[b-hebrew] Jericho

Ephraim49 at aol.com Ephraim49 at aol.com
Sat May 22 15:26:05 EDT 2004

In a message dated 5/22/2004 9:47:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, krena_li
_mara at hotmail.com writes:

Vadim, congratulations.

Ephaim, feel free to produce your "biblical evidence" from "archaeologist" 
"Ms. Kenyon".


Julie :)

In my opinion, many are trying to FORCE the archaeological evidence to 
point to the (erroneous) year of 1400 BC.  But the correct interpretation
of scripture (given next time) reveals it to be 1558 BC.  Does anyone 
believe that they already know the answers?

The following was taken from site http://www.watchmanmag.com/0103/010311.htm

In the cases of Abraham, Moses, and the Exodus, the point is that no direct 
archaeological evidence has yet been found to prove any of these. In typical 
fashion, "most scholars" agree that these things never happened, simply because 
there has not been found any direct proof of their existence outside of the 
Bible! This is nothing new; for generations, scholars have consistently refused 
to believe anything the Bible says until such time as some extra-biblical 
evidence forces them to admit that it happened. And even then they insist that the 
details of the biblical account are full of errors, whether or not they have 
any evidence to back up their assertions. But the claims Time makes regarding 
Jericho are somewhat bolder. In this instance, the claim is that the 
archaeological evidence actually contradicts the scriptural record:
"Historians generally agree that Joshua's conquest would have taken place in 
the thirteenth century B.C. But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who 
excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time." 
(page 68, center column) 
This is interesting on at least two levels. First, if there is no 
archaeological evidence of Joshua's campaign, and indeed historians don't even believe it 
ever occurred, how can they all agree on when it would have happened? 
Secondly, it is interesting that this article, which repeatedly claims to be talking 
about new discoveries, cites Kathleen Kenyon's research. Dame Kenyon excavated 
in Jericho from 1952 to 1958, and she died in 1978.
Kathleen Kenyon concluded that Jericho's walls fell around 1550 B.C., some 
150 years before the Bible has Joshua coming to the city. According to an 
article by Dr. Bryant Wood in the March/April 1990 issue of Biblical Archaeology 
Review, her conclusion was apparently based solely on the lack of pottery from 
Cyprus in her sites. It seems that certain Cyprian pottery was common in the 
1400's B.C., and since she didn't find any, she decided that the city must have 
been uninhabited during that time. But John Garstang, who excavated at Jericho 
from 1930 to 1936, had discovered some of this very pottery! Moreover, some of 
the local pottery which Dame Kenyon did find is unique to the period 
1400-1450 B.C., when she said the city was unoccupied. So, the ceramic evidence 
actually confirms that the city was occupied until approximately 1400 B.C.
In addition to the ceramic evidence, there is much more archaeological 
evidence to show that the walls of Jericho fell somewhere around 1400 B.C. For a 
discussion of this evidence, see Dr. Wood's article noted above. As to the Bible, 
I Kings 6:1 states that King Solomon began building the temple in Jerusalem 
in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come 
out of the land of Egypt. Construction of the temple began in 966 B.C., so this 
places the exodus from Egypt at 1446 B.C. When we consider the forty years of 
wandering in the wilderness, this puts Joshua at Jericho pretty close to 1400 
B.C. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that the authors cite Dame Kenyon's 
conclusions, the time line on pages 66-67 of the Time article shows the 
destruction of Jericho at 1400 B.C.! If you ask me, things are looking pretty good for 
the biblical account so far as the date is concerned, "most historians" 
What are your thoughts?

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list