Jericho and Ai: Fictional history in the Book of Joshua

Hi WT, nice to see you again. Yadin excavated Hazor extensively and concluded it was finally abandoned no later than 1230 BCE, and Yadin attributed the destruction to Joshua's armies, as found in Joshua 11:11-13.This would place the period of the Judges from around 1200-1000 BCE, even though the total years of the Judges far exceeds this total, it even exceeds the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1, but the texts portray some periods consecutively when it was likely that they were contemporaneous.There is a problem with Hazor of course, there are three different accounts in the Bible, but they are said to be the same event. They are in Joshua 11:11-15 and Judges 4:1-23 and a poetic account in Judges 5:1-31. Yadin's way to explain the apparent problem was to suggest that Deborah and Barak's story is a later editorial glossadded to authentic historical text (Yadin, Y. Hazor:The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible Random House, New York 1975, pp.143-45)Brian.

While on the subject, I see Hydarnes is quite convinced that there is evidence of a destruction of Jericho in 1400 BCE, maybe he could bring his 'expertise' to the thread here and allow us to see his evidence, hopefully it may not be Bryant Woods easily refuted fantasy.So Hydarnes, what about a discussion of the fictional history of Jericho and Ai, I am sure you would be happy to try and harmonise the glaring error in the Bible.Brian.

How many orthodox Jewish theologians or Christian theologians do you think agree with this ? But there is no subsequent Canaanite level in Hazor, thus the kingdom Barak fought against is Hazor XIII ?Brian:Thanks for your time.My interest here is learner, wading through endless sources on archaeology.WT.

Here's an interesting orthodox jewish view of the issue. Deconstructing the Walls of JericoIt looks at both the history of the region and the history of the search itself.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is the opening paragraph from your so called "orthodox Jewish" site.This is not the view of orthodoxy -obviously.It is common atheist position.It is the position of persons with a worldview ax to grind.

WILLOWTREE asserts Not at all WILLOWTREE.It is no different than what almost all mainstream religions support today.You always seem to assert that those who present anything other than your personal worldview have some anti-religious or atheistic bias.That is the same reaction you have shown in almost every thread. When presented with a differing viewpoint you immediately retreat into attacking the messenger instead of looking at the data.The period before about 900BCE is simply not well documented. The events such as the Exodus, Jerico and Ai, the conquest of Canaan simply do not fit within the findings. The cronology is just plain impossible. Here is a link to yet another source that outlines some of the problems, successes and failures in the field of modern archeology as it relates to the Bible. It's a good book and one I think you might enjoy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The above blue boxed statement, from your link, is not what any christian religion believes. Generally true.The same is true in reverse too.Everyone has an ax to grind - EVERYONE.Everyone is silently committed to the truth - this is not in dispute.What is in dispute is what the truth actually is and what it means.The first blue box statement above reveals its bias straight out. It declares that "the evidence" proves the Bible is totally false.The authors of that statement will undoubtedly say that they are secular atheists because of the evidence.Christian researchers will say the exact same thing, that they are christians because of the evidence.I do not know of any christian who wouldn't laugh at the blue box statement hysterically.In this topic, based upon the expertise of Brian and his vast archaeological knowledge, he can claim the Conquest never happened when the Bible says it did (if it happened at all) and offer the evidence he has amassed.I remain relatively silent because I do not have any expertise at all in archaeology, BUT as Brian knows, I totally reject the claimed truth of this topic title, BUT I must respect Brian's evidence and remain silent UNLESS I can present contrary evidence.There is contrary evidence, a lot, but I cannot present it as evidence as of yet, therefore I remain silent which lets stand the outrageous topic title.Every opponent in "Proof of God" topic did not do as I do in this topic of Brian's. They asserted according to their worldview while ignoring the actual content of my evidence. The content of my evidence disproves - wholesale the above blue box statement from your link.The link statement is silly by itself as the subject thereof IS WHAT THIS ENTIRE FORUM EXISTS TO DEBATE.You have the insulting nerve to offer it as matter-of-factly "don't you know the Bible has been proven false", then you get angry when someone simply points out that ridiculous statement is found as the very first thing said in your link = common secular anti-Bible bias.I know the Bible has been proven absolutely true.It is fruitless to exchange general sweeping statements about the validity of the Bible - that is my point. Not true.I ONLY point out the worldview of the source WHEN THEY ASSERT THE BIBLE FALSE.I respect viewpoint, but when it is packaged as settled truth/fact I then remind that this is not true, not everyone agrees, and the "objective" phraseology is a dead give away to a secular hostility lurking behind the view.My point is: Worldview is always relevant - so stop this nonsense about secular being objective - it doesn't exist.I am an evangelical, I am biased accordingly, BUT the evidence says I am right so the bias is irrelevant. Brian takes the EXACT same position as to his worldview - go ask him - I already have.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-06-2004 02:56 PM

First, I do not approach these issues from a secular viewpoint. You know that well.As has been pointed out to you, the preponderance of evidence indicates that in the period around 1500-1400 BCE, Jericho and Ai were unoccupied. If you look at the period between 1300-1200BCE, they were occupied but unfortified. The third alternative is that there was never a conquest in the first place.Each of these may well be a problem or issue with the small minority of Christians, Jews and Muslims that require, as an article of faith, a literal interpretation of the Bible. They are not a problem though for the vast majority of the Christian Community. It is only the Fundamentalist churches, the literalists and some of the evangelicals that try to take the Bible literally. For the rest of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim community, what happened in Palestine is of interest, but nothing beyond that.So, if you have evidence, please bring it forward. We will be happy to look at it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First a correction about the history.
In the beginning people who deal with sujects said the story of Jericho was a myth. Then the city was found and they said its destuction was like all the rest. Then when the falls were found to be uniquely laid down on the ground they said it was a series of earthquakes. And so on.The Bible is a legitamate witness. Question the witness and prove it wrong is fine. But it still a witness.
Walls in all other tells are crumbled with only Jericho showing its strange demise. Archelogy shows this.The faith you place in these dating methods is the the whole point.
Before we question Jericho and AI you must prove the dating methods are reliable. Of coarse this is impossiblte since if there was a better way to prove a dating method that would become the new dating method.
How could someone looking at raw remains could year and month./ This is where the error comes in?Also I know your motives are probably innocent but the dating of events we use are B.B. not B.C.E.
Peoples and nation have the right to thier own weights and measures and we chose B.C long ago and it is the rule and precedent.
The B.C.E though occuring in small private circles has no authority and in fact many would question the reason for the "attempted" change.
Regards Rob

Thanks for finally admitting, that you - a secular christian - do not speak for christianity.The fact of a 15th century Exodus and a 14th century Conquest remains the truth per the evidence and competing secular sources reflect their worldview in their interpretations of evidence.

Cheers! I love to be corrected. In the beginning of what?This statement actually sounds quite strange as reality dictates that the Jericho story was taken as being historically accurate and it was only in the last century that it has been categorised as a myth, therefore, ‘in the beginning’ the story was taken as fact. Who said this? The walls were found at the bottom of the Tell, they rolled down the side of it. Who says they were uniquely laid out? Many witnesses tell lies, in this instance, the author of the Jericho story has been found out to be telling lies. Well. Maybe ‘lies’ is a bit strong, shall we say he presented an ideological view of the event? What strange demise? Based on what? What is wrong with the dating methods, and which particular dating methods are you talking about.? Do you know how the destruction of Jericho was dated? I use BCE to show my neutrality, nothing more. Yes indeed, and this is one reason why, in the study of Israel’s origins, I use BCE .The investigation of the Fall of Jericho is an investigation of Jewish history, therefore, the use of BCE is justified. Why should we force a Christian term (BC) onto a nation that isn’t Christian? Are Christians not content with stealing a people’s God, stealing and mutilating their scriptures that they have to steal their history too? I think you will be surprised to discover how widespread the terms CE and BCE actually are and I don’t think it will be all that long before it is the standard. Anyway, it is a minor point and irrelevant to the current question.You do realise that you havent supported a single thing you have said?Brian.

Now that is the funniest thing you've said.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The only point rhat needs to be responded to is the one about the unique situation of the walls.
All other walls of these ancient cities that have fallen are crumpled up and show ordinary demise. Yet at Jericho the walls are often flat and at least not crumpled. This is the whole reason they try to say Earthquakes brought them down as opposed to man or time.
Rob

Hi Rob, But it isn't, every single thing in your post is unsupported, including the claim about the walls! These cities would be? What is the source of this claim? Are they, says who? This doesn't make sense.Who are the 'they' that you are on about, and if 'they' say earthquakes brought them down then what evidence do you have to suggest that 'they' are incorrect.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 08-20-2004 12:00 AM

Well, I don't know about you in particular, but since there are secular Jews, I don't see why there can't be 'secular' christians.. in other words, people who were brought up in the Christian faith, but do not actively practice it, nor believe in much of it's mystism... yet have not gone on to start practicing another religion.