The Problem with Jericho

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Jericho is the famous city from the book of Joshua. We are told the city fell after the Hebrews had walked around it for seven days because the Lord had delivered the city into their hands.

There are two problems with this account based on archeology investigations of this site. The first problem is that the site demonstrates signs of human civilization around 10,000 BC with evidence of small tools from around this time in the area. This would be a problem if you believe the Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. However, it is debatable whether the Bible is trying to assert the age of the earth. link

The second problem is the city of Jericho that fits the description in the Bible was destroyed in the 15th century BC. There is no evidence of a city within the range of 1400 to 1200 BC like Bible archeologists expect.

There is little to no evidence that a city was rebuilt after the destruction of the city from the middle bronze age until around 9th century BC (link). In theory, this would mirror what scripture says because Joshua placed a curse on whoever tried to rebuild this city.

"At that time Joshua imposed this curse: The man who undertakes the rebuilding of this city, Jericho, is cursed before the Lord. He will lay its foundation at the cost of his firstborn; he will set up its gates at the cost of his youngest." (Joshua 6:26).

However, the book of Numbers says that two and a half tribes were supposed to receive an inheritance from Jericho and eastward towards the sunrise (Numbers 34:15).

Joshua 16:11 mentions Jericho in the description of Joseph's inheritance.

"The allotment for the descendants of Joseph went from the Jordan at Jericho to the waters of Jericho on the east, through the wilderness ascending from Jericho into the hill country of Bethel."

Whether or not there was a curse placed on whoever tried to rebuild the city, the city was still useful in determining the boundaries of the Hebrews presence following the destruction of Jericho. There is no evidence that Jericho was useful in creating boundaries for this purpose.

In addition to this, there is the problem of Ai. Both cities were supposedly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua.

"Ai, ancient Canaanite town destroyed by the Israelites under their leader Joshua (Joshua 7–8). Biblical references agree in locating Ai (Hebrew: ha-ʿAy, “The Ruin”) just east of Bethel (modern Baytīn in the West Bank). This would make it identical with the large early Bronze Age site now called At-Tall. Excavations there in 1933–35 by a French expedition uncovered a large temple and other remains of the 3rd millennium BC. That occupation ended about 2500 BC, and there was no later reoccupation except briefly in the 12th–11th century BC. The biblical events, however, are usually assigned to a period between about 1400 and 1200 BC. A widely accepted explanation is that early Israelite tradition identified the Canaanite town that was buried under the Israelite Bethel with the imposing ruins of the still earlier At-Tall, only 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the east." link

There are several problems with this description that are in addition to the obvious one that is admitted. The description in the Bible is pointing toward the remains of a city that didn't exist in the time of Joshua. This is the number one. Really, this already creates a closed case for the book of Joshua as a historical document if the description for where to find this city is inaccurate.

The other problem is that all of these sites would also have to correspond with the site that is confirmed to be the city of Jericho that was destroyed in the 15th century BC, which is not being acknowledged in the alternate hypothesis of a buried city. I don't know what the resistance is to admitting that Jericho was destroyed in the middle bronze age. The timeline either fits with when Jericho was destroyed or it doesn't.

If a city was found buried between 1400 to 1200 BC, this city would have had to be destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua according to the Bible, which would mean a minimum of 50 years between the defeat of Jericho and the defeat of AI if a city is found buried. This hypothesis has to jump through more than a few hoops to gain credibility.

If we continue further, we find that archeology is finding problems with just about every city that was supposedly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua. None of them are creating a picture that says that this happened during the lifetime of one person.

Dating the destruction of the city of Jericho to the middle bronze age creates a domino effect that upsets the whole book of Joshua as a historical perspective, and this isn't going to go away. I have loved the book of Joshua as much as the next person for many years. It has always inspired me to believe that major wars were not necessary. The only thing that is necessary is the pursuit of righteousness and many things could be accomplished with a small handful of people. However, archeology of Biblical accounts is still in its infancy and within the next 100 years, many things will change considering that the information they are producing is not supporting the premise that the book of Joshua is a historical document.

Personally, I think the church should try to take the bull by the horns because if they don't, they are going to be run over the bull. There is a reason why the Bible is so popular and it is because it works, but it works about as well as having an ox plow a field. It gets you somewhere, but the work probably could be accomplished quicker and more efficiently.

We don't want to trade one sort of ignorance for another, which is what ecumenism would do. Thinking that you can pick a sufficient truth like you can pick a lottery number is exchanging one sort of ignorance for another. In theory, if you can prove that the Bible is not a historical document through archeological efforts, you can justify promoting the idea that we can just grab a truth from here or there and it will good enough to create a postmodern religion like ecumenism and this is just one potential outcome.

However, archeology is not like postmodernist ideas. It is a science that doesn't care about your emotions the same way germ theory doesn't care if you would prefer to think someone with a fever is possessed by a devil. It would help us create a greater foundation that would help us refine the canon so that we could plow a field with a modern plow rather than using an ox and plow.

In addition to this, it is interesting to note that this whole problem would be solved if the names of the Pharaohs had been included in the book of Genesis and Exodus. None of this would be a problem if they had just included the name of the Pharoah who reigned during the lifetime of Abraham, Joseph, or Moses.

Considering the fame of the Egyptian leaders throughout the ancient world, it can be assumed that these names were intentionally left out so that identifying this time period historically would be close to impossible to do without a great deal of effort.

Why would someone want to do this? Thinking very soberly, the Gospel message has been the most effective way to create equality within a community. So it is very possible that there are many things we should reconsider like this throughout that Bible that exist as a way to control a community by necessitating a source of authority to pacify the confusion that is created by not giving the names for the Pharaohs, etc., etc.

If the Bible creates questions, then this requires someone to exist as a source of authority, like the pope for example. If the Bible answers its own questions and cannot be questioned by archeologists or scientists no matter where they dig or what theories they assume, then there is no need for one person to exist as authority over another.

We need to use archeology to our advantage to remove all forms of false authority or idolatry, rather than allow archeology to run us over and assert a different authority, which exchanges one sort of ignorance for another.

I would hope that some people will seriously consider what I am saying with patience and I also recognize that others will become like devils themselves as the result of what I am saying. However, as I said already, this is not going to go away no matter what you call me or how much you whine and complain about the evidence that is being produced by archeologists right now.
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
David Rohl addresses the issue head on in his examination of the points of connection between Biblical and Egyptian chronologies. It's a long watch but addresses the questions of the thread directly.

 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
David Rohl addresses the issue head on in his examination of the points of connection between Biblical and Egyptian chronologies. It's a long watch but addresses the questions of the thread directly.

With all due respect Red, you post this video at least once a week. That is often enough to almost be considered spam. Maybe someone else is interested in getting the weekly reminder to watch this video, but unless you have some ability to summarize this and use your own critical thinking. I am not especially interested in watching this video and will ignore it again.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Here is a link to a book published in 2009 by a professor of Biblical literature who admits that 20 years after the letter from the New York Times was published, the consensus is still going along with the original theory that the city collapsed in 1550 BC. The article is exaggerating the legitimacy of the evidence that was produced to say otherwise. It is likely that at the time of the article, people were hoping that this would lead to something more conclusive about the time Jericho was destroyed, but the Kenyon time frame still has more evidence supporting it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Qz9E8NC409YC&pg=PA203#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
With all due respect Red, you post this video at least once a week. That is often enough to almost be considered spam. Maybe someone else is interested in getting the weekly reminder to watch this video, but unless you have some ability to summarize this and use your own critical thinking. I am not especially interested in watching this video and will ignore it again.
Your response indicates that you ignored it the first time...

To summarise, the accepted Egyptian chronology is based on the connection between a specific Pharoah and a particular Hebrew King. The connection then linked the chronologies at a certain point in history, leading to the kind of conclusions you are drawing above.

David Rohls research connects at an earlier date and leads to some interesting archaeological connections (including Jerecho). In short, what he finds strongly supports the Biblical account of the Exodus.

If this is something you would rather not believe, please be my guest and ignore my contribution.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Your response indicates that you ignored it the first time...

To summarise, the accepted Egyptian chronology is based on the connection between a specific Pharoah and a particular Hebrew King. The connection then linked the chronologies at a certain point in history, leading to the kind of conclusions you are drawing above.

David Rohls research connects at an earlier date and leads to some interesting archaeological connections (including Jerecho). In short, what he finds strongly supports the Biblical account of the Exodus.

If this is something you would rather not believe, please be my guest and ignore my contribution.
I actually did watch it one of the very first times you posted it and I responded to it. This was in the Critical Text Criticized thread. I actually pointed out this change in the timeline from the first lecture. https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-critical-text-criticized.3461/page-3#post-117906

I believe the presenter pointed the way this changed the timeline in part 2, which is what I had already realized and this still wasn't getting to the root of the problem. It was still creating more problems than it was solving. So I was well aware of the content in these videos that you have posted when I created this thread, just like I have been aware of them the last several times you have posted them.

However, I am guessing you did not ever give equal time to what I am saying in the opening post because I would imagine that you would have noticed that the problem that is specific to changing the timeline for this thread, is the way it coexists with other cities that would require evidence of being replaced by the Hebrew invasion at this time as well.

So for the sake of argument, let's say the evidence that exists for the city of Jericho supports what the guy is saying in the video about Ramses II reigning as king of Egypt at the same time that Rehoboam was reigning in Judah.

There is still the question of Ai, that I was bringing up in the opening post. The location given in the Bible for the city of Ai leads to a place that was not inhabited at all during that time no matter if we go with a new timeline that says Rehoboam reigned in the same time as Ramses II or we go with the old timeline. The city of Ai was not an active city in either of these times in order to support the Biblical record.

In addition to this, let's say for the sake of argument here that the city is buried the way some archeologists would like to hypothesize. Let's say evidence of Ai does exist near this region as a buried city. If that is the case, we would know the location of Jericho and the location to begin looking for this buried city of Ai, which means there should be some evidence of ancient Israel within these points that we should have been able to find at this point.

So take a minute and think about how we are trying to prove the existence of ancient Israel with the existence of other cities that are not identified as Israel because there is evidence to support that they existed--but their existence still does not support that Israel existed in the ancient world. Consider how long it will take before it starts to look ridiculous or we enter another dark age to prevent this archeological effort looking as ridiculous as it is starting to look.

Then, take a minute to realize that this would never have been a problem if the names of the Pharaohs were given in Genesis and Exodus. Supposedly Moses wrote the first five books, right? Why didn't he give the name of the Pharoah that he met with?
 

Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,904
no evidence
critical thinking
Spare me. In the link you posted about Jerico being 9 thousands years old. When i pressed on excavations expecting some data or at least pictures what i got was definition of word excavations, thanks for the laugh. For all i know article was made up out of thin air. So apply that awesome virtue you mentioned for yourself.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
I wanted to comment on this thread in more detail early, but was busy. I first want to commend you for not burying your head in the sand when in comes to archaeological evidence, as many of the faithful do.

I'm curious as to what you are exactly proposing? I don't think you will come to the same conclusions as I will, but this information along with a host of others, from scholarship to anthropology and archaeology does not make a good case for the historical veracity of the Old Testament. To me it's clear that the only way forward is a renunciation of literalism. While it's true that there is a lot of digging left to be done, the trajectory has largely not been good for the Bible as a source or historical truth.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Sure, that’s not a cop out.
I agree, its not a cop out. Them looking for Israelite events over there is like going to China to find evidence of the American Civil war. You're not going to find anything by looking in the wrong area and that doesnt mean the event didnt happen...
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
I agree, its not a cop out. Them looking for Israelite events over there is like going to China to find evidence of the American Civil war. You're not going to find anything by looking in the wrong area and that doesnt mean the event didnt happen...
Obviously I meant it was a cop-out. I mean I can’t argue with this but have fun with your head in the sand.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Obviously I meant it was a cop-out. I mean I can’t argue with this but have fun with your head in the sand.
I know what you meant I just turned it around on you. Maybe you could take it up what Im saying with Christopher Columbus who said he was on a quest to conquer Jerusalem before coming to America or how he believed he found the outer regions of the Garden of Eden in South America.. Or you could take it up with Antonio de Montezinos who claimed to have found indigenous people reciting the Shema and practicing Hebrew customs in South America. Theres also a millo in Cusco, Peru (supposedly) like the one that was in the "City of David" in the bible. Maybe if we followed these leads we'd get further in discovering if the events in the OT are actual events that happened...

Or YOU could have fun with your head in the sand.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
I know what you meant I just turned it around on you. Maybe you could take it up what Im saying with Christopher Columbus who said he was on a quest to conquer Jerusalem before coming to America or how he believed he found the outer regions of the Garden of Eden in South America.. Or you could take it up with Antonio de Montezinos who claimed to have found indigenous people reciting the Shema and practicing Hebrew customs in South America. Theres also a millo in Cusco, Peru (supposedly) like the one that was in the "City of David" in the bible. Maybe if we followed these leads we'd get further in discovering if the events in the OT are actual events that happened...

Or YOU could have fun with your head in the sand.

I’m not going to argue with someone who was just arguing in favor of geocentrism on the other thread. Sell your woo to someone else.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Spare me. In the link you posted about Jerico being 9 thousands years old. When i pressed on excavations expecting some data or at least pictures what i got was definition of word excavations, thanks for the laugh. For all i know article was made up out of thin air. So apply that awesome virtue you mentioned for yourself.
What on earth are you talking about? Jericho is confirmed as one of the oldest cities by a number of sources within the archeological community.

It really becomes obvious that the only thing you know about the subject is from the article you posted. This is a very easy search. I’m sorry if the first link didn’t do the work for you, but maybe it would be good exercise to put a little more effort into your counter arguments.
 
Last edited:
Top