That could be interesting. What was your book about, exactly?
I noticed that, but I find this assumption very arbitrary as well and certainly not self-evident.
Yes, that’s why it’s so ingenius! 
Considering the recent Noah’s Ark movie on American TV had Lot as the villain, I’d say you have quite a future in Hollywood if you’d stop correcting yourself. 
Cal, does your book explain the aerodynamics that allowed Washington’s silver dollar to get across the Potomac?
Look, I can see how it can be fun and fascinating to look for the “true” stories behind our most popular myths and legends.
How much truth is there to the legends of Robin Hood or King Arthur? Just a kernel? More? I understand why people find such questions worthy of inquiry. And if archaeologists dug up the remnants of Camelot somewhere in Cornwall, I’d be as fascinated as anyone. If someone found the alleged tomb of Sir Robin of Locksley, I’d think that was mighty cool.
But that’s not what the OP of this thread is talking about. Rather, he’s trying to find a “rational” explanation for a story that he obviously doesn’t take literally.
I’m asking, "If you don’t buy the story’s central point (that God caused the walls of Jericho to fall), if you don’t think THAT part of the story is literally true, why in the world would you assume all the OTHER details of the story (circling the city, blowing the horns, etc.) are true, and in need of a non-supernatural explanation?
In short, why would you discount the author’s contention that God worked a miracule, but take his word for it that everything else happened just as he described?
Wouldn’t it be simpler to assume that the story is either true or 99% baloney wrapped around a tiny kernel of truth?
When we heard that story as kids, we all assumed he folded it into an airplane before throwing it. It was a lot easier to believe that way, and most of the dollars we knew of were paper, and had his picture on it. It didn’t dawn on us until later that they were taloking about a dollar coin. Those were rarer, in our experience, and who’d take a chance on throwing a dollar, having it go short, and end up in the Potomac?
Taking your question more seriously, aerodynamics have nothing to do with it. Examiningh the story more carefully, you find that nobody mentions the Potomac (although, having seen the Potomac, a more critical question is: What part of the Potomac? There are places I could throw a silver dollar across it. Not at DC of course, but further upstream, where it’s narrow), and I’m not sure right now if it was Washington doing the throwing. Richard Shenkman, as ever, has the references in one of his books.
I’m not sure why all the rage against the OP, just seemed like a bit of an interesting observation, possibly not suited to Great Debates 
Because it was launched in GD (and has been somewhat defended in GD) and it provides an wonderful opportunity for other posters to shout “Ockham!” and “Nego majore!” so that is what they have been (figuratively) doing.
Rage?
If I sounded angry, I apologize. I wasn’t, honest!
It’s just that I see and hear theories like the OP’s on a regular basis, and I rarely see the point of them.
Recent example: a few eeeks back, some professor was claiming that some portions of the Sea of Galilee freeze over at different times of the year, and THAT’S undoubtedly the explanation for Jesus being able to walk on the water! Why, Jesus was just walking on ice!
Sigh.
Look, I’m a fairly devout, conservative Catholic, but be that as it may, I won’t tell you to believe Jesus walked on the water if you just can’t buy it. But since the professor obviously rejects the idea that Jesus had magical powers, why doesn’t he just dismiss the entire story as a fairy tale? Why accept 99% of the story as true, and then grasp at straws, trying to find a non-miraculous explanation???
Why treat the Scripture authors as deluded or dishonest when they talk about the supernatural, but then accept their accounts as (ahem) gospel the rest of the time?
Yhat calls for more than just a few eeeks.
He probably subscribes to postmodernism.
Sometimes it can be more interesting to see how something was spiced up and made supernatural than to find out it didn’t happen at all
Um, I hope this wasn’t your geography professor. Sea of Galilee freezing over, ever, would be more miraculous IMO than somebody walking on the water… (mean daily **minimum **temp. for Tiberias in **January **is over 8 C (over 45 F) - from here )
It’s not very well known, but Jesus had very cold feet.
much snipping by me & italics added.
Most Archeaologists dismiss the “traditional biblical reckoning” as well as do many Biblical scholars. Since the range of the “invasion” is pretty large, and it doesn’t seem that the “invasion” was done in one generation as it seems the Bible indicates, there still well have been a Hebrew siege of the city at some time. Or, maybe not. Certainly the Hebrews managed to occupy that area during that period (whenever it actually was), and sieges were pretty common. But using “traditional biblical reckoning” to show that a historical ever didn’t happen is bogus, especially when the cite clearly doesn’t accept “traditional biblical reckoning”. True, it does show that “traditional biblical reckoning” isn’t an exact match with Archeaological eveidence, but that’s no big suprise. :eek:
Incidentally, there are many problem when you attempt to say "this event happened at this time, and the Bible dates it at this time, thus the event as descrbed in the Bible didn’t happen.
-
Achealogical Dates that are 3000 years old are amost never exact. In fact, no one thinks the suggested dates of the Fall of Jericho are exact. The usual C-14 dating from that period is “+/- 150 years”
-
Few scholars think that the “traditional biblical reckoning” is even that close.
-
Even though Kenyon and co did dig out and identify one great "fall of the walls’, the city was rebuilt and the walls rebuilt- over and over and over. The biggest extent of the walls may not be the walls that “fell to Joshua”, the walls could have well been far less mighty, and the biblical story perhaps a bit exageerated- again, something that doesn’t surprise Biblical scholars and Archaeolgists.
-
This cite is so damn biased that a Doper should be ashamed to use it. It castigates a writer of a book for using a pen-name as being “dishonest for using a phony name”! :rolleyes: :dubious: :eek: We all know many honest well-respected writers that use/used a pen-name. It’s not dishonest or phoney.
Well, the real point was that the story was invented out of whole cloth by Parson Weems (and I learned it also,) so inventing explanations for it, while fun, are no different from what the Sherlockians do or what Farmer did in his “biographies” of Tarzan and Doc Savage.
It appears to me that no one is actually sure there was an invasion - short term or extended. The Hebrews seemed to live happily in the hills, and invented the story of God’s giving them Israel as justification for conquest - something like we’ve seen in the past century. (To avoid a hijack, I think there are excellent non-Biblical reasons for Israel to exist.)
In any case, I think there are far better explanations for the Jericho story being in the Bible than that it actually happened.
There was no fortified city at Jericho during the alleged time of Joshua. There were no walls to come tumbling down. The walls that are present date from about 1550 BCE. The distinctive cultural group known as “Israelites” did not even emerge in Canaan until about the 13th Century. Jericho would have been a ruin before Joshua ever got there (not that the Isralites ever actually left Canaan in the first place), but the archaeological evidence shows that there never was any Israelite conquest of Canaan at all. There may have been a military hero named Joshua but his exploits were at least greatly exaggerated and he might not have existed at all.
Most ANE archaeologists don’t believe there ever was an Israelite invasion at all.
You could as easily say there are better explanations for the story of Troy than thast it happened. But Hissarlik is there.
The existence of real cities is one of the outcroppings upon which the encrustations of myths crystallize. The things said about Try or Jericho may not even have occurred there, at the stated time. They may not even have occurred at all. But when a detailed exoplanation is given one suspects that someone observed something that lead to that tale. We don’t doubt that the Greeks fought, sacrificed, and labored the way they describe in the Iliad, so whjhy not think that they may have made colossal moving structures for some purpose in war? similarly, the Hebrews may indeed have marched around a city several times and blown their trumpets. It makes a good stry, but you have to wonder why it was done. It is cdertainly worthy of conjecture.
There’s no point to Occam’s Razor if you slice through the skin into bone.
If the walls that are present date from 1550 BCE, why would they not still be there in 1300 BCE or even later? Plenty of castles, stone walls, etc. have survived much longer spans of time than 200 years and have still remained usable as defences. Why is it so certain that the walls were in ruins, after a mere couple of hundred years?
What I have heard is that the “Israelite-Caananite” conflict may have been a conflict between hill tribes and more urbanized lowlanders - not necessarily an invasion of the decendents of ex-slaves from Egypt, but also not necessarily totally imaginary as a conflict, either.