Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

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.