0
How is the account of the fall of Jericho in Joshua 6 inconsistent with the other details in the book and with the archaeological evidence?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
The archaeological evidence against the historicity of the Israelite conquest is well established. Jericho had been abandoned around 1550 BCE, long before the time attributed to Joshua. By 1400 BCE, there seems to have been a small, unwalled village on the site of the former city, but nothing a great military leader would bother conquering. The second city to be conquered in the Book of Joshua is Ai, which archaeologists say was also abandoned and in ruins long before this time. Ai means 'Ruins' in Hebrew, indicating that the Israelites never knew the real name of the city and simply knew it as the 'ruins', a state that they thought must have come about because of their own conquest of the town.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is it true or false that god and Israel made a covenant or solemn agreement at Mount Sinai?
There is no historical evidence of such a meeting (in terms of archaeological discoveries), but then again many meetings and events occurred in the Ancient Period for which there is no hard evidence. It really comes down to whether you believe that the account provided in the Old Testament is historical or not.
Is there evidence for the battle of Jericho?
The evidence to look for is: (i) evidence that the city of Jericho actually existed at the time attributed to the battle, and that there any damage to the walls occurred at that time; or (ii) evidence for the military invasion of Canaan, which would be circumstantial evidence for the Battle of Jericho; (iii) evidence that the authors of the Book of Joshua understood the military and political realities of Palestine at the time of the battle, to provide some level of plausibility to the account.The respected arcahaologist, Israel Finkelstein and historian, Neil Asher Silberman (authors of The Bible Unearthed) say that Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath-jearim did not exist at the time. Professor Isserlin, Head of Department of Semitic Studies and Reader in Semitic Studies at the University of Leeds, and author of The Israelites, says that Jericho had fallen c 1550BCE and afterwards there was only a very limited and impoverished settlement, apparently unwalled, between 1425 and 1275, then entirely abandoned. So, on the first test, there is no evidence for the Battle of Jericho - in fact evidence that it could not have happened.As for evidence that there even was a military invasion of Canaan, Professor Finkelstein said, "Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible ..."Palestine was under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th century BCE and Egyptian administrative centres were located in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She'an. Evidence of Egyptian presence has also been discovered in many locations on both sides of the Jordan River. That this is not mentioned in the biblical account makes it clear that it was unknown to its author. So, on the third test, for plausibility, the story of the Battle of Jericho fails. Not only is the Bible account of the capture of Jericho historical it is confirmed substantially by the discoveries of archeology in numerous places. Such confirmation is startling in its accuracy in terms of its correspondence to the the Bible account.
Who was the wife of Obed the son of Boaz?
Rahab, the Jericho prostitute, that was saved because she hid the spies and helped them. Of course, it has been shown that strong women in early history are later labeled as prostitutes (i.e. Cleopatra).
What were the walls of Jericho made of?
Jericho is a very ancient city and it had high walls on several occasions long prior to the late bronze age, the period when the Israelite army is supposed to have caused the walls to fall. However, the city had been abandoned centuries before the time attributed to Joshua, and there were no walls for him to breach. Scholars say that at most there was just a small mud-brick village on the site of the former city. So, on the basis of archaeological evidence, it is not possible to state any dimensions for the walls during the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries BCE - the relevant period.AnswerThe city of Jericho was important enough to have two walls. The outside one was six feet thick and the inside one was twelve feet thick.
Did Zoroaster live before Moses?
Based on the available evidence, we can be reasonably certain that Zoroaster really did exist. Scholars say that he probably lived before at least 1700 BCE and possibly much earlier. There is no extra-biblical evidence that Moses ever existed, and a careful analysis of the biblical stories indicates that he likely did not exist. Neverthless, if the biblical account is accepted as true, Moses led the Israelites from Egypt around 1440 BCE. Either way, Zoroaster was before Moses.
What was the the first city captured by the israelites?
According to the biblical account, Jericho was the first city the Israelites captured.
How did people know that Vesuvius was erupting?
We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.We get out knowledge of the disaster that Vesuvius caused by historical and archaeological research and by the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger.
Is it true or false that god and Israel made a covenant or solemn agreement at Mount Sinai?
There is no historical evidence of such a meeting (in terms of archaeological discoveries), but then again many meetings and events occurred in the Ancient Period for which there is no hard evidence. It really comes down to whether you believe that the account provided in the Old Testament is historical or not.
What is chris Jericho email ID?
That is unknown, but here is his official twitter account: twitter.com/IAmJericho
What is Chris Jericho's fan mail?
That is unknown, but here is his official twitter account: twitter.com/IAmJericho
Was tower of Babel historical and was there only one language spoken in that particular timeline?
The Tower of Babel story from the Bible is considered a religious and mythological account rather than a historical event. There is no archaeological or historical evidence to support the existence of a tower reaching the heavens or the confusion of languages at a particular point in time. Additionally, it is unlikely that there was ever a single universal language spoken by all people. Language diversification is a gradual and ongoing process throughout human history.
Where in the Bible can one find the story of Jericho?
The story of Jericho is found in the Bible book of Joshua chapters 2 - the account of the two spies and chapter 6 - the conquest.
Is the Bible story of the fall of Jericho historically and chronologically correct?
Another answer from our community:Not only is the Bible account of the capture of Jericho historical it is confirmed substantially by the discoveries of archeology in numerous places. Such confirmation is startling in its accuracy in terms of its correspondence to the the Bible account. In the early 1990s, there was a startling report by Dr. Bryant G. Woods, who was then at the University of Toronto, of finding remnants of Jericho from Joshua's time. Previous excavations had been in a different section of the mound of ancient Jericho.Woods found a layer of ash 3-foot deep over his entire excavated area. This appears to be clear evidence of large scale destruction by fire. Large stores of spring harvested wheat that were barely touched were also discovered. The city seems to have fallen after a very brief siege, whereas a walled city would usually have been expected to hold out until starvation. 'The fact that Jericho was conquered in the spring (deduced from the spring wheat) also correlates to the biblical account that it was right after Passover, the spring holiday.Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said this about Woods' work at Jericho: "On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn't too far wrong."In addition to the excavations by Bryant Wood, earlier excavations by John Garstang and Kathleen Kenyon, as well as an earlier excavation by a German team established that all of the expected evidence was found. This is quite striking and amazing to find that people still question this when the evidence is 'on the record'.
Are the archaeological claims that Jericho had been abandoned long before Joshua arrived true?
Another answer from our community:Some believe it is not true. It is noteworthy in the case of Jericho, unlike some other sites such as Arad and Heshbon, that there is unanymity regarding the site in question. Thus, if the Biblical account were true, it should be able to be demonstrated from details uncovered. This is of course assuming that evidence has not been obliterated or detroyed by later settlement, as can happen.In order to answer this question it would first be necessary to detail the actual evidence that might be expected to be found were the Biblical account to be true. This is not to say that this would necessarily be found but that if found, as part of a correctly understood chronology of the site, it would add credence to the Biblical record. Woods found a layer of ash 3-foot deep over his entire excavated area. This appears to be clear evidence of largescale destruction by fire. Large stores of spring harvested wheat that were barely touched were also discovered. The city seems to have fallen after a very brief siege, whereas a walled city would usually have been expected to hold out until starvation. The account in the Book of Joshua matches all the evidence. The fact that Jericho was conquered in the spring (deduced from the spring wheat) also correlates to the biblical account that it was right after Passover, the spring holiday.Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said this about Woods' work at Jericho: "On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn't too far wrong."In addition to the excavations by Bryant Wood, earlier excavations by John Garstang and Kathleen Kenyon, as well as an earlier excavation by a German team established that all of the expected evidence was found.Another reason is that Kenyon dismissed the investigations of John Garstang, even though he found pottery to date his findings and dated the walls which fell as being from an earlier time. In addition to this, she referred to the time of the construction of the walls but not necessarily to the time of their destruction. It is known that some ancient walls remained in use for centuries, Jerusalem being a good example of this.Another answerBasing on a newer find of Modern day Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyan and concurred by other Archaeologists, yes it's true that the alleged Joshua's conquest of Jericho did not happen as written in the Bible, because Jericho was completely deserted during Joshua's time.
What is the term for an account by people who didn't witness the event?
Hearsay evidence.
Is there evidence for the battle of Jericho?
The evidence to look for is: (i) evidence that the city of Jericho actually existed at the time attributed to the battle, and that there any damage to the walls occurred at that time; or (ii) evidence for the military invasion of Canaan, which would be circumstantial evidence for the Battle of Jericho; (iii) evidence that the authors of the Book of Joshua understood the military and political realities of Palestine at the time of the battle, to provide some level of plausibility to the account.The respected arcahaologist, Israel Finkelstein and historian, Neil Asher Silberman (authors of The Bible Unearthed) say that Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath-jearim did not exist at the time. Professor Isserlin, Head of Department of Semitic Studies and Reader in Semitic Studies at the University of Leeds, and author of The Israelites, says that Jericho had fallen c 1550BCE and afterwards there was only a very limited and impoverished settlement, apparently unwalled, between 1425 and 1275, then entirely abandoned. So, on the first test, there is no evidence for the Battle of Jericho - in fact evidence that it could not have happened.As for evidence that there even was a military invasion of Canaan, Professor Finkelstein said, "Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible ..."Palestine was under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th century BCE and Egyptian administrative centres were located in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She'an. Evidence of Egyptian presence has also been discovered in many locations on both sides of the Jordan River. That this is not mentioned in the biblical account makes it clear that it was unknown to its author. So, on the third test, for plausibility, the story of the Battle of Jericho fails. Not only is the Bible account of the capture of Jericho historical it is confirmed substantially by the discoveries of archeology in numerous places. Such confirmation is startling in its accuracy in terms of its correspondence to the the Bible account.
What kind of evidence is testimony?
Testimonial evidence is evidence given by a witness of things they've experienced first-hand. The first-hand account of a witness is called their testimony.
