Are the archaeological claims that Jericho had been abandoned long before Joshua arrived true?

Some Believe: Yes the claims are true Jericho had been occupied and abandoned several times in its long history, but there was no city there at the time of the supposed conquest of Canaan Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman ( 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 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 Others Believe: No the claims are 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 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 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. 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 questioned The main reason is that, due to widespread acceptance of a date of 1250 BC as the date of Joshuas 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 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 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 in use for centuries, Jerusalem being a good example of this According to story Channel Basing 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 Answer Kenyon's papers, which were released after her death, revealed that one of the things she based her find on was something she did not find. In other words, she ignored the actual and factual finds of Garstang and based some of her comments on 'arguments from silence In addition to this her references to the date of the walls only referred to the date when they were built and not when they fell.

Her later excavations at Jerusalem revealed that these walls had stood for around a thousand years. Thus it is not at all unlikely that the same thing happened at Jericho With reference to the Late Bronze Age remains found by Garstang Kenyon commented: They do at least show that a town of that period had existed....the date is fourteenth century, and fits in well with the more precisely dateable finds in the tombs made by Professor Garstang The evidence seems to us to be that the small fragment of a building which we have found is part of a kitchen of a Canaanite woman, who may have dropped the juglet beside the oven and fled at the sound of the trumpets of Joshua's men In commenting on the erosion which had destroyed much of the remains of the late bronze age she stated: All the canons of historical criticism demand that we accept the main facts of the story of Jericho as authentic, for it was obviously an event of great importance in the ultimate dominance of the Israelites in Palestine and the wealth of detail makes it clear that it was a faithful verbal record handed down for generations until it was incorporated in a written record As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Abe occupation should, in my view, de dated to the third quarter of the fourteeenth century BC. Ultimately archaeology will be the decisive criterion, but only when the archaeological time-scale has been firmly fixed, which is not yet the case In relation to discussions about the age of the walls she stated: The Late Bronze Age town must either have re-used this (the previous city wall), or a new wall may have been built over it Source:G.

Frederick Owen, D.D., Ed. D Archaeological Supplement article in the Thompson's Chain Reference Study Bible These quotes directly fom Kenyon herself demonstrate clearly that it is simply false to use her as an apologist for an anti-biblical position in relation to Jericho. In any case, she only excavated around one fortieth part of the mound Summary: From the clear statements of Kenyon, it is clear she did not believe that Jericho had been abandoned long before Joshua's day.

Quite the contrary.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.