small "quasi-sedentary"
>population was living. Joshua's spies would actually have discovered
>that this city was nothing like as formidable as it looked from a
>distance. Joshua's army surrounded the city, some parts of the wall
The only content in this of course that can be confirmed from the era was
that there were walls (still standing).
>(but not the already buried portions which remain today -
>surely, Ian, you don't mean they are still standing to their full
Would you necessarily expect it to have been, given erosive forces?
>and Joshua took the city. The city was burned (Joshua 6:24)
>and maybe the bricks or stones remaining above ground, from the walls
>and the houses, were deliberately taken away in connection with the
>curse on rebuilding the city (6:26).
Interesting. Walls have bases under the ground level. Someone following a
curse whose date you can't support removed the hypothetical LB walls, not
only above ground but below it, leaving the MB walls standing. Hmmm.
>Is there anything in this speculative reconstruction which conflicts
>with the archaeological record?
If we leave out the bit about the wall bases having been removed and
leaving no traces, no! However, as it is unfalsifiable it is simply
meaningless. I can't see the point of the post. (Were you serious?)
If you use "Reply to all", please cut the CC: and paste it as the TO: so
that one doesn't receive two copies of the same post!
More information about the b-hebrew