Er, well, that’s my fault for phrasing things badly in that post; DITWD and I have been over this a lot (I was clearer in the actual thread rather than this rehash). You can change my sentence to “she believed it was a good possibility Joshua conquered a village in Jericho” without hurting my argument in the slightest. Therefore your argument that Daniel was just trying to keep the possibilty open doesn’t work.
I asked for cites saying that Kenyon believed “it was a valid possibilty” Joshua conquered Jericho because he claimed Infidels said there never was a town there for Joshua to conquer. I asked for evidence to show that Kenyon thought it a good possibilty that Joshua conquered a village there, since his first quote seemed to show that she argued against just that; obviously if she didn’t really think it a solid possibilty, Infidels could hardly be remiss in not mentioning a theory she thought unlikely in the three sentences or so they spend on her.
However, that whole point is moot, since he argued that Infidels said there was no village there, and in fact they did. Here’s the actual thing he said:
“The problem i found with the infidels site, is that they took Kenyons work that discredited the 1920s theory that the Paleolithic city was the jericho of legend, and extrapolated that to show that since A city of jericho was destroyed far too early-** thereby there was NO town there, later to be destroyed.**” THAT is what I proved false, since Infidels did nothing of the sort.
All right, things are getting kind of messy with the dates and such being flung about. My original argument with Biblical dates was in reponse to Daniel’s comment:
This stuck me as rather unbelieveably arrogant–Daniel is saying the archeologists have their dates wrong, when he has NO archeological training himself? So I respond:
“Y’know, Daniel, all the established archeologists I have read seem to agree with pretty much the same sort of dating system. I suspect to completetly redate the Bible would screw things up more than it fixes; I kinda trust that they know what they’re talking about when they try to date the various Biblical events, and if the could get everything hunky-dory by moving the dates around, they would. … I genuinely trust established Biblical archeologists ability to date various events far, far more than I trust you when it comes to this sort of thing, for manifestly obvious reasons.” This is true; most of the archeologists go with about 1260BC, some few with 1440, and Danny mentioned an 1172 Exodus that I have yet to see a cite for. It is also true that I do not trust his bare claim that archeologists are wrong.
Now he seems to be arguing that I claimed absolute precision about the dates, when I was primarily saying “Danny, if the archeologists usually say 1260BC, I’m going to go with 1260BC, rather than whatever date you pull out of your… uh, what ever date you claim it happened on”. I trust that archeologists have cross-referenced all the events in the Bible and all the dating of various artifacts to the best of their ability, and simply stating that they’re incorrect when YOU don’t have all the applicable facts seems a wee bit arrogant. Hell, if I simply said they had their dates wrong without any training in archeology I’d get jumped on, and rightly so. For all I or Daniel know, dating Exodus earlier royally screws up a later or earlier established date. The point is, we don’t know all the facts that went into their dating system.
I an NOT arguing the Exodus happened on one specific date that every archeologist agrees on. I AM saying that simply claiming archeologists are wrong to suit a pet theory does not hold much water for me. In the old Jericho thread, I said there may have been a small village when Joshua showed up, but it also may have been abandoned. “From what I have seen, there was no “city” there to conquer; the archeologists range from “abandoned” to “few hermits hanging around” to “tiny village”.” Overall, so many archeologists have said Joshua’s conquest was nothing of the sort that I tend to view the village claim with a skeptical eye.
DITWD argued on and on about how the Infidels site is so horribly biased that it cannot be trusted on any issue. He argued the Kenyon point, and finally dropped it despite repeated questioning by us. The Kenyon discussion resurfaced in another thread, where DITWD claimed that everyone agreed with him. I mean, if this is agreement, what would it look like if Gaudere disagreed with him?
And when DITWD is asked yet again about the Infidels in this thread, he talks again about Jericho. When we go through some more tooth-pulling, he reveals that the Infidels said there was a village, while Kenyon said there was a town. This is the shocking distortion which he claims has Kenyon spinning in her grave? Clearly even if we were to grant DITWD that the Infidels said “village” and Kenyon said “town”, the fact is that the Infidels are arguing that the Biblical account of the miraculous destruction of a walled city never happened. Kenyon clearly agrees with them on that point, and quibbling over “village” vs. “town” is laughably irrelevant- aside from the point that DITWD’s latest explanation of his claim contradicts the one which came immediately before it.
Plus, DITWD has been asked several times for other examples of bias in the Infidels site. Not once has he deigned to respond to these questions.
I once believed that DITWD just didn’t communicate well, but the latest exchange has convinced me once and for all that there’s more to it than that. If he just doesn’t communicate well, then why does getting a clarification out of him have to be like pulling teeth? Why does it take a lengthy and acrimonious argument just to figure out that the real substance of his serious accusation was a trivial change of wording between “village” and “town”? The fact is that DITWD is weaselling, just like he always does. Instead of admitting he was wrong about the Infidels, he comes up with a bizarrely hairsplitting interpretation of his original accusation. Instead of admitting he was wrong about Hebrew slaves being freed after six years, he claimed that he was technically correct.
Both of your points are well made, and speak from a greater base of experience than I possibly can. I really only scanned the thread, and didn’t delve too far into the nitty-gritty of the dating. Still, it’s in my nature to try and give Daniel the benefit of the doubt to some extent, but by no means am I trying stick up for him. From only that one thread what I observed was:
He was defintly using Kenyon to support his premise that some sort of settlement existed for Joshua to knock down. However, I could not find a point where he attributed that premise to Kenyon. This is severly overshadowed by that fact that in using what could be considered a reliable authority (Kenyon) to discredit an unreliable authority (the Infidels), I believe he failed to draw an significant distinction - largely because Kenyon was never trying to prove Joshua knocked down anything.
I see it as too weak of a basis to argue from. I will also say I posted in an effort to try and draw a little heat off Daniel. I would not liken this thread to beating a dead horse, more like beating a terribly distracted one. Whether he does it on purpose or not, until he learns to communicate more effectively, I’m not sure you’re going to get anywhere.
inkblot
Well, why don’t we ask him directly? Daniel, did Kenyon believe that Joshua likely conquered the late Bronze age village we keep talking about? Or did Kenyon have no opinion on whether Joshua conquered anything?
I’m not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?
I think you’re missing the point of the old “holy books” thread, InkBlot. Daniel’s actual initial premise that I was questioning was (paraphrased): Internet Infidels quoted Kenyon out of context. They used her quotes to claim that Jericho was utterly abandoned, and Kenyon found some evidence of a village that could have possibly been conquered by Joshua (with a little date fudging). The whole “did Joshua conquer anything?” is a sidebar to the actual debate. So, Daniel claimed that Infidels used Kenyon’s quotes out of context to argue that there was NO city there for Joshua to conquer. OK, I took his statement about Infidel’s article’s content at face value, and try to confirm that Kenyon believed Joshua conquering some Jericho was a likely theory–because certainly if she did not believe it was likely, why blame Infidels when they cite her for not mentioning a theory she herself thought invalid? We go back and forth, back and forth–Daniel’s truncated cite is shown not to seem to mean what he thinks it means, so I dig up a bunch of Kenyon quotes, most of which seem to indicate an extreme doubt on her part as for evidence for Joshua’s conquest; I can find no cites mentioning her considering the conquering of a village by Joshua as a good possibility, which at least means Infidels is in good company if they didn’t mention a possible conquest of a village by Joshua. So, we’re left at an impasse.
…UNTIL I check the Infidels cite, and find out Daniel misrepresented them (intentionally or no) and they in fact endorsed the same “Joshua conquered village” theory that Daniel endorsed (and certainly seemed to claim Kenyon did as well). He was wrong from the start. Whether Kenyon actually did argue for the existence of a village that Joshua conquered is now rather unimportant; the important thing is Daniel misrepresented Infidels, who turned out to have the exact same theory he argued vehemently for. Whether he also misrepresented Kenyon, I have no idea. I certainly have gotten the impression from him that he believes that Kenyon thinks Joshua conquering that village was likely.
Ahem. You ever get tired of snipping quotes to make your case appear stronger than it actually does? Full quote: “Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, thought that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age city that Joshua captured…” What’s the rest of that sentence, by the way?>1
>1 other than the one time I snipped of the front of that sentance- that is it. No more quotes about Kenyon.
Personally, I have no idea in what state Jericho was in when Joshua ‘conquered" it. My WAG is that there was habitation there. However, it is not important what I think, or "baffling Bible questions’ thinks or even what modern Archeologists think- we were discussing what Kenyon thought when she wrote the book that Infidels quoted- out of context. And, clearly, from those other quotes, she thought that Joshua conquered a “town” (towns, in Archeologist-speak, usually mean unwalled small cities), at a time different from other “accepted” sources- and that erosion had destroyed all or most traces of it. And that is, in my mind, a lot different than a “SMALL village” that infidels will allow. IMHO, they used quotes out of context from Kenyons work, which misrepresented what she actually presented. If they are going to use a source- that quote should represent what that source actually wanted to get across. They did not do so.
Let us look at that quote- “evidence of this destruction was thought to have been found but has proved to be erroneus”. Exactly correct- early Archeologist dug there, found a greatwalled city (which for convience sake, I am using a label one did- ie “Great Jericho”). Dame Kenyon went to that site, and by stratigrafic analysis, shard & C-14 dating- showed clearly that was not the Jericho of the conquest. Few dispute that- and not me. Great Jericho was not conquered by Joshua, according to almost everyone.
Next “Most of the TOWN of the period (she is talking about the conquest period), including the whole circuit of the town walls, has been removed by erosion; enough survives to show only that there was a town of that period.” Here Kenyon states there WAS a town there, during the conquest period- very few traces tho.
“This may have been detroyed in the second half of the 14th century BC, but evidence is too scanty for precision.” Kenyon apparently thought the Conquest was in the 14th Century- whihc is close to the now-accepted dates (which vary widely, as I have noted). However, the evidence cannot be used to date the destruction very closely. Since she thought half a century was fairly close- this gives us maybe 2 centuries leeway- at least in my reading of it.
So- this quote (and thank you for it)- shows my theory correct- ie that Kenyon thought there was a town there, at the right time for the conquest, and even MAYBE that Joshua MIGHT have attacked it- but the remains are sparse. No solid archeological evidence remains, due to erosion.
Yes- the site was abandoned- by the strict order of Joshua. A city grew up there later, anyway. Later, they moved the site about a mile. Jericho was built to take advantage of the spring at Tell es-Sultan- which is still there. And a town is still there- not exactly on the ruins of the old city, but within the oasis.
My freind read my quote again. I said that the BIBLICAL dating is off. I am not saying that the Archeologists are wrong- the BIBLICAL dating I am talking about was figured by THEOLOGIANS. They took some few solid dates that Archeologists are willing to come up with, study the Bible very carefully, the add or subract years as the verses dictate.
Archeologists are unwilling to set any solid dates on the Conquest/Exodus. ANY dates. Got that? Those dates you are flinging around are from BIBLICAL sources, calculated by OT scholars, not archeologists. Anyone who has studied OT archeology know that- and i took that class in College (almost 30 years ago, true). Ferkrisake gaudere, at least read a freaken book about OT archeological dating before you shoot your mouth off. I was embarassed for you when I read that paragraph. You are so wrong here it hurts.
I am not (and was not) calling the Archeologists wrong- their estimates are so vague and fuzzy they fit fine with the guessimates Kenyon came up with for the “TOWN” that was there at ABOUT the right time for the Conquest, and COULD have been (both of these according to Kenyon) possibly attacked by Joshua.
Kenyons estimates, tho- do not precisely agree with the Biblical dating that was calculated by OT Scholars- however, since there is “wiggle room” (ie the “margin of error in Archeological dating” i mentioned)- it is not impossible that these Biblical scholars are correct. Thus, their figures/dates, even tho not accepted as “gospel” by ANY reputable archeolgist i know of (and certainly not Kenyon, or the staff at Oxford) are not so very far off to be laughed at. Indeed, they could well be within a half-century or so. Note that that “half-century” is all that stands between Kenyons dating, and that of the Theologians. So- maybe both are right. And, in my rejecting those Biblical dates- i am 100% in the camp of the archeologists, including Kenyon, who reject those dates. And Dame Kenyon, bless her heart, even rejected those dates - to fit her “pet theory”.
Kenyon, according to my sources, what I remember about her book, and these quotes we are using to death- was certain there was a “town” there at about the time of her estimated Conquest period. She was pretty clear on that. A “town” that Joshua COULD have attacked. Next, she thought that there might even have been some small hint that the town was destroyed about the right time for Joshua. Ie, that maybe, possibly, that TOWN could have been attacked by somebody at about the time Joshua should have been attacking it. I did not read anything into her work that she thought that Joshau was the culprit- however, she (IMHO)allowed him “means motive & opportunity”- but certainly no eye-witnesses or smoking guns.
Now, what I read into the infidels cite- is that they were using her quotes to show that Joshua could not have “fit the battle of jericho” as (again what I read into their work)Kenyon proved there was no Jericho there for Joshua to “fit”. Sure, they threw in the bit about a “small village”, but in my mind, that is very different from a “town”. OK, after some thought and re-reading, the bias & “falsehood” was mainly in the connotations & insinuations, but in my mind, they misused kenyons works to indicate something she would be in complete disagreement with. Maybe- the insinuations, tone & connotations are all in my mind- but the original cite was used (in GD)to show that the Bible was wrong- there was no jericho there for Joshua to attack. Re-read the infidels site- they are attempting to show that modern archeology has convincingly debunked the Conquest as having never happened. Or at least that is what I get when I read that article- which, note was not written by an Archeologist, but one of the infidels editors or some such.
I save my bile for that fucknut Peace, who unlike Daniel, is totally deviod of redeeming characteristics. Plus I really don’t know or care much about Jericho. Now population genetics…
And you and i, collonsbury, really are not far off in our discussions. We both agree that a good site for human habitation is likely to be re-inhabited. I think you misunderstood what I meant by “vital”, and I think you disagree with how strongly I stated my thesis. And i do have a tendency to say 'always" when “mostly” would be a better term. gaudere was right about that- i often state my opinions too strongly, perhaps because of my dislike for “weasle words”.
I’ll try, but you’re not far off in the rest of your post. Daniel, to me, seemed like he was trying to keep open the possibility that Joshua conquered Jericho at some point. He seemed to feel that the Infidel’s stance ruled out the possibility entirely, but that Kenyon allowed for it. In fact, he seemed to be trying to use Kenyon to disprove the Infidels. However, from what’s been quoted in both threads, by both Daniel and yourself, I can’t see a significant distinction between either side. Both Kenyon and the Infidels agree that best evidence suggests that Jericho at it’s greatest was brought down before Joshua ever got there, and what’s left is a semantic quibble about whether there was a small town or village when Joshua did get there.
Because the Infidels truly did build their premise off of Kenyon’s work, making it hard to knock down.
Which gets back around to why his arguments keep falling through. In responding to the slew of posts from yesterday I see two quotes from Daniel that stick out:
and this…
So in the midst of semantic quibbling over “town” versus “village”, once again sources are getting misrepresented as Daniel is trying to present his opinions.
Daniel, you can’t hold a line on an argument if it kills you. You state one thing, then backtrack and waffle when people point out your errors until you’ve completely changed your position. Look at your posts in this very page:
So which is it, Daniel? Did Kenyon believe Joshua attacked that town or not?
Oooh! They called it a village, and Kenyon called it a town! Oooh, how terrible! :rolleyes: This is pathetic. You previously argued vehemently that Infidels said there was NO settlement there. This backtracking is absolutely ridiculous; if you had brought it up in the first place, I would have laughed my ass off. “Well, you can see that Infidels is utterly unreliable. Although they quote Kenyon properly (which they do–the mention of the village is NOT a quote, and cannot be an “out-of-context quote”), I believe Kenyon claimed there was a town there, and Infidels says it was a village!” How henious! Not to mention, you can’t even keep it straight whether she believed Joshua conquered a town or not! :snort: Please find me an archeological source that defines explicitly the difference between a “village” and a “town”, anyhow. Hell, I know of “villages” today that have over 15,000 people in them.
I read your quote. You are, quite frankly, VERY bad at getting your point across. OK, so you accept that archeologists know better than you. Excellent.
So, your perception of heinous falsehood was all in your head, which as we know tends to grossly misinterpret what it reads. Excellent. So you claim Kenyon would be in complete disagreement with a statement that there was a village there? Well, I guess that depends on whether you’re currently claiming that she did beleive there was a town there that Joshua conquered, or whether you’re arguing that she didn’t think Joshua conquered the town–you’ve argued both in this very thread.
I like this little weasel when I catch Danny in conflicting statements:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47897&pagenumber=2
DITWD states: “I postulated a smaller town, surviving in the ruins or the much greater former city. Thus, indeed, there WAS no “city” there, at that time- there was a 'town”, or perhaps even a village…I will leave you with these quotes from the books I have on hand- (Don’t know much About the Bible)= “In the 13th century BC, the likely date of entry of the israelites into Canaan, jericho was an unfortifeid village. In other words, the familar tale was most likely embroidered upon in later tellings”.
When confronted with this evidence that he did indeed claim it was or could have been a village, despite his later assertion that HE (not Kenyon, but himself) “did not, and do[es] not accept” that it was a village, he tries this little bit of ledgedemain: "However, it is not important what I think, or “baffling Bible questions’ thinks or even what modern Archeologists think- we were discussing what Kenyon thought when she wrote the book that Infidels quoted- out of context.” No, we weren’t! YOU claimed that you never accepted the “village” theory, and it was shown that you contradicted yourself!
In other words: Collonsbury, I was completely wrong about my statement, and now I am trying to say I never meant that NO vital city was ever abandoned completely, despite my arrogant demand to you to “name one” and my repeated snotty attitude.
Bwah hah hah! And this after he just tried to weasel out of his previous claims about cities, or his claim that he never accepted the “village” theory, and can’t keep track of what he thinks Kenyon believed! You know, it’s not “weaseling” to say “not many vital city sites are ever completely abandoned” if it is in fact the truth. To state as an absolute something that is NOT absolute is simply stupid. Weaseling is blaming an error of fact on a “dislike of weasel words”. :rolleyes:
Daniel, again I am asking, what’s the rest of this quote? “Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, thought that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age city that Joshua captured…” For some reason, I’m suspecting the rest of the sentence may not support your conclusion, given our previous expereince with you truncating quotes to make your case appear stronger. Besides, I thought you said Kenyon believed there was a town there, not a city…?
Exactly. Daniel was completely incorrect in his claim that Infidels said Jericho was abandoned. It was shown that he was in error after he loudly bemoaned their terrible bias for refusing to accept that there may have been a habitiation there–when in fact they do.
Wow. I read the first page, then began the second and slowly ended up just skimming it all. Gaudere has impressed me beyond belief. This is why I rarely post in GD and probably never will attack any of the big issues. I’m terrible about citing facts and the people on this board (for the most part) are really f***ing good at it!! So, I just read and learn through reading. I compare my opinions and theories and whatnot to the vast wealth of validated and fact-supported information that is out there. I think that Gaudere has earned my complete and bountiful respect for fact-checking, etc. I vow to never interfere with her…ever! I value my hide and my pride too much.
I wonder if a newbie can have two mentors? I would do anything to be Gaud’s adoptee…my goodness…
:rolleyes: Yes, I made the grievious error of stating: “I trust that archeologists have cross-referenced all the events in the Bible and all the dating of various artifacts to the best of their ability, and simply stating that they’re incorrect when YOU don’t have all the applicable facts seems a wee bit arrogant…I an NOT arguing the Exodus happened on one specific date that every archeologist agrees on.” Oh wait, I don’t think that’s an error–you say yourself that it would be stupid to claim all archeologists believe Exodus happened on one specific date, and, well, I say “I am NOT arguing the Exodus happened on one specific date that every archeologist agrees on”! You are still apparently believing that I am saying, “the Exodus happened on October 13, 1259 BC!” despite the fact that I state quite explicitly that I am doing nothing of the sort; I was simply appalled that you appeared to be saying “the people who have studied all the facts are wrong, and I am right.” Can I be embarrassed for you, for your absymal reading comprehension skills? I’d recommend that you’d read a book to help you with that before you “shoot your mouth off”, but unfortunately I don’t think you’d get anything out of what you read.
Eve’s nekkid? I KNEW there was a reason I was fighting my way to the end of this post!
Had some Newcastle Brown Ale last nite. Now that was a fine brew!
(Hell, I gotta fantasize about something to permanently erase the disturbing image of drop gnawin on JC’s buttocks from my mind. AARGH! It’s still there! What to do? Let’s see. Gently slip icepick in just above tear duct. Stir vigorously. Hmmm. Much better now! Carry on.)
