Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Walter,
> John Ronning stated that evidence of an occupation by Eglon in the period of
> the Judges had been confirmed by the archaeological data, his statement is
> in contradiction to the understanding of the data by Kelso:
>
> John Ronning ( 28 May 2000 ):
>
> "Kenyon, by the way, also found a brief small occupation early from the
> period of the Judges which fits in nicely with the account of Eglon's
> headquarters being in Jericho."
>
> Kelso, contra Ronning:
>
> "Furthermore, not only is the city which Joshua conquered largely missing,
> but the next two cities that succeeded it, according to scripture, do not
> appear anywhere on the mound ! The CITY OF PALM TREES WHICH EGLON CAPTURED
> and where he received tribute from Israel (Judg. 3:13) must have been
> Jericho, BUT NO SIGNS OF THIS CITY HAVE YET BEEN FOUND IN THE EXCAVATIONS.
> David's ambasadors, who had been insulted by the king of the Ammonites,
> stopped at Jericho until their beards were grown (2 Samuel 10:5); but again
> the mound furnishes no remains of this town."
> (Vol.2, p.837, J.L. Kelso, "Jericho," George Arthur Buttrick, et al., The
> Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, An Illustrated Encyclopedia.
> Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1962, ISBN 0-687-19271-4)
>
> Conclusions:
>
> The archaeological data suggests that Jericho did not fall to Joshua in 1400
> or 1220 BCE (1 Kings 6:1, and the Humanist posited 13th century Exodus), and
> that a defensive wall was never erected after the fall of the city in 1540
> BCE, implying the narrative about Hiel the Bethelite, who suppossedly
> "rebuilt the wall" and its gate in the early 9th century BCE (1 Kings 16:34)
> is fiction.

Let's get real here for just a moment, shall we?  John cites
Kenyon, you cite Kelso from some dictionary.  Who's to say which
is correct, or whether either one is?  The truth is, you believe Kelso
because it fits your presuppositions, and throughout your posts
here your preferred method of dealing with contrary evidence is to
cite another dictionary.  Not much on which to base such a
definitive theory!  The truth of the matter is this: the archaeological
material is inconclusive.  It can be interpreted one way or another,
depending on what the interpreter expects to find.  Hence, your
heading for the above paragraph should be "Hypothesis," not
"Conclusion" because that's all it is.  You and Kelso choose to
interpret the evidence at Jericho one way, John and Kenyon
choose to interpret it another way.  There is nothing to commend
one approach over the other, so we can't really assert anything with
confidence from the archaeology of Jericho.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Éist le glór Dé."