Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Walter Mattfeld" <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>]

Dear John,

I welcome your rebuttals and your pointing out the existence of other
interpretations of the archaeological evidence. I must confess though that I
am offended by your characterization of my research and the research of
other archaeologists and bible scholars who's views contradict yours as
examples of dishonest "bait and switch" con-artists. Please keep your
disparaging remarks and innuendos to yourself in any future argumentation
(they only weaken your argumentation when you cite from these "con-artists"
and make you look petty).

Now, to focus on your arguments:

You are correct, there are a variety of interpretations of the
archaeological data, and revisions occur all the time in regards to dating.

Bimson and Wood have both sought to reconcile the Jericho evidence with the
biblical portrayal of events by proposing differing interpretations of the
ceramic evidence used in dating.

Holland, in his article on Jericho, which I drew some of my information
from, is aware of Wood's thesis, he notes it, but he does not comment on it.
Usually if a scholar thinks new ideas are important, he discusses them, but,
for whatever reasons, Wood's arguments are not dealt with by Holland:

"The meager material remains of LB Jericho therefore, suggest that the
settlement was relatively small and fairly poor (however for a recent
re-evaluation of those remains see Wood 1990). As Bienkowski (1986:124) has
shown, a study of the LB sites in Canaan shows that only eight of the 76
known settlements were fortified. This decline in the fortunes of Jericho
and other sites in Canaan is the direct result of the establishment of the
Egyptian 18th Dynasty and the expulsion of the Hyksos into Palestine (Kenyon
1973: 555-56)."
(ABD 3.736, T.A. Holland, "Jericho," 1992)

Holland noted a LB age presence at Jericho, but his undertsanding was that
the Middle Bronze wall which was destroyed ca. 1550 BCE (citing Kenyon's
analysis), was not rebuilt, that is, repaired. If I understand your argument
(based on Wood's interpretation ?), you understand that a mud-brick wall was
re-erected using the stone revetment foundation of the Middle Bronze wall.
You mention this mud-brick debris has fallen in places and attribute this to
the biblical portrayal of Jericho's fallen walls under Joshua's attack. To
prove your point, the fallen wall debris would have to have LB sherds mixed
within or under it. Is there such ?  I ask, because Holland makes no note of
such, and I don't have access to Wood's article.

Holland observes:

"All the MB buildings were violently destroyed by fire and their walls were
covered with a thick layer of debris during the subsequent period of
abandonment and erosion...the heavy tilting of the area H walls to the east
(Kenyon 1981:: pl 339 section) may indicate earthquake activity." (ABD 3.
736, T.A. Holland, "Jericho," 1992)

Holland evidently understands that the "fallen walls" are Middle Bronze, ca.
1550 BCE, not Late Bronze as suggested by Wood. I would imagine that Wood's
thesis, to be confirmed, will have to be established by another excavation,
to determine if the fallen wall debris has Late Bronze sherds under it.

Even if Late Bronze sherds were to be found under the wall debris, it still
would not prove your point that Joshua was responsible. As noted by Mr.
Litwak in one of his earlier posts to this list, a scholar must account for
all the various events, not just some. Heshbon was not in existence until
after 1200 BCE, so there was no Sihon to oppose Moses and Joshua, there was
no occupation of Dibon in the MB or LB for Sihon or the Israelites to
overrun, nor was Arad occupied in the MB or LB for Joshua to conquer. To
prove your point, you would have to account for all these other anomalies,
not just the evidence at Jericho.

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany