Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

I think Ian has misunderstood my posting. I never mentioned LB walls, 
but only MB walls which were still standing in the LB period (as Ian 
had agreed as possible). And when I speculated about stones being 
taken away, I was not talking about foundations of LB walls (since I 
agree that there never were LB walls) but about those parts of the MB 
walls, fully or partially fallen down, which remained above ground 
level. The recently excavated walls are then the foundations and lower 
courses (already buried in Joshua's time) of the MB walls.

Yes, I am perfectly serious. I have put forward a scenario which is 
compatible with the biblical text of Joshua. Is it also compatible 
with the archaeological record? If so, there is no cause to argue that 
the biblical narrative is disproved by the excavations at Jericho.

Peter


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Kenyon etc (Peter Kirk)
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date:    24/01/1999 16:56


Dear Peter,


>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

The only content in this of course that can be confirmed from the era was 
that there were walls (still standing).

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

Would you necessarily expect it to have been, given erosive forces?

>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).

Interesting. Walls have bases under the ground level. Someone following a 
curse whose date you can't support removed the hypothetical LB walls, not 
only above ground but below it, leaving the MB walls standing. Hmmm.

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

If we leave out the bit about the wall bases having been removed and 
leaving no traces, no! However, as it is unfalsifiable it is simply 
meaningless. I can't see the point of the post. (Were you serious?)


Ian


If you use "Reply to all", please cut the CC: and paste it as the TO: so 
that one doesn't receive two copies of the same post!


---
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.