Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

In response to the last of your posting for the moment...

>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.

Peter, you can't argue your way around a nice set of solid walls. Either
they exist intact or they don't. They are the only walls between the
beginning of MBII and the end of the LB.

Garstang didn't find the walls of Jericho, neither did Kenyon. They weren't
looking for them. Nigro and Marchetti found the only walls of the period
and the conclusion is straightforward. It is not theory. The facts are all in.

>"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?

It's been a while since I wrote the statement. I couldn't find the original
post and I don't remember what data I was using. So, please ignore it.

>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.

Biblical documents datable to at best the second century BCE are not what I
would consider "the historical record" for a period a thousand years
earlier. As no serious claim has been made for a "historical record that
the Israelites did this", I'll wait for you, or whoever else would like to,
to substantiate such a claim.

Would you trust someone who is reporting what someone reported to them
about what someone reported to them about what someone reported to them
about what someone reported to them when deciding what actually happened in
a legal situation?


Ian