[b-hebrew] Jericho

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sat May 22 17:55:55 EDT 2004


Dear Herman,

I agree with the information you cited. I think a 1400 B.C. 
destruction for Jericho is what the Bible teaches.

				Yours,
				Harold Holmyard
>
>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"
>notwithstanding.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list