Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT xsinet.co.za>]

Walter, you wrote,

> 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. 

"Con-artists" is your word, though it may be appropriate in
some cases.  I used "bait and switch" as a description of
the effect of the so called research and conclusions being
carried out by scholars and ameteurs alike.  Whether those
engaging in it are doing so deliberately or negligently I
cannot say.  I might mention a couple more examples:

Ai:
(1) the "bait" - let's consider whether archaeology sheds
light on the historicity (or otherwise) of Joshua's conquest
of Ai.
(2) the "switch" - we'll say that et-Tell is Ai, even though
et-Tell cannot be the biblical Ai for two substantial
reasons - it doesn't have a valley to the north, and it is a
huge site (Joshua's Ai is comparitively small to Jericho and
Gibeon).
(3) the "sell job" - et-Tell has no occupation from early
bronze to iron age, so Joshua's account is just made up (or
mangled somehow).

That et-Tell can't be the biblical Ai was pointed out more
than 50 years ago, but perhaps there's another factor than
"bait and switch" at work that prevents scholars from coming
to sound conclusions.

Another example - Ur-kasdim:
(1) the "bait" - let's consider whether archaeology sheds
light on the historicity (or otherwise) of the call of
Abram.
(2) the "switch" - we'll say that Ur-kasdim of the Bible is
the famous Ur in Southern Babylonia (even though ALL of the
internal evidence of the Bible puts Ur-kasdim in Northern
Mesopotamia near Haran, and the southern Ur is never called
"Ur-Kasdim")
(3) the "sell job" - there were no Kasdim in southern
Babylonia until 1000 years after Abraham supposedly existed,
so genesis is anachronistic.

Like I said, some may use such bait and switch techniques
deliberately, others simply through shoddy scholarship.

> 
> Now, to focus on your arguments:
> 
> <snip>
> 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:

Scholars in general have given Wood the silent treatment
(after a feeble attempt at rebuttal by Bienkowski), which
can also be interpreted that his evidence cannot be refuted.


> 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)

Saying it doesn't make it so - what evidence is there that
either the Hyksos or the Egyptians conquered Jericho?  The
only tradition we know of of the conquest of Jericho (Joshua
6) happens to agree in detail with the archaeological
findings.

> 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.

No, as far as I know the erection of the mud brick wall
which stood on top of the middle bronze stone revetment wall
cannot be dated.  The bricks fell in a heap on the outside
of the stone revetment wall, so you wouldn't necessarily
find pottery under them.  There was another revetment wall
further inside, but little remains of it.

> 
> 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)

Agreeing nicely with the biblical account in all details,
including the falling of walls due to other than the action
of an enemy army.


> Even if Late Bronze sherds were to be found under the wall debris, it still
> would not prove your point that Joshua was responsible. 

That was not my point - I'm not the one trying to prove
something with archaeology, you are; I am simply pointing
out that you are not convincing - you don't explain a lot of
data that doesn't fit your theory that joshua 6 is simply
manufactured.


> 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. 

Now let's find out if you are going to be consistent in your
methodology.  What will you do with the fact that this same
Dibon which supposedly didn't exist until the iron age is
mentioned by a bronze age Pharaoh?  Will you now argue that
the Pharaoh's inscriptions are fake/mythological/etc., or
will you concede that maybe we shouldn't treat the
conclusions of archaeologists as the (ever-changing) word of
God?  If you are going to treat the Pharaoh's inscription as
genuine, then please realize that whatever explanation you
come up with for this "anamoly," may also apply to Heshbon,
etc., etc.

One might also mention Jerusalem, which according to the
archaeologists was practically a zero in the late bronze
age, but which according to the Amarna letters was a rather
important city (maybe we should learn to regard written
sources as being able to correct the findings of
archaeologists, if that's not too dangerous an assumption?).

Did you forget to answer my question as to whether you
actually know Hebrew?  If you don't, then I'll ask again
what are you doing here?

Regards,

John Ronning