How come the first time I’m characterized in the pit, its comparing me with an overpriced ‘clothier’? Damn it a few short choppy sentances describing a little weasely trip doesn’t condemn me now does it? If I add in beer drinking Aussies? (Mind you the concept of drinking beer as hot is tea is positively revolting…)
Bah, Manhattan, I bet you shopped at the Grand Central store, ha. (Is it still there?)
I found a library in my area which had a copy of Dame Kathleen Kenyon’s Archelogogy in the Holy Land (3rd ed., 1970, Praeger). I’ve only had time for a cursory look, but from what I see, she does apparently believe that at some, as yet uncertain date, ca. the 14th century BCE a town at Jericho was destroyed, probably by the ancestors of the Israelites. She found evidence of destruction c. 1580 and the site being abandoned until c. 1400. She states “the town was reoccupied in about 1400 B.C. and abandoned again about 1325 B.C… subsequent erosion removed nearly all traces of it.” But of the fragments of evidence she says “They do at least show that a town of that period existed.” [p. 210-211]
However, she didn’t feel a need to try to reconcile that with any supposed date for the Exodus, because she felt there probably was no need to. She cited, and by implication accepted, the theory that the Israelite tribes had different origins and different traditions. Only centuries later were the different traditions conflated into a single narrative, with a contrived chronology [pp. 207-208]. She says “It is not therefore necessary to try to reconcile the course of events described in that source [i.e. the Bible] with the archaelogical evidence, and it is in fact very difficult to do so.”[p. 211]
Thus, one can use Kenyon’s work to support the historicity of the Bible’s Joshua epic, but only at the cost of abandoning its accuracy in placing the conquest after the exodus.
It should also be pointed out that Kenyon’s first edition is 40 years old. I don’t know how much was revied for the third edition, but even that is 30 years old. For those interested in a more recent work which deals with different theories re the origins of the ancient Israelites I recommend Out of the Desert?: Archaeology & the Exodus by William H.Stiebing,Jr. (Prometheus Books, March 1989 ISBN: 0879755059)
And Dan- please stop calling appropriate qualifiers “weasel words”! They mean something, and they’re used for a purpose. If you’re just filtering them out you’re going to misunderstand what is being said, and if you don’t use them when needed people will misunderstand you.
“Evidence of this destruction was thought to have been found but has proved to be erroneous.”
If you do not find evidence for destruction, did the destruction happen?
Thanks for the info, nebuli. So is it possible Jericho was destroyed by some tribe other than Joshua’s? And either Joshua took credit for it or it was attributed to him long after he died? (Assuming he even lived at all.)
It occurred to me yesterday after posting that perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica was correct in all those dates, but the Bible is in error.
Frankly, I’d rather accept the E.B.
He’s just a generally nice guy. Even when I was claiming some incredible things to which I could provide no evidence he just called me silly.
And dogmatic.
And probably some other stuff. haha
jab1 asked:
I’d guess that was possible, but the more likely implication of Kenyon’s theory seems to me to be:
1-group of Hebrews at some point destroy Jericho and their descendants remember legends of it and their heroic leader Joshua;
2- a different group of Hebrews,living in oppression in Egypt, ** at the same time that Joshua is flattening Jericho**, at a later date flee under the leadership of someone known as Moses, and that group’s descendants remember their story in legends;
3- generations later, those two groups of descendants, and other groups of Hebrews as well, intermingle and assimilate and begin to share various these disparate legends;
4- at a point long after firsthand knowledge of these events has passed and the various groups are no longer separate but regard themselves as a single people, someone begins to combine these separate legends into a single, connected narrative by sticking the different units into one, artificially created, sequence. The writer places Joshua after Moses and makes him Moses’s successor in order to provide a connection between the two- but in reality Joshua may have lived quite a bit before Moses.
At least that is how I interpret what Kenyon was implying.
As for what evidence was found to even indicate there was a destruction of the town in the late 14th century, Kenyon said there was little evidence remaining- but that what was there suggested a quick abandonment of the site rather than a well planned departure, i.e. dishes left by an oven as if the owner had to flee in the middle of preparing a meal. From this extremely modest data Kenyon concludes it “…accords with a destruction of the site.” [p. 211]
gaudere- again there is no “rest of the quote”- that’s it. There is no more. The parrot is dead. Got it?
Next- you several times insisted that the “town” that Kenyon thought might have been hit by Joshua- was some 40>60 years too early- based upon the Biblical dating. That’s why I was saying that the Biblical dating is not solidly based upon archeological evidence. Thus, if Kenyons estimates have the town being destroyed some 40 years too early for the Theological dating- that is no impediment at all, scientifically speaking. It means that either the Theological dating is off by a bit, or that Kenyons dating is at the far end of the usual margin of error for archeological estimates from theis period/area. Most likely the 1st. NOW-I have admitted misphrasing myself in the jericho debat. I admited that I over-generalized in the slave debate. Ie, in both cases i was “wrong”. Now- you here were wrong. So?
Next I was NOT 'completely wrong" with my statement re city cites. Again- I say- “NO vital city site is ever permanently abandoned”. However, if collonsbury wants to say “rarely are good sites for human habitation permanently abandoned” - fine with me. In my eyes, that is simply saying the same thing with different phrasing.
Finally- let us go back to the infidels cite- and Kenyon. They were using Kenyons work to show that in their opinion, the OT was full of bunkum, lies, and myths. The impresion I think that the average reader would get, and in fact the original poster who used the site got- was that Kenyon said that Joshau never captured jericho as jericho was destroyed long since. Can you read their site and say they were actually saying that the Bible was right? And that Kenyon said there was evidence of an attack upon a town about the right time for Joshau to have done it? This is, was & remains my thesis. Attack the details if you like- but the point remains correct. Kenyons work was not a Bible-debunking book, by any means.
Jab- re 'erroneous destruction"- There was a great walled late paleolithic city- possibly the greatest of its time- we will call this “great Jericho”. It was destroyed- its walls apparently tumbled by an earthquake and then attacked, with burning, looting etc. When these ruins were first dug in the 20’s, early archeologists said “Aha- the Jericho of Joshau, walls brought down by earthquake- the whole bit”. Later, in about 1958 Dame Kenyon revisted the site. Using much more modern dating & digging methods- she said; “No, great Jericho was far too early to have been attacked by the isrealites (assuming the Conquest story is correct)- your evidence is erroneous”. She went on to say-“but there was a lesser town, built on the ruins, that was there about the time of Joshua, and there is some very scant evidence that it was really attacked at about the right time, too.” (I am paraphrasing, not actual quotes).
Now, some archeologists DO think that the Conquest went on for centuries, and not just by Joshua, and it started before the Exodus. Maybe. Some also think that the exodus was WAY earlier- and thus great Jericho could have been hit by Joshua- maybe.
nebuli- great post. Even tho you do not entirely agree with me, it is nice to have another voice of reason.
Ahem, I think I did my best to call you logically impaired also, although was driven by frustration.
But be that as it may, I’m not a nice guy. I’ve just gotten over attacking Rugbyman personally for his personality defects. But then he deserved it. I also have had some wonderful words for the creature from under a bridge, Peace.
So, don’t be trying to ruin a rep I’m trying to build.
but, collunsbury (what does that tag come from, hm?), here you have been pretty damn reasonable. But, shhh, I won’t tell a soul. 
Collier Lounsbury. There’s more too, sadly. Whiteamericananglosaxonism at its worst.
In any event, I categorically deny I have been reasonable. Merely restrained.
Daniel, thank you for the compliment, but please go back and re-read the last paragraph in my post. You wrote:
That is not saying the same thing! No wonder you are feeling your words are being twisted and misinterpreted. Words matter! [Or to say something with a different, and more accurate, meaning “Words often matter!”]
What I said was, that specific quote of Kenyon’s said both 1) there was no evidence and 2) the date of the town does not match a date given for Exodus. This was the quote you were using to try tp prove that Kenyon beleived there was a town there, and I and Tomndebb both pointed out that a bare quote stating that there is no evidence of a thing and it does not “fit” with a date another event is claimed to occur does NOT support a reasoning from that quote that the person saying that supported the possibility of such an event. Follow me? I never argued that Joshua could not have invaded that village; I simply pointed out that your quote is not the ringing support you think it is, and in fact seems to harm your argument rather than support it. If one knows that the date is not necessarily acurate, the quote is not as damning, but the bare quote looks very, very bad for you. And I’m still pissed you didn’t quote it fully so as to avoid the little bit about “no evidence” and “doesn’t fit a certain date”; that’s sneaky quoting, and I don’t like it.
As I have stated several times already, my remark about generally trusting archeologist’s dating vis-a-vis yours was NOT claiming one specific date was when Exodus may have happened, but in response to a remark from you that I perceived as you saying “the archeologists are wrong and I am right”. In fact, you were saying “the Bible-based dates are probably wrong and I am right”. You still seem to be claiming that I believe in a hard and fast date for Exodus, when I have stated repeatedly that I do not. The one error I made was misinterpreting you, yet when you clarified I stopped hassling you about saying “the archeologists are wrong and I am right”–becuase you did not mean that, and I accept that. However, you keep insisting that I meant that 1260 was absolutely the date for Exodus, when I was simply making a flippant comment about the poor quality of support you could get from your quote.
As nebuli pointed out, they are NOT the same thing. Good God, you are making me seriously wonder if English is your first language.
How could they get the impression that Joshua never conquered Jericho, when they explictly state that there was a village there at the time of his “conquest”? I certainly got the impression that they said he conquered the Bronze age town. They are, however, pointing out that it was not a mighty conquest of a walled city as is recorded in the Bible, which I think is a theory supported by most archeologists.
From the Biblical Archeology Society:
“…the excavations of Jericho and Ai indicate there were no cities here at the time Joshua was supposed to have conquered them.”
“…the conclusion that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua was bolstered.”
“Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators’ efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled.”
“The notion of the Conquest of the Land in the Book of Joshua is an epic, no more…”
Right about what? About Joshua conquering a mighty walled city? They are certainly not arguing that! In that particular section, the author is apparently debunking a writer who used outdated archeology to argue that the Bible was completely historically correct in the Jericho story–that Joshua had conquered a walled city. Infidels simply points out that this was highly unlikley and not a currently accepted theory, and mentions the late Broze age settlement of Joshua’s time. I think your strong bias against Infidels is blinding you here–that article debunks the Bible’s absolute inerrancy only. You, on the other hand, first said Infidels said there was no town there. Then you said, uh, OK, they said there was a village there, but it was really a town! Now you say, well, they’re debunking the inerrency of the Bible and Kenyon didn’t try to debunk the Bible, so they shouldn’t use her work. It seems to me like you have already decided Infidels is evil and wrong, and now you are desperately trying to find some way to justify it.
Quite frankly, Infidels is using the facts as Kenyon put them forth, so far as I can tell, which is their ONLY responsibility. Anyone can use facts to support whatever conclusion they like. If an avid gun-control proponet does a study in an attempt to prove guns are dangerous, but if you analyze his facts and you can also argue that guns are actually safer if you add in X variable, would it be “misrepresenting” to do so? You are using the facts to argue a point antithetical to the original person’s intent; of course, you cannot say that the person endorses the belief that guns are safer, but you would be entirely correct in arguing that the research supports that guns are safer.
I also think you are wrong that the article is intent on debunking the entire Bible as wholly false. If they wished to do that, why would they mention the small Bronze age settlement that Joshua might’ve conquered at all? The article, if you read it, is debunking a book that claimed historicity for parts of the Bible where it shouldn’t. This is the sort of book you should be opposed to, Daniel, NOT Infidels; the article says the author of this book “desires to reassure his constituency that the events in the Bible are fully supported by archaeological findings.” This is wrong, and no honest person should support this; the Bible is NOT “fully supported” by archeological accounts. You yourself have doubts about Exodus and don’t believe Joshua conquered a walled city, and do not fully agree with Biblical dating. The Infidels article, so far as I can tell, simply tries to explain what the current archological research shows.
Er, in case you’ve forgotten, your thesis was “Infidels is biased and quotes out of context; they said there was no settlement for Joshua to conquer and Kenyon said there might’ve been!” That thesis has been disproven; I think we are now on thesis number 2 or 3.
She “destroyed the myth of Jericho”, according to the site you first linked to. 
She certainly did not believe the evidence supported Joshua’s conquest of a mightly walled city, although she was disappointed to find this out. Neither does Infidels support Joshua’s conquest of a mighty walled city. So how are they misquoting her? Other sites use her work to claim there was nothing there when Joshua arrived, including sites with no reason to be biased against Joshua’s conquest, like Time and The Holy Land Tourism Guide.
“Archaeology tells a more complicated tale. Historians generally agree that Joshua’s conquest would have taken place in the 13th century B.C. But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time.”
“The superior methods and expertise of Dame Kathleen Kenyon had found that Garstang’s wall dated to another era altogether and couldn’t possibly have been standing in Joshua’s time. In fact, during the era that was being ascribed to Joshua and his conquest of the land of Israel, Jericho didn’t even have a wall. It probably didn’t even have any residents.”
Yet, you are running about claiming that Infidels must be baised and evil and misrepresenting because they say “village” and you think Kenyon thought it was a town, when sources with no reason to be biased use her work to claim there was NO evidence of destruction and that Jericho was likely wholly uninhabited, and never even mention the late Bronze age village. [sarcasm]Yes, you have certainly proved that Infidels cannot be ever trusted![/sarcasm] Hell, by your reckoning, we better never trust Time magazine, they’re obviously atheistic liars out to twist Kenyon’s work. :rolleyes:
Daniel, what have you to say about the contradictions I quoted about your claims about what Kenyon believed? Do you think she believed Joshua conquered the late bronze age town or not?
I still want to know what the difference is between a “town” and a “village” in archeological terms. Can you link to a reputable online source explaining this?
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-16-2000 at 03:15 PM]
Daniel,
Listen, there’s nothing between us, right? Here’s a bit of advice, friendly as it were. Why not confess: (1) you overstated your case in the heat of the moment – happens to us all, if I review my arguments with Peace (ick) I can find a few a statements I don’t fully agree with (2) Got caught up in the argument, took positions which stepping back don’t look so great. Regroup. Nothing wrong with that.
In the meantime, Gaudere, you are a centurion.
I still, however, wonder how the cheesemakers work into this.
Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
But how do we understand “manufactuers.” Do mere dabblers like Scylla, who simply concoct some second rate mozerella, fit into this? I personally believe in an old testament interpretation.
I have admitted I over-generalized (due to my dislike of what I call “weasle words”), and several times, due to posting very late at nite “misphrasing myself”. When I am wrong, I admit it, and in several minor items in these several debates, I was thus- wrong. My general theses are still correct.
However, gaudere, who made a big deal of kenyons date of the possible joshua -jericho not meeting “established biblical dating” will not admit she was wrong. And even, in this case, I took great care to ‘word things very carefully"- and she still misunderstood me, and jumped all over me, repeatedly for HER error in misreading my statement- just becuase of her ignorance on Biblical dating conventions. Several times I have also explained or "back-up"ed a statement, and she is still there, posts later, asking me why I will not explain myself or back the point up. Look at that bit about her wierd idea that my quote from Oxford re Kenyon was incomplete. She asked- i answered- she asked AGAIN, and intimated i was dodging the question- so i answered yet again. She was also, in my mind deliberately misunderstanding me and baiting me. Sevral times, such as with my line about slavery in Jewish cultures, I kept explaining, and she kept demanding more “back-up”- when it would have been easy to ask the question directly- that she really wanted answered… Rather that try to “eliminate ignorance”- she plays "nitpick gotchas’- which i am sure she enjoys. However, she does very well at researching things on the internet, and will back up her stuff when nessesary.
I said, (paraphrased): Your quote sucks, because right after the “could” it adds “no evidence” and “doesn’t work with X date”. No matter how many times you claim that I said “all archeologists have just one date for the Exodus and it’s exact to the year”, I’m going to correct you every time. In the old thread I said I believed the village may have been conquered by Joshua (I also think it may have been abandoned, or inhabited by a few wanderers, but I do accept that it might’ve been a village when he arrived, as well)–if I thought Exodus had to have occured on 1260BC precisely, I wouldn’t have said that now, would I? In this thread, the words you’re trying to hang me with are: “all the established archeologists I have read seem to agree with pretty much the same sort of dating system.” “Pretty much”–does that mean “they all have the exact same date down to the year” in Daniel-speak? :rolleyes: I then mention various other possible dates. How you extrapolate from this to a belief that I claimed Exodus must have occured on 1260BC is beyond me.
Yes, how could I possibly misunderstand someone who thinks “no cities” == “few cities” and who has punctuation and phrasing that is unique, to say the very least. Yes, I misinterpreted you; when I realized this, I shut up. Unlike you, who is still yammering and making digs about my nonexistent claim:
:rolleyes:
Sorry–I honestly missed it the first time, and I saw it tonight when I went back to check. I am very concerned about the fullness and accuracy of quotes that I do not have access to the source for double-checking.
Geez, dude, I said repeatedly what I wanted. You seemed to understand me–at least you put me off by telling me the refernce I wanted was in a secondhand source, and when you did produce the source it was what I asked for. So I reckon you must have figured out what I was asking for at some point. Let’s see a few quotes from what I said:
"I asked about your rather sweeping claim that Jews 3000 years ago were "far more liberal & humanitarian to their “servants” than any other culture. [Emphasis mine.] Please back this up.
You made the statement that Jews 3000 years ago treated slaves more kindly than any other culture. This is an amazingly broad claim. I want you to back it up.
Go ahead and give me the quotes from the authors that say that Jews 3000 years ago treated their slaves better than any other culture."
Geez, what could I have possibly been asking here? Hm, maybe PLEASE BACK UP THE STATEMENT THAT JEWS 3000 YEARS AGO WERE MORE HUMANE TO THEIR SLAVES THAN ANY OTHER CULTURE? Or, I dunno, I could’ve been ordering a pizza. It’s so hard to tell when I don’t phrase things clearly.
Thank you. It is a skill I suggest you acquire. Honestly, I often research the 'net to confirm things I know are true. For example, when you said slaves were freed after 6 years, I didn’t just say “no, you’re wrong”–I gave the relevant passages. If you research before you post, you won’t get caught out in errors in fact, and you’ll have the cites to shut anyone up if they argue with you. Isn’t it better to have an authorative source to show that you’re right, than the “you’re wrong/no, I’m right/you’re wrong/no, I’m right” arguments that can’t eradicate anyone’s ignorance since there’s no outside confirmation of anyone’s facts?
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-16-2000 at 11:00 PM]
Incidentally, for those who are curious, I believe that this is the Infidels essay in question:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/2/982front.html
Am I right, Gaudere?
A few things:
DITWD, how can you claim that the entire II website is dishonest and untrustworthy, when at the moment you are not even attempting to claim more than that a single essay, by one of the many authors who works for II, contains a sorta-kinda, read-between-the-lines, I-don’t-like-their-attitude, they-claim-Kenyon-said-exactly-what-she-meant-to-say-but-it’s-still-out-of-context kind of bias? We’ve asked you many, MANY times now for even one more essay which you claim to be biased, and, despite your frequent claims of widespread bias, you have not once even acknowledged that you have been asked to point to more essays.
Secondly, I can’t say that DITWD’s recent turn of argument is surprising; earlier when he argued for bias on the part of the Infidels, he made a big deal of their being atheists:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29023
And later,
As opposed to DITWD, who is, as we all know, completely free of bias. :rolleyes:
-Ben
No. Different one. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html
Ah, thanks- my mistake.
-Ben
No, actually, the infidels site i had the real problem with was the other one that opus used, which ben was trying to link us to.
http:www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/2/982front.html
and i probably got it wrong. The article was by farrel Till, apparently one of the editors there. His article is an avowed attempt to debunk the Bible. The other article, altho certainly biased- at least reads from an historians viewpoint. (Note- I did not go thru that article, which was very long, and fact-check everything).
The other article, the one which I originally, and oh-so-long ago objected to has this quote about Kenyon “The work of K. Kenyon proved a similar result in her excavation of Jericho (the similar result referred to is a finding that Ai had been completely destroyed, never rebuilt, and ruins by the time of the Conquest). Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300BC, about the same time Ai was destroyed. Apparently then legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and Biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshuas Conquest”.
Now, Jericho, having had a “town” there about the time of Joshua, and having been rebuilt several times- was not, in my opinion, what Dame Kenyon or myself would call “a similar result to Ai”. But, I guess, we could argue about “similar”. Next, altho Kenyon certainly did say that the walls of “great Jericho” were destroyed around that time- she did go on to mention a later town, another Jericho. The author leaves this out. Kenyon, at least in my opinion, attemped to leave “reasonable hope” in the minds of those, who like me, think the Conquest was very real- altho “epic-ized” into a much greater story than was 'actual". The next sentence, however, certainly seems to indicate, without actually saying so, that the bit about “legends” came from Kenyons work. I cannot find/remember any such hypothesis in Kenyons work- however, nebuli has a complete copy, maybe there is something I missed. Or maybe this was just sloppy writing, (certainly a sin I have commited ) , and the author forgot to separate out HIS opinions from the facts just presented. Or maybe it was a deliberate attempt to propagandize.