Historical Records agreeing 'holy books'?

Great Debates
81

No, Dan, it (presumably Dame Kenyon) does not say that there was a town there at the right time for Joshua.

She says:

In other words, given a town at one period of time and an Exodus in a similar period of time, one can note the proximity of the events, but given other information and a desire to date the Exodus to 1260, the two events cannot be reconciled. (Unless you want to posit that the sojourn in the desert took -40 years, letting them arrive in 1300, 40 years before they left Egypt in 1260),

82

Hmm. “The evidence from the 1952-8 excavations at Jericho indicate that there was a Late Bronze Age (LB) town there in the 14th century which might have been attacked by Joshua, BUT NOTHING SURVIVES TO ILLUSTRATE THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT. (my emphasis). It also suggests that if this destruction followed by 600 years of abandonment was the work of the Israelite tribes under Joshua, it is not likely to have been later than c. 1300BC which is difficult to reconcile with a flight from Egypt c. 1260 BC.” She specifically says the town was destroyed at the wrong time–at least forty years before anyone left Egypt, if I read her correctly! AND that there is no evidence that the destruction was by Joshua. You think this means she supports the idea that it was destroyed by Joshua, when she says there is no evidence and the date is wrong? :rolleyes:

I really don’t see how you get that this supports a belief on her part that the attack by Joshua is a serious possibility. If I say “324 S. Main did exist at some point and my great-great-etc.-grandmother might have burned it down, BUT there is no evidence of her having burned it, and it was burned forty years before my grandmother was supposed to have lived,” do you really think I’m advancing what I think is a viable theory? It really sounds a lot more like Kenyon is shooting down a bad hypothesis to me. The very site you link to says Kenyon proves the Joshua story a myth, yet you try to tell me she supports the Joshua conquest theory and Infidels was remiss in not making that clear? When all the people I quoted from Archeological Biblica Society apparently accept that the Joshua conquest story is myth?

Um, did you miss my cites? Where’s some of your own if you’re going to say Joshua “certainly” conquered Jericho? Here’s a refresher:
“…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…”
You know, personally, when I started poking around I had no idea how well supported Joshua’s conquest was, and I wouldn’t have cared one way or another if it had been proven valid. From what I have seen, Joshua’s conquest of Jericho is pretty well discredited, and your claims that Kenyon supported the theory that he did conquer it and that Joshua’s conquest is accepted by the archeologists is not backed up by any good evidence.

[Edited by Gaudere on 12-02-2000 at 05:07 PM]

83

Thanks, Tom. You posted while I was typing, so I guess I’m just redundant now. :slight_smile:

84

Daniel, I can think of at least two hypotheses which would counter your assumption.

1st- if these cities had been abandoned at some point (possibly because of climatic deterioration)as the evidence seems to show, perhaps they were still abandoned, unpopulated areas when the Israelites first moved into the area.

2nd- alternatively, since the origin of the Israelites appears to be an open question at this time, we cannot excluded the possibility that the people who first settled, then abandoned Jericho and Ai were among the ancestors of the Israelites.

85

[hijack]My favorite theory regarding Jericho has always been that when the wandering Israelites started into Canaan, they had old tribal stories of the impressive armed city of Jericho blocking their route (from its earlier days as a fortress). When they showed up at its ruins, they figured God had removed it for their benefit, then incorporated its “fall” into their stories of the conquest (with God’s help) of Canaan.[/hijack]

86

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if people are really debating two points here:

  1. Were Jericho and Ai destroyed by the Israelites?

  2. What would Kenyon say if we asked her about #1?

But let’s not forget what started this:

  1. Did the Internet Infidels quote Kenyon out of context?

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe DITWD has supported his points with any statement of Kenyon’s that wasn’t quoted in the II article. While he may disagree with the spin that the author put on Kenyon’s work, I don’t see any evidence that the author quoted her out of context. Her opinion is there, appropriately quoted. Even if the author of the II article has interpreted her statements in a grossly incorrect fashion, that would be a mistake rather than the sort of deliberate deception that DITWD has claimed. AFAICT, the author laid all the cards on the table, and, contrary to DITWD’s claims, hasn’t concealed anything which DITWD would have to reveal to us before we could accurately interpret Kenyon’s remarks.
-Ben

87

Well, actually (in some sense) they would not have been such big events. My understanding is that reports of magical events were common in the ancient world. Apparently there was a rough contemporary of Jesus named Apollonius who reportedly raised the dead as well.

For some thoughts on magical thinking in the ancient world, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/magic.html

88

Through-out history, a vital site for a town/city has never been completely abandoned. If it is a good site for a city, there will be some sort of City. Jericho, as per all Archeological works, including Dame kenyons, was not always a Isreali city. However, after the “conquest” by Joshua, it was- and it was rebuilt as a Jewish city, under King Ahab, some 300 years later. This Jericho was destroyed by the persians & arabs, and another was rebuilt by the Crusaders. Jericho still stands tody, under the name “Eriha”.

Now, look, I guess it is just possible that Joshua arrived to find a great site for a city, completely void of inhabitants, and also issues an edict for no-one to ever built there again- but why issue the edict unless there was a good reason the hate the city & its people? Now, if you want to get into realism, how about Joshua arrives with a much smaller army, the once-great city of jericho is a shadow of its former self, decadent descendants hiding in the near-ruin. However, they still manage, due to the great walls- mostly in ruins- (but enuf to protect a 1000 or so), to give joshua a good run for his money.

Next, note that Kenyon, like most historians, was not willing to accept the 1260BC date of the Exodus- such date is gravely in doubt, not to mention the “40 years” period. Some suggest perhaps 1170. This is why she is pointing out a discrepency between the dates.

89

Note, also, around that time, another legend/myth came to being- that of the Siege of Troy. Yes, for many years, most Historians were skeptical. However, it has been shown there was indeed, such a siege, etc- altho hardly the world-shaking epic referred to in the Illiad. Does this mean the Illiad is mythical? There are mythical elements, yes, and the story has been exaggerated- but the basic truth is still there. Mosy historians view this as a vindication, rather than a de-bunking of the Illiad. So look at Jericho- similar- some myth, non-epic, exaggerated victory. But this is, then, of course a de-bunking of the Bible. :rolleyes:

90

False. Come on, I frankly personally could not give a hoot, but this is a stupid claim.

91

Name one. Just one.

Yes, city sites have been abandoned- but usually for good, becuase the site is no longer vital. There was a City at jericho maybe 10000 years ago. There is one now. Except for a small gap, caused by the Isrealites, there has been no documented significant gap.

92

OK, You insisted i post cites for every freaking one of MY theories. I supplied them. You did not like them. You claimed i was agrueing without original sources. Now, you have posted 3 ideas. I asked for cites for these- and of course, as my 'secondary sources", even Oxford, are no good, you, of course, have better ones, right? So, put-up or Shut up= you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

93

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**Name one. Just one.
**

Sijilmassa.

And that’s just off the top of my head.

Satisfied? I mean why argue this?

94

Cite, cite, cite. Given that you completely misread the quote you cited–and that when you quoted it you did not quote the whole sentence, convieniently leaving out the rest of the sentence, IN ALL CAPS, that damaged, if not destroyed, your argument–I need some evidence that she does not accept the 1260BC date AND does in fact think the Joshua conquest model is truly viable. Fercrisesakes, the very site you link to says she proves the Biblical account of Joshua to be a myth!

Well, I guess I can repost my cites from Biblical Archeological society until you get around to addressing them with cites of your own:
“…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…”
Even the guy who was arguing strenously for the validity of the Bible in that site thought the Joshua-finds-abandoned-city was plausible:
“Moreover, there was a destruction of Jericho that comports in extraordinary detail with the description of the Israelite conquest of the city, down to the time of year and the fallen walls. But it occurred before the supposed date of the Israelite appearance on the scene. Did the Israelites somehow later take credit for this earlier destruction of Jericho? That’s quite possible.”

…But DITWD doesn’t consider it likely. With no evidence besides your word, and an easily-refuted claim that cities were never abandoned and repopulated. Look, I could care less about Joshua, but you don’t post evidence and act like your statements come from the mouth of God while ignoring the cites I post, and it drives me up the wall.

I would like:

  1. evidence that Kenyon does think the Joshua conquest model is likely, and so Infidels and the website you yourself linked to were wrong to say she “destroyed” it. Since the cite you linked to is arguing for a new chronology, I’d think if Kenyon supported that they would quote her enthusiastically. I’d hardly consider that site unbiased, either, despite your claim that you avoid biased references; it says “[a]ll events from Sodom and Gomorrah, through the captivity in Egypt, the subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan to the story of Esther will be presented in its archaeological and historical context and the Biblical account shown to be completely accurate.” I don’t think most biblical archeologists would agree with this at all, from what I have read on the subject; there seems to be some serious revisionism going on there.

  2. Evidence that the Joshua-conquered-Jericho model is viable. All that I’ve read so far says it’s bunk; if it is a valid theory, you should be able to provide me with several cites from respected archeologists arguing for it. Please do so. And address my flippin’ cites, and explain why even archeologists who are vehement opponents agree that the Joshua-conquest theory is unsupported!

95

Excuse me? “Drowned the entire (then) known world”?

As we used to say back in the day, Back it up or back down, boy.

96

Am I the only person here who remembers Robert Ballard finding evidence for a vast flood in the Black Sea basin occurring approximately 8,000 years ago? This would NOT be in Mesopotamia, but it would also NOT be evidence that a big flood did not occur in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It could very well be that both floods happened; then, centuries later, the two events get melded (in people’s minds) into one, world-wide catastrophe.

97

No, there appears to be a good deal of evidence that the Black Sea basin was flooded about that time.

What is less clear is whether there was any great flood covering Mesopotamia at one time. There is widespread archaelogical evidence for large floods in many locales, but that might represent a series of local events at different sites and not a single innundation covering the whole area. See
http://saturn.sron.ruu.nl/~jheise/akkadian/protohistory.html which says,

.Other links which discuss this issue are:
http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm
and
http://www.louisville.edu/~aoclar01/ancient/flood/flood1.htm

98

After rereading my last message, I think I wasn’t really clear. The “No” with which I opened my message meant “No jab1, you weren’t the only one who remembered Ballard’s findings”, not “No, I disagree with your hypothesis”. Sorry, if my wording was confusing.

99

I am aware both of Ballard’s work (which seems well suported, to me) and localized flooding in Mesopotamia. Neither of those ideas supports the specific statement which I questioned.

100

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**

Umm, you mean where the modern village of Rijsagi currently is? Not to mention the other 5 villages which are nearby?

Spirit: If you go back to the 1st time you posted your challenge, you will see my reply, complete with cites & all, not too far beneath it.

gaudere: When i have read books by archeologists, including the one by Kenyon, they seem to use the term “City”, in that ancient context, to refer to a large, WALLED city. 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. That, if you read her book in toto, as i have, seems to be what she means in the apparently contradictatorty quote. When I read he book, in no way did she seem to declare that “Joshua” did not happen, just that Joshua, did not “fit the battle” at the version of jericho she was digging. Her book now is hard to find, and only short passages are on line. I will work on it. 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”. (From Baffling Bible Questions) “Here the pivotal question is over the dating jerichos fall. John Drane <“Introducing the Old testament”> '20 years ago…dated the Exodus between 1280 & 1240 BC. But today an increasing number are… dating these events about 1440 BC. … work by Bryan G Wood, using …pottery analysis supported by C-14, have shown that every line of…evidence actually supports a violent overthrow about 1400BC”. These likely will not be exactly what you want, but there is a great deal of speculation & arguement over this subject, since 1968 when Kenyon did her book.

I am simply willing to beleive that the story of Joshua, a great general, was turned into an “epic” much like King Arthur, or the Siege of Troy. It is easier for me to accept a basicly true tale, blown out of proportion, rather than a complete fabrication. I mean, there were some folks around, and might they not have pointed out that the entire tale was bogus? That Joshua walked into a deserted city, made up a huge whopper about a great siege, and gave an edict that no-one was to build there? For what reason?

Oh, re “Ai”? Most Archeologists figured Ai was located at Et Tell, where there is record of a City that was destroyed about 2200 BC- and never rebuilt (no longer a vital site, today, at least). However, altho they are quite right about that dating, there was nothing to indicate that city was actually the “Ai” of the Bible, it was not called Ai by its inhabitants, as far as they could see. Many now feel that “Ai” was actually at Kirbet Nisya, which is just a bit SW of Et Tell ( again, it would be a smaller, less great conquest). Digs are proceeding.