Is there evidence for the battle of Jericho?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

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."

Excavations by John Garstang established that city wall was destroyed by an earthquake, which Garstang attributes to divine assistance for the the Israelites. Kathleen Kenyon established that the destruction was too early for the supposed conquest by Joshua. This is quite striking and amazing to find.

Answer 3

Yes (see link below). Like many other accounts in the Hebrew Bible, this was doubted and later revisited, showing that the doubters may have spoken hastily. See:

Another look at the battle of Jericho

and in general:

Archaeology and the Hebrew Bible

Examining Bible-criticism

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

The Battle of Jericho was during the late Bronze Age, some time about 1400 BC; the exact date is unknown.