Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Kenyon etc (Peter Kirk)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: Kenyon etc (Peter Kirk)
  • Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:12:24 -0500 (EST)



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
fell down (but not the already buried portions which remain today -
surely, Ian, you don't mean they are still standing to their full
height?) 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).

Is there anything in this speculative reconstruction which conflicts
with the archaeological record?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Kenyon etc (Peter Kirk)
Author: mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date: 21/01/1999 20:56


At 16.01 21/01/99 -0500, Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote:
>How about a straight archaeological question concerning the MB walls
>of Jericho which Ian mentions several times. For I am confused about
>the detailed scenario here. Do these walls now survive?

Yes.

>Are they now standing upright,

Yes.

>or have they fallen down, or are they partly
>upright? (Was one of your arguments that these cannot be the walls
>which fell in Joshua's time as they are still upright,

Yes.

>or did I
>misunderstand you?) How long (according to normal archaeological
>reckoning) would such walls have remained upright, not buried and
>looking like real city walls rather than ruins? Does the answer depend
>on whether the city was inhabited or abandoned during this period?

My unlearned opinion on this is that inhabitation will cause the internal
levels to rise while perhaps maintaining the walls -- if the population is
large enough (Kenyon's reference to "settlement" indicates something quite
small and only quasi-sedentary). Abandonment will allow a buildup of wind
carried detritus. (As I said unlearned.)


Ian


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page