Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Some extracts from Ian's posting:

"Kenyon's discoveries at tell el-Sultan have been born out with the 
findings of the middle bronze wall last year (Nigro & Marchetti) that 
shows that the site did not continue to be occupied after the middle 
bronze... The walls of Jericho put all this theorising to rest. Jericho 
was abandoned before the late bronze period, with few traces of anything 
later... Nigro has said that the find of the walls intact dating to the 
middle bronze with no successive walls (and no successive inhabitation) 
puts an end to the speculation regarding Joshua's conquest of the city."

Saying the same thing three times doesn't make it more true. Some clever 
archaeologist may discover 16th century AD (or whatever) walls around 
Jerusalem, intact (or a lot more so than any at Jericho). By your argument 
and Nigro's, that "puts an end to any speculation" that Jerusalem might 
have been inhabited at any later time. Unfortunately (for the theory, not 
the people!) this can easily be disproved by a visit to a site still 
teeming with inhabitants. Disproof of Nigro's theory for Jericho may be 
harder because of the time gap (if Garstang's evidence cannot be 
rehabilitated), but that doesn't make his argument any stronger.

"As far as I know the fall of Hazor has been connected to the arrival 
of the Philistines."

Is there any archaeological indication (rather than theorising) 
whether Hazor was destroyed by Philistines or Israelites? If there is 
no clear evidence that the Philistines were involved, I see no reason 
to reject the historical record that the Israelites did this.

Peter Kirk