Was the Battle of Wall of Jericho historical?

Answer 1

Modern Biblical Scholars and Archeaologists now concluded that the Battle of Jericho did not happen.

"Wood makes a strong case for the accuracy of the Biblical narrative of the destruction of Jericho, but ultimately it only tells us that the events recorded in the Book of Joshua do not disagree with the archaeological record. As Time magazine noted, "Other experts find little fault with Wood's Archaeology, but they are more skeptical about his linking of the evidence with Biblical events". Most scholars reject the historicity of Joshua in favor of belief in peaceful conquest. The prevailing belief in academia is that the Israelites came in far later than 1400 B.C., perhaps by two centuries, and they came "not as military conquerors but as a wave of immigrants" (Lemonick)."

see link UTex Jericho

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 order to 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.

1. A strongly fortified city as recorded in Joshua 2:5,7,15; 6:5, 20

2. That the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring as indicated in Joshua 2:1; 3:15; and 5:16.

3. The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee and remove their food as indicated in Joshua 6:1.

4. The seige was short as in Joshua 6:15 (together with 2 and 3 above, abundant remains would indicate that the inhabitants were not 'starved into surrender')

5. The walls were destroyed, possibly as the result of an earthquake. see Joshua 6:20

6. The city was not plundered of its material goods and food etc as detailed in Joshua 6:17 and 18.

7. The city was burned with fire as in Joshua 6:24.

8. Possibly a portion of the wall remained intact, as in Joshua 6:17,22 and 23.

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'.

Why Is the Evidence of Jericho's Destruction by Joshua questionedThe main reason is that, due to widespread acceptance of a date of 1250 BC as the date of Joshua's attack, there is no evidence found for that date, because he did not conquer Jericho then, and indeed there most likely was no city for him to conquer then because he had already done so in around 1400 BC, as the Bible says, and destroyed it. In addition, exactly as the Bible records, the city was not rebuilt for around 500 years after its destruction because it was cursed. Kenyon, in particular, noted this gap in the occupational levels.

Another reason is that Kenyon dismissed the investigations of John Garstang, even though he found pottery to date his findings (pottery which she was looking for but did not find - an argument from silence) 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 for centuries ancient Jerusalem being a good example of this.

HistoricityThe battle's historicity is debated among modern scholars - archaeologist Bill Dever, for example, has said: If you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there.[1]Dever was referring to Kathleen Kenyon's excavations in the 1950s, which found that the city had already been destroyed around 1550 BCE - approximately a century before the Bible's date for the battle - and remained uninhabited for several centuries thereafter.[2] Kenyon's findings were confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon studies which dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.[3]

However, other scholars (including Bryant Wood Ph.D.) say otherwise. Neither radiocarbon dating nor Biblical referential dating is 100% precise. Thus, the number of the known age and the radiocarbon age could (and usually should) allow for a considerable margin of error.[4] With this in mind, a disparity of 100 years in calculations does not nearly negate the Biblical count. see link

Kenyon actually referred in her findings to the time when the walls were most likely constructed not when they fell. We know from other examples such as the walls of Jerusalem that such walls can last for a number of centuries and so she did not necessarily disprove the Bible account.

Further to this, she made a conclusion on the basis of pottery which she did not find, pottery which is used as an index to the time of an occupation layer. Even though she did not excavate as much as Garstang, who did actually find examples of the relevant index pottery, she ignored what Garstang actually found in favor of what she did not find (an argument from silence).

Further to this, she found evidence of a long break in occupation, similar to the historical record of the bible as well as a 'middle palace' which the bible records as having been built somewhat later.

Thus, when read correctly even the findings of Kenyon do not of themselves disprove the Bible record.