THE PROBLEM
If anyone had asked me five years ago, "Can you give an example of a clear-cut instance in which almost all archaeologists are agreed that that the Bible contains a historical error (starting history with Abraham, so that we don't get bogged down in arguments about evolution)?" my answer would probably have been: "Genesis 24:14 says that Abraham had camels. But there is good evidence that camels were not domesticated until around the time of the Judges. One reason why the Midianites were able to give the Israelites so much trouble in the time of Gideon (Judges 6) was that they had just learned to domesticate the camel, and were far more mobile than the Israelites, who had no such steeds." However, Abba Eban, in his recent book (title?) on the history of the Jews, cites the discovery of a bas-relief undoubtedly at least as old as Abraham that shows domestic camels. So that problem is settled. If anyone had asked me the same question a month ago, my answer would have been, "It looks as if there was no fortified city on the site of Jericho at the time of Joshua."
The site of Jericho was thoroughly investigated from 1952 to 1958 by Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a deservedly famous archaeologist.
> Kenyon's excavation ushered in a new era in Palestinian > archaeology. She introduced rigorous stratigraphic excavation > techniques entailing detailed analysis of soil and debris layers > and careful recording of the sides of the excavation squares > called balks.
Her conclusion was that what is known as City IV, the only likely candidate for Joshua's city, had been destroyed in about 1550 BC, at least 150 years before Joshua. And so the matter rested until recently.
THE ARTICLE
After the death of Kenyon in 1978, her notebooks and raw data were published in 1980-83. The archaeologist Bryant G Wood has examined her data and concluded that she was mistaken in her dating. He reports his conclusions in an article, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A new look at the archaeological evidence" in the March-April 1990 issue of the BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, pages 44-59. It appears that Kenyon dated the fall of City IV at the beginning of the Late Bronze I period (1550-1400 BC), because her diggings were completely lacking in pottery imported from Cyprus, commonly found in other sites of that period. But, as, Wood points out, the other sites were on established trade routes. Jericho was not. Moreover, the area that Kenyon excavated was in the low-rent quarter of Jericho, where luxuries like imported pottery were unlikely to be plentiful. So, Wood summarizes: "She based her dating on the fact that she failed to find expensive, imported pottery in a small excavation area [two 26-foot by 26-foot squares] in an impoverished part of a city located far from major trade routes!" (p 50) If we forget about imported pottery, and look at the local product, we find that there is an abundance of Late Bronze I pottery there. (Kenyon saw it, but apparently had already settled on the earlier date, and somehow the message did not get through.) The dates from local pottery are confirmed by funeral scarabs which bear the names of pharaohs and so can be explicitly dated. We also have a lump of charcoal from the fall of the city, dated by Carbon-14 tests as 1410 BC, give or take 40 years. Thus the fall of City IV seems fixed at about 1400 BC.
If Joshua did not destroy City IV, then who did? Usual theories say either the Hyksos (foreigners who ruled Egypt for a time, probably before the Israelite sojourn, and were finally driven out) or the Egyptians. But the Hyksos would have no reason to destroy cities they were fleeing to for refuge, and there is no evidence that the Egyptian armies ever got as far east as the Jordan in the relevant period. Besides, the known tactic of the Egyptians was to stage a campaign just before harvest, when the enemy food supply would be lowest, and to besiege cities and starve them into submission. This did not happen at Jericho, where numerous jars full of grain are to be found in the debris.
Wood summarizes the evidence of the site as showing:
> * The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15; 6:5,20). > * The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring > (2:6; 3:15; 5:10). > * The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their > foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1). > * The siege was short (Joshua 6:15). > * The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua > 6:20). > * The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18). > * The city was burned (Joshua 6:24).
Wood goes on to say:
> One major problem remains: the date, 1400 BCE. Most > scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites > destroyed Jericho in about 1400 BCE because of their belief > that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 > years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period. > A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical > chronology, which places the Israelite entry into Canaan in > about 1400 BCE. The dispute between these two views is already > well-known to BAR readers. > But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting > that Israel was resident in Canaan THROUGHOUT the Late Bronze > II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, > it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories > regarding the DATE and the NATURE of the emergence of Israel in > Canaan. > [Editor's note: In a future issue, Dr. Wood will discuss > this evidence.]
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The reader who supposes that this clears up all difficulties about the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan should think twice. In the same issue of the same magazine, he will find (pp 8,10) a review of the book OUT OF THE DESERT? ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE EXODUS/CONQUEST NARRATIVES by William H Stiebing, Jr (Buffalo, NY, Prometheus Books, 1989) 269 pp. $21.95. Stiebing raises numerous objections to the Biblical narratives. For example, if the Exodus took place in the fifteenth century BC (as argued by Wood in the article we have been examining), then we have the problem that in those days the Pharaoh would have been residing in Thebes, more than 400 miles south of Goshen and the Delta, where the Israelites supposedly dwelt, and yet the Exodus narrative describes Moses and Aaron as in frequent face-to-face communication both with Pharaoh and with the Israelites. Of course, we may expect that any day now someone will dig up evidence that a particular Pharaoh at the right date spent a year or more at just the right date residing in the Delta to get away from his mother-in-law, but we cannot expect our opponents to share this expectation. Some of Stiebing's objections have been met by Wood's article, and others may be met by the future article that the editor has promised us. But the dust hasn't settled yet on this one. (I note Stiebing's publisher with a bit of suspicion. Prometheus Books is the leading atheist publishing house. I should expect an unbiased scholar to look for a publisher less known for having an axe to grind.)
A side point:
The Biblical narrative reports that the waters of the Jordan stopped flowing and allowed the Israelites to pass. Archaelogical evidence that this happened in 1400 BC is not available, but it is relevant to note that the Jordan valley is the northern end of the Great Rift, traceable on a map down eastern Africa most of the way to the Cape, the boundary between two tectonic plates, and a major earthquake zone. At Adam (modern Damiya), 18 miles upstream from Jericho, earthquakes have caused rubble to fall into the river, damming it up and interrupting its flow for several hours. This is reported in the years 1160, 1267 (16 hours), 1546, 1834, 1906, and 1927 (21 hours). How useful this information will be in controversy is another matter. Suppose that your opponent has just finished saying: "The river stopped flowing so they could pass? Don't insult my intelligence by asking me to believe anything so far-fetched!" You reply with the above data. He will then say: "Aha! You see that, by your own admission, it was a purely natural phenomenon, and only the fact that the Israelites knew nothing of geology made them think that it was the hand of God. We, who know better, have no excuse for bringing God or the supernatural into it. So there!" You can't win.
THE MAGAZINE
The BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW is published six times a year, and costs $4 an issue. However, the current issue has a card offering it to new subscribers for one year for $13.97 and two years for $24.95, and I assume that you can get the same deal (or just the current issue with the Jericho article for $4) by writing them at PO Box 10757, Des Moines, IA 50347 or calling them toll-free at 1-800-678-5555. (Foreign subscriptions $4 a year extra.) The target audience is the serious non-specialist, meaning that you can understand the articles even if you didn't major in archaeology. The editors would claim to be religiously neutral, meaning that if you are expecting their avowed aim to be to prove that the Bible is true, you will be disappointed. Some of the articles announce discoveries that make it easier to trust the historical accuracy of the Scriptures, and some the reverse. And some do not so much present new data as argue about the significance and interpretation of the existing data. I value my subscription, but if you are on a student's budget, check your college library. (You might order yourself a sample copy for $4 and try to get your library to suscribe, probably enlisting the support of some professor in the history or archaeology department first.)
DON'T GLOAT
Whenever archaeological or other discoveries are made that seem to confirm the accuracy of historical statements found in Holy Scripture, or in other ways to support our position (say in terms of near-death experiences), many of us are tempted to do a kind of sack dance and declare, "Science has spoken: let all give heed!" When, on the other hand, the evidence seems to point the other way, we brush it aside, saying, "Nyah, what do those guys know? The universities are filled with infidels these days, and they probably forged the evidence. Besides, we all know what Saint Paul said, about how the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God, or something like that." Let us remember that the archaeological and other scientific evidence, both for and against, is always subject to revision in the light of further discoveries, and that the fact that according to Wood's account Kenyon was guilty of a major methodological slip-up here (but we have not yet seen the rebutting articles from her defenders) does not justify us in concluding that every archaeological conclusion distasteful to us is the result of someone's ignoring the evidence or misinterpreting it in the light of pre-conceived notions. Anyone who tries to follow developments in Biblical archaeology will note that over a period of time the tide ebbs a little here and flows a little there. One may detect some long-term trends, but they are not so obvious that one can bash an atheist with them. Premature claims of total victory only make us look naive. </pre>