Talk:Fall of Jericho

POV

if the city was deserted, why does this lonk state that it was the oldest continuously occupied city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.230.205 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"If the Old Testament version is accurate on all facts and not a fictionalized account, then this would likely be considered a genocide."

This is a blatant POV statement, so I removed it. Also this section needs some more scholarly references on either side, not just the "we don't believe it really happened" side. There is much research the indicates there was a conquest of Canaan. Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

gothgirldarkone: You misspelled link it is L-I-N-K not, L-O-N-K, kay? kay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothgirldarkone (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lonk is not misspelled. #knowyourmeme ;) Mar Komus (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

breaking the sabbath?

The Israelites marched around jericho once a day for six days and seven times on the seventh day. At one time or another they marched on the sabbath travelling a good distance from their tents. It is forbidden to travel 'outside ones dwelling place' [town/community/city] for any reason. Explanation is much appreciated. Craobh sidhe (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ANY reason?

Priests had to be at the temple/tabernacle. That was probably not their family's house. For special reasons given by God, the normal societal order could be postponed. Men were not to engage in physical labors for their own personal agendas (e.g., gathering wood, Numbers 15). However, when commanded by the same God to destroy a city for its evil citizenry, the men were warned not to loot it on the day they raided. Once again, the emphasis is on men not being allowed to work on personal goals. Many other Jewish traditions regarding forbidden "work" comes from efforts of convenience to define "work" more specifically than Moses does.

The Bulldozer (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Genocide" - The right word?

Some would argue that the use of the word "genocide" is too strong a term for the campaign. Yes, the Israelites were expected to annihilate entire civilizations, but the condemnations against those civilizations usually consisted of allegations of terrorist-like activities and sexual deviancy. It was also an effort to wipe out those nations' questionable religious and cult practices.

"Genocide" implies a racial/ethnic cleansing motive. This, however, is inconsistent with Rahab being allowed to live. If ethnic cleansing were the motive, she too would have been killed, regardless her kindness to the spies. She certainly would not have been allowed to have children with an Israelite suitor later on. --The Bulldozer (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"every man, woman, child and animal in it was killed by Joshua's army by God's command"

So perhaps the words holocide or omnicide would be more appropriate. That would certainly cover the killing of children and animals because of their terrorist-like activities, sexual deviancy and/or questionable religious and cult practices.

By the way, interesting to see that one example of a Jew who collaborated with the Nazis during the holocaust would be sufficient to "prove" that that wasn't a case of racial/ethnic cleansing either. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the holocaust article.

Back in the real world it is of course extreme POV to NOT call this genocide. <sentence withdrawn> 122.108.247.204 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to call it genocide without reliable sources showing that this is a significant view, and even then we wouldn't call it genocide we would cite the sources calling it that. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected with regards to my final sentence so I withdraw that: 'back in the real world' the main significant view is that the event never happened. So there won't be any reliable sources to support calling it a genocide. In that sense I was wrong.

And thanks for pointing out that the Bulldozers of this world can confidently, and with the support of Wikipedia, claim that to kill "every man, woman, child and animal" in a significant city is NOT an act of genocide if there are no reliable sources calling it that; even when they themselves believe so strongly that the killing actually happened that they feel the need to defend it. This must be very comforting for some of you. 122.108.247.204 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As you say we have no evidence other than a story written long after the purported even that this even happened. And if this is a common view among those who think it did, surely there are sources that would meet our criteria? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But only for the same reason as why you won't find a reliable source that will say that Santa Claus is an exploiter of elves: sources would either believe in him and justify and explain away the exploitation or they won't risk their credibility by commenting on the fictitious issue. I don't think that makes the question of whether you would call it genocide/exploitation if it did happen less relevant.

And in my opinion it is certainly worthwhile to expose and debunk the ridiculous arguments that some people apparently use to not call such an event genocide, at least on the talk pages, even if this won't improve or even affect the article. 122.108.247.204 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Historicity

"The battle's historicity is dismissed by modern scholars" makes it seem like all modern scholars dismiss it, but this totality clearly isn't true. For example, Dr. Bryant G. Wood in this article from several years ago. Perhaps he's not credible, but he's a modern scholar. Fustigate314159 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wood's arguments have been reviewed and refuted - the article makes this clear.PiCo (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not true. There are scholars who do not dismiss it.

Furthermore, you have removed cited information without giving a reason why.ReaverFlash (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no scholars at all who do not dismiss it - and that's the reason for removing it from the article. (Bryant Wood's ideas have been disproven, as the article notes). PiCo (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you also removed critical information about destroyed walls found at the site.

There is absolutely no reason to remove that information and you have not even acknowledged it.

Furthermore, saying that Bryant's theory have been disproved is POV-pushing. Even radiocarbon dating, even IF it is 100% accurate, can still be off by over a hundred years.

Just because archeaologists don't agree with the date doesn't mean that all scholars dismiss it. Ridiculous.

ReaverFlash (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The carbon dates are far more accurate than 100 years, and absolutely no mainstream scholars doubt that Jericho was deserted at the time of the battle. Seriously, you need to do more reading. PiCo (talk)

The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is disputed. Even assuming that radiocarbon dating is 100% correct, it still doesn't give a precise date, but it does give a probable range. Granted, if that range is correct, the chances of falling way outside is small, but it still wouldn't disprove a date, and certainly not if radiocarbon dating is inaccurate.

"mainstream scholars"

of course if a scholar disagrees with the date, they wouldn't be a mainstream scholar, would they?

Furthermore, disagreeing with a date is not the same as dismissing the battle entirely.

ReaverFlash (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think the accuracy of the C14 date is disputed, then by whom? Bryant Wood of course, but he's not an expert in C14 dating, and comes with an agenda that makes him both fringe (biblical literalism is undeniably a fringe position) and biased (towards his own preconception - he's unwilling to accept the opinion of the experts). I know of no reputable archaeologist who disagrees with Kenyon's date, but if you do, please tell me. PiCo (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

google "radiometric dating frauds" and you'll see

Bryant's date conforms to John Garstang's.

Hershel Shanks also agrees with Bryant.

You're ignoring the fact that historicity goes beyond radiometric tests.

Furthermore, you haven't listed anyone who agree with Kenyon's dates.

ReaverFlash (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I googled "radiometric dating frauds" and came up with a screenful of Creationists - not very convincing, except to other Creationists. Bryant wasn't so much agreeing with Garstang as trying to overturn Kenyon, because her work had overturned Garstang - but the C14 dates support Kenyon, and nobody is doubting it. For Shanks, can you give a reference - one that postdates the C14 evidence? For people who agree with Kenyon, we had Dever up there at one point - but let's say Dever and everyone else. Question: Can you provide a single reliable modern archaeologist who doubts Kenyon's dates and agrees with Wood, apart from Wood's fellow-creationists? (And I have to say that the credibility of someone who believes that God created the world just a few thousand years ago - i.e., Bryant Wood - is pretty slender). PiCo (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

saying that all "creationist" sources are not reliable is POV-pushing, as well as saying that they're not credible. It is absolutely false that nobody doubts those c14 dates, as I just provided you with evidence that people do question them.ReaverFlash (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that all Creationists are unreliable - Wood is a Creationist, but he's a trained archaeologist with credentials as good as anyone's. Nevertheless, most Creationists feel themselves marginalised - hardly surprising, considering how little acceptance there is of their central beliefs - and it tends to make them defensive. And I tried to google for credible rejection of radiocarbon as a science, as you suggested, and, as I reported, didn't find anything substantial. Anyway, I've greatly enlarged the section on historicity to give a summary of the archaeology and the present state of play. PiCo (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicity II

I've now substantially expanded the Historicity section, giving an overview of archaeological investigations at Jericho over the last century. I believe the section is now both complete and balanced - certainly it's completely referenced,a nd the references are all reliable sources (Dever, Provan, Kitchen). I don't believe wholesale deletion or reversion can be justified. If you want now to contest this, please take it to an Admin of your choice for informal arbitration. PiCo (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made some change and gave reasons for them in the edit summary. You've simply reverted them without giving any reason whatsoever. Please address your reversions instead of simply revert without comment. ReaverFlash (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits produced this: "However, radiocarbon dates in the 2nd millenium BC tends to produce older dates. Archaeologist Bill Dever and Kenneth Kitchen, writing in his 2003 book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament", accepts Kenyon's dating." Frankly, this isn't grammatical English. The first sentence isn't even intelligible - radiocarbon dates in the 2nd millennium produce older dates? Older than what? PiCo (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Radiometric dating produce dates that are older than other dating methods. This material is very much relevant and there is no reason why it shouldn't be included when radiometric dates are mentioned.ReaverFlash (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand radiocarbon dating. I would like you to provide the full quote from the Handbook of South American Archaeology so we can find out what you are thinking. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The text is available at Google Books.

"On the other hand, from about 1000BC back, the calibration of radiocarbon assays tends to produce older dates."

Another article is available here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5773/548 where radiocarbon dates give dates that are a century older than egyptian chronology.

The Jericho tests actually came to 3306 BP (before present), and the calibrated dates actually fall in two ranges. Furthermore, there are different ways of adjusting a BP date.

ReaverFlash (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Older dates than the uncalibrated dates. So what? You cherry picked a statement ignoring the rest of it. Even Wood would probably not agree with what you did. Anyway, as Eric Cline said, the issue is moot. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the calibrated dates are not older with respect to the uncalibrated dates. They are older than the actual calendar dates (p.xix that he took the quote from). Thus a certain chronology was changed from 500-550 to 600-650 AD, the younger date being favored by more than 100 (calendar) years. Where is the cherry-picking?2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Historicity III

I expanded this section to fill a gap in the chronology of scientific investigation of the Jericho site between 1958 and 1995. I was alarmed that there wasn't a single reference to archaeologist Bryant G. Wood's pottery analysis. Pottery - or the lack there of - played an important role in Kathleen Kenyon's argument, and should be regarded with equal consideration to carbon-14 dates; specifically when only 150 years separate the two opposing destruction dates. The definitive accuracy of carbon-14 dating compared with historical dating is an ongoing point of contention within the scientific community that has not been resolved. Not to mention that a simple calibration error, like in the specific instance within the Jericho case by the British Museum, can undermine an argument that solely relies on this type of laboratory analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuadeangray (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sentence

I've removed the sentence " The battle is not regarded as historical." for the following reasons:

that's clearly not true. A lot of people do see it as historical, including scholars and archeaologists.

Disagreeing with the biblical chronology date does not mean that they don't regard the battle as historical.

ReaverFlash (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a very important matter for you, and I really don't set out merely to cause you pain, but the facts are the facts, and we have to respect them. The majority of scholars, even Evangelicals, accept Kenyon's date - we have the quotes from Provan et. al. and from Kitchen, not to mention more mainstream figures like Cline and Dever. Christianity Today is a Christian apologetics website, not a scholarly one (not, at least, in terms of archaeology) - it doesn't trump statements by our archaeologists (Dever, Cline, Kitchen) and biblical scholars (Provan). Yes, it does quote Hoffmeier, who is a respected archaeologist, but the quote isn't about Jericho, it's about the Exodus - he's arguing that the Exodus could have happened. (Could have, not did). This isn't relevant to Jericho, because of the time problem - granted that Jericho was destroyed 1560 BC (the latest C14 dating, accepted by all experts - see Provan), and not reoccupied until well into the Israelite Iron Age, you then have to move Joshua and the Conquest to that date if you want the battle story in the Book of Joshua to be true. You'd have to find evidence of the sudden destruction of some 30 cities at the same time - this is what the Book of Joshua describes - and you'd expect to see a new material culture in the area from 1560 onwards. And you don't. What you do see is some cities unoccupied even before 1560, some continuing for a century or more after that date, and now sudden appearance of a new material culture. It's for these reasons that archaeologists like Dever, Cline, and others reject the story-line in Joshua. So it's simply not true to say that "a lot of scholars and archaeologists" see it as historical - certainly Hoffmeier doesn't say anywhere that he thinks the Battle of Jericho happened as described. PiCo (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

The main problem I have is that it's a jump to say that most archeaologists disagree with the date, therefore mainstream regards the battle as fictional.

Furthermore, it is not neutral to include one side, with an entire quote and not mention the other side of the argument. The article did not say that the Exodus could have happened, it said that the evidence suggests that it did. (which is the best you can say for the occurence of any historical event, that evidence either suggests or confirms the event) The Cline quote included does not even mention Jericho, including it without including the other side of the argument is certainly POV-pushing.ReaverFlash (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To take your last point first, and building also on your latest edit summary, it's simply not valid to cite Garstang and Wood - science is a progress, it doesn't stand still. Garstang was a serious scientist, he tested an earlier finding and found it lacking. Then new methods became available and he (and Albright) asked Kenyon to use them to re-test the data - all this is excellent science. Kenyon's findings overturned Garstang's, and both Garstang and Albright accepted that as a scientific fact. Much later, Wood questioned Kenyon's findings in turn. Then new radiometric tests were made using improved technology, and these tests confirmed Kenyon's findings, or, if you will, answered Wood's queries about Kenyon's conclusions. And that's where things stand today. It's not valid to cite Garstang and Wood as if matters have never advanced.

On you second point, I take it you agree with the statement that most archaeologists take Kenyon's date, confirmed by the recent radiocarbon dates, as the correct ones. I take it your point is that a radiocarbon date which differs from the biblical date means only that the bible might be wrong about the date, not about the battle itself. This is actually the beginning of a very slippery slope: if you doubt the accuracy of one piece of the bible, where do you stop? Hoffmeier doubts the numbers the bible gives for the Israelites coming out of Egypt, but he doesn't doubt that the bible is correct in what it says, he just doubts our interpretation of what it says - the word eleph, he believes, refers not to thousands but to clans. 600 clans, not 600 thousand. (Kitchen gives a much more extended discussion of this argument, and links it to the numbers given in the Book of Numbers). That's fine and plausible, but do you see the difference between that and what you're proposing for the battle of Jericho? Hoffmeier is saying we've misunderstood a specific word, but the bible is correct; you're saying that the biblical chronology is incorrect, full stop. I say, if the biblical chronology goes, what goes next?

This is getting long, but I'll keep going. The biblical chronology is found in 1 Kings, where we're told that the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon began the Temple. No date is given for the Temple, but Thiele's work gives us the usually accepted date, and from this we can work out a date for the Exodus (1440 BC) and for the Battle of Jericho (1400 BC). Thiele himself would accept the idea that he might be out a little, but corrections to his work have only shifted those dates very, very fractionally - a matter of a year or so at most. So, for you, you have to ask, do you accept the work of Thiele and other scholars, all based on the idea that the bible's chronology is accurate if correctly understood (same as Hoffmeier)? Or do you think the bible's chronology is just plain wrong?

The problem with a 1440 Battle of Jericho is, of course, that the city was deserted at the time (Kenyon, the latest radiocarbon dates). If you say, Ok, the date's wrong, Kenyon's right, but the battle still happened, then you have to push it back to 1560 or so. Is that plausible? Not really. This was when the Egyptian Pharaoh Ahmose I was chasing the Hyksos out of Egypt - far from being drowned in the Red Sea, Ahmose chased his enemies all the way into Canaan and then annexed it, so that Joshua would have been facing Egyptians, not Canaanites. There's also the problem of the first presence of Israelites in Canaan. This is a separate issue, but certainly there's no sign of them in 1560, nor for centuries after.

There are other possibilities. Many bibical scholars think that the Exodus might be a folk-memory of the expulsion of the Hyksos. These scholars don't believe that every incident described there actually happened, but that some Hyksos out of Egypt joined with some Hebrews in the Samarian highlands and with refugees from the Canaanite cities and eventually became "Israel" - the name is first found in 1207 or thereabouts, as you know. Again, the only answer is "maybe". But if you accept this, you have to accept the very strong possibility that the Battle of Jericho never happened - as I said above, once you start deciding that some bits of the bible are not true, where do you stop? The battle story is very specific - Israelites march around city, God gives advice, Priests blow trumpets, people shout, walls fall. Are you going to suggest that perhaps it was an earthquake that made the walls fall? But that takes God out of the story. Do you really want a bible without God? Anyway, please think this over and let me know what you think.PiCo (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pico here. You can't use Garstang or Wood and certainly not Christianity Today the way you did. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it not valid to cite wood? He used other methods of dating other than radiometric dating. Furthermore, if science is a progress, then Kenyon should not have been mentioned either, since as you have said, "science is a progress", there have been "improved technology".

What does the slippery slope about doubting biblical chronology about? This is an encyclopedic article, all such opinion is irrelevant. You still haven't shown that a discrepancy in dates equal to viewing the entire battle as fiction.

"you're saying that the biblical chronology is incorrect, full stop. I say, if the biblical chronology goes, what goes next?"

actually, I never said that. Please don't mis-state my position.

Dougweller, can you please explain to me why you included the Eric Cline quote even though it doesn't even mention Jericho? Furthermore, why is it ok to include something that doesn't even mention Jericho and not actually excavations of Jericho?ReaverFlash (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the following sentence fragment:

"and a test-case for the reliability of the bible. A century of archaeology, however, has led modern scholars to the conclusion that the biblical story is fiction rather than history."

first, "test-case" for the reliability of the bible? That is not necessarily true.

"A century of archeaology" implies that all archeaologists throughout the century concluded that the battle was fiction, when instead only Kenyon and the radiometric tests showed a date discrepancy.

"modern scholars to the conclusion that the biblical story is fiction rather than history."

that is clearly not true.

PiCo, you haven't shown anywhere how a date discrepancy equals the battle being fiction.ReaverFlash (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

first, "test-case" for the reliability of the bible? That is not necessarily true. It is indeed true. Sellin and Watzinger believed they would verify the story in the Book of Joshua. They were puzzled when their excavations led them to a conclusion they hadn't expected, but they published according to what they'd found. Garstang and Albright were also puzzled, and Garstang went back to re-excavate specifically because the German results had cast the biblical account into doubt. I don't think anything is to be gained by going into great detail about this, but if you insist I can provide references.

"A century of archaeology" implies that all archaeologists throughout the century concluded that the battle was fiction, when instead only Kenyon and the radiometric tests showed a date discrepancy. No, it implies that contemporary archaeologists, right now, conclude that the battle is fiction (your quote is partial: the sentence when read in full makes this meaning clear), although of course they've done so since Kenyon. And if you mean that Kenyon and the radiometrics are the only sources that disagree with the biblical date for the battle, thereby implying that some other sources agree, this is simply not true: no source secondary to the bible shows a date for the destruction of Jericho that agrees with the biblical chronology. (I've explained elsewhere that Garstang's conclusions have been overturned, and that Garstang and Albright accepted that).

"[M]odern scholars [have come] to the conclusion that the biblical story is fiction rather than history." [T]hat is clearly not true. It clearly is true, and I've provided sources: Dever (leading mainstream archaeologist), Kitchen (leading Evangelical archaeologist, proponent of the view that the bible is historically accurate), Cline (another archaeologist), and Provan et. al. (Evangelical source like Kitchen, putting forward the view that the bible is accurate history). I can provide more if you wish, but it would serve no purpose.

Is the story in Joshua of the conquest of Jericho credible without the chronology? Take Hoffmeier, whom you've quoted elsewhere to support your view that the biblical description of the battle might be correct even if the date is wrong. Hoffmeier is an extreme Evangelical, even more so than Kitchen, and his book "Israel in Egypt" (the source, I think, for the views you quoted from that magazine) is intended to make the case for a historical Exodus. Hoffmeier mentions Wood, but this is what he says: "Kenyon ... discovered that during the Late Bronze Age, when the Israelites were thought to have "conquered" Jericho, it was scarcely occupied and the levels were badly eroded. Thus Jericho became a liability to the "conquest" theory. Recently, however, Bryant Wood has reassessed the Jericho material ... [and] argues for returning to Garstang's dating. ... Thus the problem of Jericho has been reopened for discussion and firm conclusions must be withheld..." In other words, Hoffmeier thinks the question of dates is extremely important, so important that he asks that no conclusions about the Conquest theory be made until Wood's arguments are assessed, even though he himself admits that "Wood's suggestions have not been received warmly by Syro-Palestinian archaeologists." Hoffmeier was writing before Bruins and van der Plicht produced the new carbon dates. Kitchen, writing after Bruins and van der Plicht, doesn't even mention Wood, and instead quotes Kenyon's date.

On the basis of this mass of evidence, your argument that the question of the historicity of the batle is still open, amounts to special pleading. PiCo (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence "A century of archaeology, however, has led modern scholars to the conclusion that the biblical story is fiction rather than history." does not imply that the entire century of archeaology have led to this conclusion. It does seem to suggest that ALL the excavations led to this conclusion. If you simply read this sentence, you would not come to the conclusion that Garstang's and Wood's excavations was contradictory to the conclusion that the biblical story is fiction.

"It clearly is true, and I've provided sources: Dever (leading mainstream archaeologist), Kitchen (leading Evangelical archaeologist, proponent of the view that the bible is historically accurate), Cline (another archaeologist), and Provan et. al. (Evangelical source like Kitchen, putting forward the view that the bible is accurate history). I can provide more if you wish, but it would serve no purpose."

First, providing some sources does not mean that it is the universal opinion. Simply stating it as if it is universally accepted is a classic case of POV-pushing. There are sources from Wood, Garstang, and Hoffmeier, there are also several theories which tries to reconcile the supposed discrepancy. Furthermore, there are some radiometric dates which are discarded after they have found to not fit the facts.

can you provide the entire Kenneth Kitchen quote? I highly doubt that he says the battle is fiction.

I have absolutely no problem with the opinion presented in a neutral manner. My main concern is that, your personal opinion, even if you think it is accepted by most archeaologists and scholars, should not be presented as the universal opinion, when there are many sources which argues against it.

You still have not shown how date discrepancy = entire account being fiction.ReaverFlash (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple mainstream scholarly sources (Dever, Cline, and I can provide more if you insist) saying that, in Dever's words, Joshua destroyed a city that didn't exist; we have just a handful of scholars saying no more than that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they still think that the battle really took place as described. The latter are not a large enough group to really merit inclusion in this article, as off-hand I can't think of more than half a dozen names - Hoffmeier, Kitchen, Wood. There are others, but not many. Frankly I'm tured of arguing this case with someone who clearly doesn't intend to be convinced. PiCo (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling those who support your opinion "mainstream" and labelling it as the universal opinion IS pov-pushing. I never said that I believed the battle happened, and I never said that the Bible is a reliable historical source. I never objected to keeping Kenyon's date and opinion in the article.

I do have a problem with you insisting that your opinion is universal, that those who contradict it ought to be discounted. Furthermore, I have asked repeatedly for you to show that a date discrepancy equal the entire battle being fictional, and you have been either unwilling or unable to provide an answer. ReaverFlash (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't call Dever's opinion universal, but it is mainstream. Yes, there are dissenting voices like Kitchen, but they're a tiny minority, and those who hold those views feel embattled. Some years ago Hoffmeier and others held a symposium - you can see the record at Hoffmeier, James K., and Alan Millard, eds. "The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions", available through Google as a pdf download. Ziony Zevit, for example, points out that "American denominational institutions and private donors ... refus[e] to fund excavations unless significant connections could be made between a site and the Bible." David Merling, for whose intellectual honesty I have the greatest respect, "notes that the results of excavations that are at odds with biblical claims have led some to lose their faith", and argues that when archaeology provides no evidence to support a specific biblical story, it can be disregarded (exactly the position Kitchen adopts when he finds no archaeological evidence for the battle of Jericho). The reviewer points out that this is false logic, and that the absence of evidence of the fall of Ai at the expected time is indeed evidence that Ai didn't fall at that time. Since Ai and Jericho, according to the bible, fell at the same time, and since the archaeological evidence says they didn't, this is solid proof that something is wrong with the history presented in the Book of Joshua. (That's the conclusion of the reviewer, not mine).

That review is from the RBL, which is as mainstream as they come. The symposium itself was organised by and largely for Evangelical archaeologists and bibical scholars, and the rather scathing treatment given in the RBL demonstrates how far away the evangelicals are from that mainstream. (Even Dever doesn't come out of without criticism for intellectual incoherence).

The discussion above regarding Merling and Kitchen also demonstrates at the very least that the date is regarded as important by these Evangelicals - otherwise they wouldn't be going to the trouble of saying that the absence of evidence (for the biblical date) doesn't count. It counts because, as I said before, once you pull one prop out from the bible's claim to be accurate, where do you stop? It counts also because of the wider context of Syro-Palestinian history - the bible says that Jericho and Ai fell to the Israelites at the same time, but archaeology says Ai had been a ruin for a thousand years when Jericho fell for the last time (1550), and that Canaan at the time was a province of the Egyptians, who are mysteriously absent from the Book of Joshua.PiCo (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have searched through the book, and I have not seen one instance of anyone saying that the battle did not happen. I have no idea why you're talking about Ai, when this article is about Jericho. This article is not a place to push your opinion.

"It counts because, as I said before, once you pull one prop out from the bible's claim to be accurate, where do you stop?"

I don't really see how that's relevant, my opinion as well as yours is irrelevant as to what should be included in the article.

I don't know why you insist that the this sentence should remain in the article:

"However, it is argued that while direct evidence for the Exodus is missing, circumstantial evidence supports viewing the Exodus as a historical event rather than a late, fictive legend"

whereas the Cline quote, which does not even mention Jericho, should be included. Furthermore, I don't know why you insist on including quotes in the lead of the article when the lead should be just a summary.

I'd appreciate it if you could stay on topic, and stay away from personal opinions, such as "if this is discounted, then it's a slippery slope"

such discussion is not only irrelevant, it detracts from creating a neutral article.ReaverFlash (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you didn't see anyone in that book suggesting that Jericho (battle of) never happened, it was a symposium of Evangelicals who all agree that the bible is an accurate record. I was directing you to it in order to demonstrate how Evangelicals go to great lengths to root the bible in archaeology - and when that fails, as it does at Jericho, to announce that the evidence doesn't matter after all (Merling) or that it really was there once but has now gone (Kitchen).

I don't think we're making any progress. I suggest we seek a neutral admin for informal mediation. This isn't a hostile step, just a practical one. Would you like to suggest someone? PiCo (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this matter is easy to resolve once we leave all opinion out of it and concentrate on what should be included in the article.

My primary concern is that the majority of archeaologists and scholars don't necessarily believe that the battle of Jericho never happened. There is simply a date discrepancy and from that, saying that the battle is viewed by most as fiction is quite a stretch.ReaverFlash (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the list of off-topic quotes with "The battle's precise date is therefore debated among modern scholars." It makes no logical sense to leap from "the date is off" to "the battle probably never happened." It's as silly as saying "Many people believe I lost my wallet on Tuesday, and a few people believe I lost my wallet on Wednesday, there is a disparity of 24 hours between these calculations, therefore the wallet was never lost." This is exactly what is suggested through those such remarks as "you want a miracle, I'll show you a miracle..." Please, leave the biased commentary out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.165.108 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 November 2009

I want to correct an error I read here. To editor PiCo: says "You'd have to find evidence of the sudden destruction of some 30 cities at the same time - this is what the Book of Joshua describes" -- that is not correct, the Book of Joshua says only 3 cities were destroyed, whereas the others only had their populations destroyed. Eugene H. Merrill points out "Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the Biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor" -- in other words, the Book of Joshua only describes the destruction of three cities, whereas the others were only commanded to have their populations slain, not the cities actually destroyed and burned. These three cities are Jericho, Ai and Hazor -- Hazor has a well affirmed destruction in this time, and so does Ai (Khirbet el-Maqatir, not Et-Tell). The only problematic synchronism with the dates and Book of Joshua is Jericho's destruction, however the C14 dates yielding a destruction for 1550 BC might be due to the radiometric offset of about 150 years on events in ancient history predating 1400 BC (Bietak, Manfred. "Radiocarbon and the date of the Thera eruption." Antiquity 88.339 (2014): 277-282.), and this is in fact what scholars like Wood are now putting forwards. It's difficult to explain a 1550 BC destruction for Jericho when there are two explicit scarabs found in Jericho from the reigns of Thutmose III (Amenhotep II?) and Amenhotep III. If we take into account about a 150 year offset in the radiometric dates at Jericho which explicitly disagree with the scarabs there, and go back some 150 years from a 1550 BC destruction, we arrive at a cozy 1400 BC destruction for Jericho correlating to biblical record.Korvex (talk)

Updated historicity section

I have added some balance to the historicity section. It was mostly balanced before, until the end when it claimed that 'all' scholars dismissed the historicity of the battle. This is clearly not true. I see from the discussion above that skeptics dismissed Wood's view in order to say no scholar thinks the battle is historical. Well I have added the work of 6 more scholars who also view the battle as historically valid even if there are remaining questions. I also noted that the 'biblical scholar' quoted who is presented as holding the view of 'all' scholars' is a biblical minimalist. Go to his page if you doubt it. He is quoted as admitting to being a minimalist: "Originally I wrote to frustrate the Biblical minimalists; then I became one of them, more or less."

I am surprised at how badly this issue antagonizes skeptics. I am personally of the view that a lot of this comes from a western ethnocentric view that non-westerners or people from before the enlightenment were mythologically minded, incapable of critical thinking and totally unreliable in the recording of their history. Thus this must all be "myth", and scholarship must work towards validating this conclusion rather than to find whatever conclusion the facts may lead to. The ancients were at least as capable, and probably in many cases more capable, of critical objective thinking than modern skeptics.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology evidence

I was surprised that this article is not too bad. But the details of the archaeological evidence in Garstang's and Kenyon's digs needs to be specified, as it is our job not only to report the conclusions but also the evidence on which they are based. I hope to get to it later this week. JJB 18:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alky2000, let's discuss your objections. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you entered does not have any sources, and is your opinion. Whether evidence is sufficient is a matter of opinion. Alky2000 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things.

First, I don't think it's a good idea for you to edit until you have a consensus for your changes. They'll just be reverted.

Second, you need to read the entire article, not just the first paragraph. The whole bottom of it is dedicated to explaining the history of archeological discoveries, ending with well-cited confirmations of the summary that I keep restoring. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you trying to persuade me to stop editing, and simply pointing to sections instead of actually providing a source isn't helpful. Alky2000 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

From the article:

The battle's historicity is therefore dismissed by modern scholars, with Kenneth Kitchen as a notable exception. Bill Dever says [I]f you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there.[ref:

| last=Sturgis 
| first=Matthew
| authorlink = Matthew Sturgis 
| coauthors = John McCarthy 
| title =  It ain't necessarily so : investigating the truth of the biblical past
| origyear = 
| url = 
| accessdate = 
| year = 2001
| publisher = Headline
| location = London
| ISBN = 0-7472-4506-1
| pages = 

Now go revert your error so you don't have to be blocked for edit-warring. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The particular sentence is under dispute, there is a "dubious" tag. Alky2000 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The "dubious" paragraph is a summary of the entire section. PiCo believes it should be removed because the summary is more polemic than informative. That may be, but it's not as if it's inaccurate. On the other hand, RomanHistorian objects to the quote it ends with because he disagrees with it and thinks that it should be "balanced" by the inclusion of a less mainstream view. This is why it's tagged.

None of this changes the fact that it's inaccurate to say that the historicity of this event is "debated". That word makes it sound as if there is something like an equal level of support on both sides, when this is flatly not the case. There will always be disagreement, but there has been overwhelming archeological evidence that has effectively ended the debate. For more information, look at the reliable sources cited here.

I suggest that we revert the "debate" version, but support the previous one with references to the Miller/Hayes book. Do you object? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the last version says "Evidence is insufficient to conclude that this happened". Whether evidence is sufficient is purely a matter of opinion, people will interpret evidence in many different ways. Such phrasing is not encyclopedic. Alky2000 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's simply false to suggest that the sufficiency of evidence is "purely a matter of opinion". Rather, the absence of evidence where it ought to be present is the strongest possible evidence of absence.

In any case, the following is RossNixon's version:

Since there is insufficient archeological evidence to support this, and since the book is generally dated to the late monarchy or early exilic period (c.650-550 BCE), it is often doubted by scholars.

Compare it to mine:

Since there is insufficient archeological evidence to support this, and since the book is generally dated to the late monarchy or early exilic period (c.650-550 BCE), is generally considered by modern historians to be literary rather than literal.

And to yours:

The historicity of the battle is debated among modern scholars.

See anything missing? Whereas Ross and I have worked on how best to state the simple that the historicity of this event is in doubt, you removed all mention of the fact that the book is dated too late to be historical and that archeological evidence is the basis of this doubt.

I don't believe your version is, as claimed, neutral. The word I'd use is "neutered". How do you account for it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't stray from the subject.

And if you've read the article, you would've known that there are collapsed walls found at the site. Your assertion that there is an absence of evidence is complete false.

Simply because RossNixon made an edit to the lead, does not mean that the entire lead section is "RossNixon's version". Alky2000 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How are collapsed walls evidence for the historicity of the battle of Jericho? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Book of Joshua's account for the battle says the walls collapsed, allowing the city to be taken. Alky2000 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that you're saying this, because the article we're discussing completely refutes this line of reasoning. Aside from the fact that lots of things can make an ancient wall collapse, we now know that the city was unoccupied at the time that this battle was to have occurred. Ignoring the parts of the evidence that you dislike does not put you in a position to state what the evidence tells us. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some who argue for an earlier date, yes? Just because you dislike a point of view does not give you the right to dismiss them. Just because you don't think evidence is convincing or conclusive does not give you the right to assert that no evidence exists. Stop forcing your particular viewpoint on this article. Alky2000 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not my particular viewpoint, it is the consensus of scholarship. The existence of a lone dissenter is interesting, and I'm glad we report it, but it's not a reason to give undue weight to what is a fringe position. What exactly is your objection to RossNixon's phrasing? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more than a "lone voice". And as I said earlier, just because RossNixon made an edit to the lead doesn't mean the entire lead section is "RossNixon's phrasing". Read what I wrote before commenting. Alky2000 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to show that the historicity of this event is accepted by the mainstream? As it reads, the article makes the opposite quite clear. Perhaps, to be frank, this is your particular viewpoint. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to discuss this, then stop changing the subject every single time. The burden of proof is on the one who wishes the content to be included. Alky2000 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. So you have no reliable sources to show that this is a mainstream view?

The burden of proof is upon you to show that you are not merely inserting a fringe position. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you even read what I write? Apparently not. From your responses, you have outright ignored my comment on several occasions, and continue your unreasonable demand for sources when you have yet to produce a single one of your own. Alky2000 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll call your bluff. Here's one. Your turn. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue isn't as certain as you may think. The pottery evidence has proven Kenyon wrong by 100 years (in the other direction) at least once - on Lachish. She simply didn't consider that Northern Israel had a different rate of development pottery-wise than Southern Judah. Moreover, C14 dating becomes unreliable by 100+ years in the years 1000 BC and back (Silverman and Isbell. Handbook of South American Archaeology p.xix). And the theories of a late composition of Joshua are highly speculative and when applied to other Ancient Near Eastern documents, quickly crumble (e.g. Kitchen, K.A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament, as well as an interesting review by Anson F. Rainy of an attempt to use this same philosophization on Egyptian documents and chronology by Spalinger: Rainey, A.F. 1987, "Egyptian Military Inscriptions and Some Historical Implications", in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 89-92).2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

I added two dubious tags. First, the intro shouldn't just say "it is therefore regarded by modern historians as literary rather than factual". This is the view of many, though many disagree and others have a more nuanced view. This should be modified to reflect the diversity of opinion. Second, William G. Dever is quoted as making a flamboyant claim. Dever is a self admitted biblical minimalist and his quote is flamboyant yet with no counterweight or context is added to mention that his view is not the 'consensus view'. I think his position should just be noted, as I feel that quote carries with it a certain emotional charge that is dubious for Wikipedia.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd remove that last para entirely (the one with the Dever quote and the reference to Kitchen) - it reads more like polemics than simple information. PiCo (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

At various times this article has had an infobox. It was removed a little while ago on the basis that it was making a claim for historicity and was therefore non-neutral. I have restored it, since all the other articles at Category:Hebrew Bible battles have an infobox. But what about it would be non-neutral? Should we remove or qualify the date? StAnselm (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dates

Regarding the text that 91.82.15.6 wants to include, it is directly or indirectly from Bryant Wood and not from the source given. As evidence that the source was not actually consulted, as required by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, I'll mention: no title is given (only the series title), the page list matches Wood's, the numbers do not appear explicitly in the original but instead match Wood's summary of them. Here is what the source actually says. On pages 206–207: "Two calibrated radiocarbon datings from F.162, made on carbonized fragments of poplar wood, gave two different dates (see Lombardo, Piloto in his volume): the first one (Rome-1776) fits the chronology of the traditional end of Middle Bronze II, towards 1650 BC, while the second one (Rome-1775) is for some reason too low." In Appendix D, written by Lombardo and Piloto, it says "samples Rome-1175 and Rome-1176 (1432-1262 and 1688-1506 cal. yrs BC, respectively aged), also collected from the same level in Area A, are not coeval; furthermore while the second is coherent with the archaeological context from which both the samples come from (Middle Bronze Age n, 1800-1650 yr BC circa; Marchetti, Nigro 1998), the first shows a younger age. Subsequently we may suppose at first glance, that a contamination by a younger organic material has taken place, but to explain correctly this data we think necessary to increase the measurements on new samples from the same level." (p330) In other words, the source regards the single anomalous date as a suspect outlier which requires further work, not as a solid datum to draw conclusions from. All this is entirely commonplace in archaeology. Zero^talk 03:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your conclusion is misleading: "In other words, the source regards the single anomalous date as a suspect outlier which requires further work, not as a solid datum to draw conclusions from. All this is entirely commonplace in archaeology." - That's a very misleading analysis from the source you cited. First, contamination is commonplace in archaeology, but for two samples collected from the same level as in this case, not at all. Please provide another example of something like this (with the holes in the ground bringing the seed theory).

The degree of certainty regarding the sample's origin as a contamination is not shared in the same light by your source, which you quote - they say that at first look one might suppose there's a contamination, but more must be tested (because of the obvious fact that it probably belongs to the other group of grains). So hardly is it referred to as a suspect outlier, but actually says more samples from its locale need to be taken. Bottom line, contamination from another source is highly unlikely. If anything, the grain reflects that C14 dating in the area is unreliable, which Bietak et al prove regarding dates 1400 BC and older in their article here: http://www.academia.edu/226890/Bietak_M._and_F._H%C3%B6flmayer._2007._Introduction_High_and_Low_Chronology._In_The_Synchronisation_of_Civilisations_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_in_the_Second_Millennium_B.C._III_edited_by_M._Bietak_and_E._Czerny_13_23._CChEM_9._Wien._Verlag_der_%C3%96sterreichischen_Akademie_der_Wissenschaften.

By the way, I like how you keep up the neutrality of this article.2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is discussed at Talk:Jericho It's also a forum type discussion and doesn't belong here. We should simply reflect, not analyse, what the sources say, and those sources need to discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the OP isn't discussing it there. And this is the first time I've seen the objection of a "forum type discussion" which "doesn't belong here". I wasn't talking about including anything in the original article, but commenting on the OP's misstatements who weighs in with an analysis, which I don't believe reflects their source. But I'd like to strike out the use of the article I mentioned above as it's not relevant.2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the (professional archaeological) source suggested contamination by younger material is all we need to know here. It is not our place to argue it. Your assertion about such contamination is simply false. If you search for phrases like "younger contamination", "younger contaminants", "contamination by younger" you can easily find 100 proofs that archaeologists consider this a serious possibility. Zero^talk 13:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that contamination by younger material is entirely possible. But in this case, the chances of that are very, very slim. The article merely suggests this possibility because it contradicts the other dates by so much and I'm not arguing that it isn't. What I am saying is that you make it seem as if they are more than confident that's the case. All they say is, "it would appear" to be contamination, but more data is needed. What will happen if several more grains show a date c.1300 BC +/- 100 years? It seems to me that you are trying to escape a conclusion that inches closer and closer. I think at some point we should take the personal-preference glasses off sometimes.Cornelius (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You are still not in the correct Wikipedia mindset. We aren't doing research here, and we aren't supposed to analyse research results either. We just report what has been published. Zero^talk 08:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just curious about anyone's reflections here: radiocarbon dating places the destruction layer in question at ~1550 BC. That's radiocarbon dating of grain (and some from the destruction layer--when the city was...unoccupied). Lots of grain. Pots and pots and pots of grain. Full of grain. When the city was unoccupied. I guess maybe it was being used as a granary and some hooligans came and completely destroyed it and burned the city and left the grain because ??? Any other ideas? --Mar Komus (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss sources, but we can't have a general discussion as this isn't a forum. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Military table

This battle is mythological (that doesn't mean I'm calling it fake) and according to most of the archaelogical findings this battle didn't even happened. I don't think the military infobox should be used for mythological battles. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This came up before (see two sections up). Quite apart from the issue of historicity, what's wrong with having the infobox? Is it just that the same style is used for "historical" battles? StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss this elsewhere? I've removed it until we can sort out the pov problem. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's the infobox in the David article, which is still sitting with a neutrality tag. There was talk about creating a new sort of infobox for biblical characters, but that hasn't happened yet. StAnselm (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, with this particular article, the impression I get from reading the "Historicity" section is that the battle is completely historical. I would have thought that would concern you more than the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You do? Is that because there is so much there about Wood's views? I've added something to the lead, revised the section heading, and added an NPOV tag because of the infobox and because you think it's slanted towards suggesting it's historical, although I'd like you to clarify that. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of it is that it is purely about dates. There is only a reference to "generally accepted" dates; it would be easy for a reader to conclude that the conquest took place, as written, in 1550BC. Of course, "generally accepted" contradicts other articles; the Joshua articles says "The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century BCE". StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Revised article

Shortened the article - it was too much a "wall of text"; introduced a new para on textual history. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Origins and Historicity

I am repulsed by the sheer one-sidedness of this section. Wikipedia not meant to discriminate - which this section clearly does. Rather than discussing facts the author blatantly dismisses key beliefs of Judeo-Christian culture as fiction, not just incredibly insulting but unfounded as well. No one can fault you for stating facts, but the section is openly biased. Please amend as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.69.184 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

POV?

The whole article seems to be devoted to refuting the historicity of the Battle. There is no mention of Christian or Jewish interpretations. It's not that there shouldn't be a part about historicity, its just that the story is more than just an archaeological conjecture; it has meaning to Christians and Jews, and this ought to be discussed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have the appropriate sources feel free to add something. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, this is really not my area of expertise. I could look for some if no experts are willing/able, though. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus: Did my recent edit (04:45, 24 April 2019) improve the overall POV in your judgment? Please focus on the one sentence I added to the final paragraph in this article. I admit that it does nothing to discuss the meaning of the battle to believers, but I believe it calls attention to a possible flaw in past efforts to refute historicity by reporting studies of physical evidence, not to mention speculative origin theories for the book of Joshua based on the widely accepted premise that neither the conquest nor the battle ever really happened. Physical evidence could support either doubt or belief in historicity, but any evidence dated to the wrong period in history is irrelevant. Chronology is important. For example, if scholars studied evidence at Jericho dated only to the fourth millennium BCE and concluded that no battle like the one reported in Joshua happened, their work would be irrelevant to the question of historicity, because the Bible does not indicate that the battle should have happened then. The problem would be irrelevant evidence. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: My issue with the article was not that it talks about historicity in the way that it does, though your edits are helpful and thank you for that. In hindsight, POV was not the correct tag to put on it. The issue is that the article's focus is wrong. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus: Thanks for the encouraging feedback and for clarifying your issue. Frankly, to change the focus, you may need help from someone else. Best regards. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Joshua used the secret mystical combination of 7 & 4

I tweaked... The Israelites marched around the walls once every day for 7 days with the 7 priests and the Ark of the Covenant. On the seventh day, they marched around the walls 7 times. Then the priests blew their 7 ram's horns (shofars), the Israelites raised a great shout, and the walls of the city fell. 2601:589:4700:2390:C129:9F7B:16E0:CDCC (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? Raymond3023 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to opening paragraph

I've made two edits to the opening paragraph.

1. The actual text in Killebrew's article (the cited reference) is more nuanced. It says (on page 152, last paragraph), "[The book of] Joshua continues the saga with the conquest of Canaan, initiated with the spectacular destruction of Jericho by the Israelite tribes united under the leadership of Joshua. Almost without exception, scholars agree that the account in Joshua holds little historical value vis-a-vis early Israel and most likely reflects much later historical times."

In other words, Killebrew doesn't say that almost all scholars agree that "the book of Joshua itself holds no historical value at all", but rather that the tale of the Battle of Jericho specifically does not tell us anything about the migration of early Israel. And let's not forget the second part of that quote, namely that according to Killebrew the story of the Battle of Jericho "most likely reflects much later historical times", so it's far from useless as far as historical value is concerned.

The cited reference does not specifically mention the words "migration of", but there is a footnote directly after it which tells us that Killebrew is referring specifically to whether the book of Joshua is of any value to a study of the *migration* of early Israel.

2. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible does not say anything that can be interpreted as "Excavations at Tell es-Sultan, the biblical Jericho, have failed to produce data to substantiate the biblical story,". The cited reference simply says "Attempts to identify archaelogical remains at Tell es-Sultân with Jericho depicted in Josh. 6 flounder on the absence of archaeological data" and it is contained in a section about attempts to identify the Biblical Jericho.

In other words, the cited reference says that there is no evidence that Tell es-Sultan is the Biblical Jericho. It does not comment on evidence for or against a Biblical Jericho per se nor does it comment on the battle of Jericho.

3. So much of the debate about the Battle of Jericho is now grounded in the belief that Tell es-Sultan is the site of the Biblical Jericho that I think the article needs a section that points out why this belief exists.

As far as I know (but correct me if I'm wrong), Charles Warren was the first to dig at the site, in 1867, but he did not himself identify the site with Jericho. The first to suggest that Tell es-Sultan might be the biblical Jericho was Sellin and Watzinger in 1909, but they later revised their dating. The person who is most responsible for the belief that this was Jericho is Garstang (1936), but his belief is based on dating errors and circumstantial evidence. The fact that there is no evidence that Tell es-Sultan itself is the Biblical Jericho does not mean that Joshua's battle of [some city the author chose to call "Jericho"] did not take place somewhere. leuce (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Question from new editor

I plan to contribute a few edits to this article, but I am not sure how I change specific pieces without losing the parts I am not changing and inadvertently vandalizing the article. I copied the whole article into my sandbox, made my edits, and previewed. Everything looked great, but do I really have to submit even the parts that do not change? My summary will be, "Expanded the POV in the final paragraph to improve its neutrality, put the Bruins & van der Plicht reference in alphabetical order in the bibliography section, corrected the casing for the Dutch name, and fixed the broken link to the Tell Es-Sultan article." ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: Changes can be made in a certain section, using the [Edit] option after the header of the section in the article, and will only affect that section. Making changes in the lead paragraphs will need to use the [Edit] option on the top of the page, and the changes will potentially affect the whole article. To ascertain that the changes won't affect other parts, use [Show preview] button below the editing box. If you are still not sure, you can put your suggested changes in this Talk page first, so other users can review and advise how you can place them safely in the article. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: Thanks for your help with this. For now, I am done making changes to this article. Five of my edits are now listed in the revision history. Please review them. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: The edits look fine. The community will review the content. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: Yet another question. Jytdog added a reference to a book by Wagemakers (17:59, 17 June 2018), citing it only in the Reference section, so it does not appear in the Bibliography section. This is inconsistent with the pattern that has been set for other references, but is this a problem? I would have asked Jytdog for a reason to do it that way, but that editor is evidently no longer active. New as I am, I know how to fix it, if switching to the established pattern is not a problem. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: Although it looks inconsistent, it is not incorrect to display the reference that way. Nonetheless, it is neater to place it in the Bibliography. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: Thanks for all three of your recent edits, including especially one to fix my issue. It does look much neater now. I hope you don't mind that I just now contributed a little bit to your bibliography edit. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: Thank you for your edits. The article is the result of collaborative works of many users. Let's contribute more. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: did you look into who Aardsma is? He's clearly not a reliable source nor are his ideas taken seriously in the scientific community. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I checked that links work (to real articles, not blogs) and the reputation of the journal ('Radiocarbon'); could not find any references rejecting Aardsma as a reliable source, so I wrote (above) I left the review of the content to the community. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: Aardsma didn't get anything accepted as a stand-alone article, it was part of the proceedings of a whole conference. One of the papers has Institute of Creation Research at the top[1], presumably his place of work. If you think that's a reliable source that's disappointing. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

IP and newbie are WP:PROFRINGE edit warring. Passing your religious beliefs for mainstream historiography is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Carbon-14 Dating and the Battle of Jericho.

Generally speaking I have a lot of faith and trust in Carbon 14 dating. It is one of the few radio carbon dating that can be corroborated with archaeology and historically verified benchmarks. So when I read this section on the Battle of Jericho that states that organic materials found at the Jericho dig carbon date to the 17th or 16th centuries BCE. This dating is up to 120 years older than what Kenyon believed and upto 300 years older than Bryant Wood's carbon dating done in 1990. Why such large discrepancies? Well when I read the radiocarbon report show on the bibliography in this article ("Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results…" (PDF). Radiocarbon) it shows 22 samples that date an average of 3350 years BP(before present) and one rouge sample that reads 3614 BP. If you do some simple math 1995 AD- 3350 = 1355 BC smack dab in the 14th century BC (late BronzeII). If you use the one rouge date of 3614 BP you get your 16th/17th century BC date. Is that what is going on here? Can someone please explain this data.

Time Magazine, Science: Score One for the Bible, Michael D. Lemonick Monday, Mar. 05, 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrmJoseph (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wood is WP:FRINGE. Nobody in mainstream archaeology takes him seriously. For a fact, in 1400 BC Canaan was occupied by Egypt. See the map at 14th century BC. So, the Jews supposedly ran from Egypt to other Egyptian territories (fled from Egypt to Egypt).

Besides, Before Present is computed from 1950, not from 1995.

And to cut a long story short, present-day academic consensus in archaeology is that Kenyon was right. Hubbard, Jr., Robert L. (30 August 2009). Joshua. Zondervan. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-310-59062-0. The current scholarly consensus follows the conclusion of Kenyon: Except for a small, short-lived settlement (ca. 1400 B.C.), Jericho was completely uninhabited ca. 1550-1100 B.C.

If the Egyptian chronology is off, it is off by ten or twenty years, not by centuries. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

My question is not about whether or not there is a "academic consensus" that Kenyon was right. My questions is specifically about interpreting the paper by Hendrik J. Bruins' on his radiocarbon data. If a uncalibrated method is used to measure Carbon-14 then a BP date of 1950 is used. If a thermoluminescence method is used, as in this case, a date of 1980 can is used. Either way we are splitting hairs and we still fall in to a Late bronzeII age for the destruction of Jericho if we use his average for the grain as 3306bp or the charcoal as 3370. 1950 - 3370 BP = 1420 BC. The only way a middle bronze date can be achieved using Hendrik J. Bruins data is if you select the one sample out of 23 that has a date of 3614 BP. Can some help me understand this data? How did Bruins come up with a middle bronze date? AbrmJoseph (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@AbrmJoseph: Yup, calibrated (16th century BC) vs. uncalibrated (15th century BC). Even allowing that the destruction happened in 1420 BC, there is still no Joshua there, maybe there was a rebellion against Egyptian occupation forces. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again my question is not whether or not you dislike the Bible, God or Joshua, my question is how did Hendrik J. Bruins come up with a Middle Bronze date for the destruction of Jericho using his findings in his 1995 Carbon-14 testing results. Even if you use a uncalibrated bench mark BP date of 1950, and a charcoal or grain sample, the LATEST date I can come up with is 1420 BC which is still Late Bronze IIA date. Can someone explain to me how he came up with his middle bronze date?

BTW there is only a 30 year difference between 1980(calibrated) and 1950 (uncalibrated). A calibrated date would put it at 1390 BC. A uncalibrated date would be the 1420 BC. Is my math wrong? AbrmJoseph (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)