Anonymous
re: Jericho
Fri Jun 15, 2018 09:49
50.50.234.5

Toby:

My trivial mistake, already conceeded, changes nothing. The necropolis is a separate site from the city. A curse was put on rebuilding the city, but not on continued use of the necropolis. So your dating of the city based on the necropolis remains an assumption. That includes all the pottery in the necropolis which wasn't found in the city. Garstang's conclusions were driven by prior commitment to the Ussher chronology for this period, but not apparently to all of biblical chronology (the 5000 BCE dating given in the article you cited shows that Garstang could well depart from the Bible's dating.)

//Garstang concluded that its use was continuous from the third millennium BCE until the city's final destruction around 1400 BCE.//

This statement implies that Garstang's primary conclusion was the dating of the Necropolis, and that the last phrase is his less supported opinion tacked onto the end of the above sentence. I think that only further refernce to Garstang's reports will clarify if he had some hesitation on the matter.

The first wall 3000 bce? That would put it before the flood.
The second wall to 2500 bce. Also before the flood.
The third wall at 1800 bce. Possibly this date is too low by 150 years or more.

//It is certainly possible that such evidence supports the biblical story, but it is equally possible that the walls were tumbled in connection with something else entirely, and Garstang fails to present all the options. //

The author of the article does not appear to share Garstang's faith in the Bible.

//At the time Garstang was digging, there was also a very limited knowledge of Late Bronze Age pottery. His assumption about continuous occupation of the tombs turned out to be incorrect, as increased knowledge of pottery showed that at least a century was missing from the ceramic record.//

Where is this century? Could it be from the mid 16th century BC to the mid 15th century say about 1550 to 1450?


//Dating by Kenyon, though, determined that these walls were of the Early Bronze Age, not the Late Bronze Age as Garstang had thought. The walls of Joshua's time were eroded away long ago, and what he took to be the defenses of the 15th century BCE were shown to date from around 2300 BCE. His enthusiastic interpretation of these walls' significance, therefore, was misplaced, and shed no light on the biblical narrative he had hoped to defend. //

This appears to be entirely incorrect. The last I heard Kenyon dated the destruction of city IV to the Middle Bronze age, ca. 1550.

https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/16/5/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Bronze_Age

//But there is further evidence. There was local pottery in the graveyard (as opposed to the foreign cypriot expensive pottery found in the latter build palace (approix. 1300's bc)). This local graveyard pottery matched pottery found within Jericho itself. //

Local pottery is undefined. Surface finds? Later, build. The city was rebuilt during Ahab's reign, which does not match 1300. Found within Jeriocho. which layer, which city? This supposed evidence begs for cross-examinations.

As anonymous, I will say only that consider the Scripture strictly accurate, just not yours or Garstang's interpretation of it.

  • re: JerichoToby Charles Anderson, Wed Jun 13 15:51
    Hello Anonymous, After giving the link to a page in a book, you concluded. You wrote: "The scarabs come from an administrative palace built later. But there was no city there." That is NOT what your... more
    • re: Jericho — Anonymous, Fri Jun 15 09:49
Click here to receive daily updates