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
The account of the fall of Jericho in Joshua 6 conflicts with archaeological evidence because there is no evidence of a destruction layer at Jericho that aligns with the biblical account. Additionally, the timeline provided in Joshua for the conquest of Jericho does not match with historical dates. The Jericho that existed at the time the Israelites would have entered Canaan was actually a smaller settlement.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is there evidence for the battle of Jericho?
Archaeological evidence supports the existence of the city of Jericho, but there is debate among scholars about the specific details of the battle described in the Bible. The destruction layers at Jericho do not perfectly align with the biblical account because of differing timelines between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative.
What was the first city in canaan taken by the Israelites?
The first city in Canaan taken by the Israelites was Jericho, as described in the biblical account in the book of Joshua. The Israelites marched around the city for seven days before its walls fell down, allowing them to conquer it.
Is it true or false that god and Israel made a covenant or solemn agreement at Mount Sinai?
True. In the biblical narrative, God made a covenant with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, outlining the terms of their relationship and setting forth a code of conduct known as the Mosaic Law. This covenant is a central theme in the Old Testament.
Why were the people of Jericho wicked when they'd never heard of the Hebrew god seems like hypocrisy to me?
The story of Jericho in the Bible depicts the Israelites conquering the city as part of their journey to the Promised Land. The Bible portrays the people of Jericho as wicked based on their own beliefs and practices, which were considered unholy and sinful according to the Israelites' laws. It is a narrative within the context of the Israelites' religious beliefs rather than an objective historical account.
What is Username 666?
"Username 666" is a popular internet urban legend that claims there is a cursed YouTube account with the username "666" that displays strange and disturbing videos. There is no concrete evidence proving the existence of such an account, and it is generally viewed as a creepy pasta or internet myth.
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?
True. In the biblical narrative, God made a covenant with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, outlining the terms of their relationship and setting forth a code of conduct known as the Mosaic Law. This covenant is a central theme in the Old Testament.
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?
Archaeological evidence supports the existence of the city of Jericho, but there is debate among scholars about the specific details of the battle described in the Bible. The destruction layers at Jericho do not perfectly align with the biblical account because of differing timelines between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative.
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.
