THE SAGA OF ANCIENT JERICHO

by

Wayne Jackson

 

After having spent forty hard years in the wilderness of Sinai, the

children of Israel were stationed on the eastern bank of the Jordan

River, just north of the Dead Sea. The challenge was now before them;

they were to take the land of Canaan which Jehovah had promised to

Abraham five centuries earlier.

The first obstacle in Israel's path was the fortress city of

Jericho. Joshua sent spies across the Jordan to survey the situation.

When the presence of these Hebrews was detected, a Canaanite woman---

Rahab the harlot---befriended them. Doubtless she saved their lives,

and in turn, the spies promised that she and her family would be spared

during the coming invasion (Joshua 2).

Shortly thereafter, Joshua led Israel against Jericho. The

procedure for capturing the city was strange indeed, according to

military standards. The Hebrews were to encompass the walls of the city

once a day for six days, then, seven times on the seventh day. A blast

was to be made on the priests' trumpets, the people were to give a

great shout, and the city would be theirs---for God had given it to

them (Joshua 6:2,16). When the Hebrew people, by faith, followed this

plan, the walls of Jericho fell down. According to divine instructions,

the Israelites then destroyed the inhabitants of the city (with the

exception of Rahab and her kinsmen), both man and beast. They were

charged to confiscate the gold and silver and the vessels of brass and

iron for Jehovah's treasury, but they were prohibited from taking any

personal booty. The city was then burned. Finally, a prophetic curse

was placed upon any who attempted to refortify Jericho (Joshua 6).

It is important to note at this point that the chronology of the

Bible indicates that the Israelite conquest of Canaan took place near

1400 B.C. Upon the basis of archaeological data, we know that Solomon

commenced his reign over the united kingdom of Israel about 970 B.C.

Additionally, I Kings 6:1 states that from the fourth year of Solomon's

reign, back to the time of the exodus from Egypt, was a period of 480

years. This would suggest that Israel's departure from Egypt occurred

circa 1446/5 B.C. Since the invasion of Canaan commenced about forty

years later (after Israel's sojourn in the wilderness), this would put

the conquest of Canaan at approximately 1406/5 B.C. It is important to

remember this because liberal scholars, rejecting the chronology of the

Bible, date these events 150 to 200 years later!

There are several important elements in this account worthy of

consideration.

IS THE ACCOUNT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?

The historical accuracy of the fall of Jericho has lain under a

cloud of doubt in the minds of many for more than three decades. John

Garstang, a professor at the University of Liverpool, excavated Jericho

between 1930 and 1936. Garstang identified a destruction level at the

ancient site which he called City IV. He concluded that this was the

occupation level which paralleled the city of Joshua's day, and that

the biblical account was accurate. Jericho had fallen to Israel about

1400 B.C. He wrote: "In a word, in all material details and in date the

fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative"

(Garstang, 1937, p 1222). For several years, scholars generally

accepted Garstang's conclusions. However, that was to radically change.

From 1952 to 1958, Kathleen Kenyon, of the British School of

Archaeology (daughter of famed archaeologist, Sir Frederic Kenyon)

supervised an expedition at Jericho. Her work was the most thorough and

scientific that had been done at this site. Her team unearthed a

significant amount of evidence, but surprisingly, Kenyon's

interpretation of the data was radically different from Garstang's. She

contended that City IV had been destroyed about 1550 B.C. and therefore

there was no fortress city for Joshua to conquer around 1400 B.C. She

suggested that the archaeological evidence discredited the biblical

record! And, not surprisingly, a sizable segment of scholars fell

dutifully into line. Whenever there appears to be an apparent conflict

between the Bible and other data, there is always a certain group that

immediately calls the Scriptures into question. They never have the

patience to wait for the more complete picture. Comments like those of

Magnusson are typical: "...on a purely literary level, the `Book of

Joshua' reads more like an adventure story than history...there is no

archaeological evidence to support it" (Magnusson, 1977, p 96).

One of the most curious elements of this whole matter, however, is

the fact that, prior to her death in 1978, Kathleen Kenyon's opinions

regarding Jericho had been published only in a popular book (Kenyon,

1957), in a few scattered articles, and in a series of preliminary

field reports. The detailed record of her work was not made available

until 1982-83, and an independent analysis of that evidence is bringing

to light some startling new conclusions!

The March/April, 1990 issue of `Biblical Archaeology Review',

certainly no "fundamentalist" journal, contains an article titled, "Did

the Israelites Conquer Jericho?---A New Look at the Archaeological

Evidence," authored by Dr. Bryant G. Wood. Dr. Wood is a visiting

professor in the department of Near Eastern studies at the University

of Toronto. He has served in responsible supervisory positions on

several archaeological digs in Palestine. In this scholarly article,

Wood contends: "When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho

with the Biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction of

Jericho, we find a quite remarkable agreement" (1990, p 53, emp.

added). The professor emphasizes several major points of agreement

between the archaeological evidence and the record in the book of

Joshua. We summarize as follows:

(1) The Bible indicates that Jericho was a strongly fortified city.

It was surrounded by a "wall," and access to the fortress could only be

obtained through the city "gate" (Joshua 2:5,7,15; 6:5,20). `BAR'

notes: "The city's outer defenses consisted of a stone revetment wall

[some 15 feet high] at the base of the tell [hill] that held in place a

high, plastered rampart. Above the rampart on top of the tell was [the

remnant of] a mudbrick wall [about 8 feet high at one point] which

served as Jericho's city wall proper" (see Wood, 1990, p. 46).

(2) According to the Old Testament, the invasion occurred just

following the 14th day of Abib (March/April) (Joshua 5:10), thus in the

springtime, or in the harvest season (3:15). Rahab was drying flax upon

her roof (2:6). Both Garstang and Kenyon found large quantities of

grain stored in the ruins of Jericho's houses. In a very limited

excavation area, Kenyon found six bushels of grain in one digging

season---"This," as Wood comments, "is unique in the annals of

Palestinian archaeology" (1990, p 56).

(3) The biblical record affirms that the conquest was swiftly

accomplished in only seven days (6:15). The people of Jericho were

confined to the city with no chance to escape (6:1). The abundance of

food supplies, as indicated above, confirms this. Had the citizens of

Jericho been able to escape, they would have taken food with them. Had

the siege been protracted, the food would have been consumed. The Old

Testament record is meticulously accurate.

(4) When the Israelites shouted with a great shout on that seventh

day, the "wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the

city" (6:20; cf. Hebrews 11:30). Kenyon's excavations uncovered, at the

base of Jericho's tell, a pile of red mudbricks which, she said,

"probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank" (Kenyon, 1981,

p 110; as quoted in Wood, 1990, p 54). She described the brick pile as

the result of a wall's "collapse." Professor Wood states that the

amount of bricks found in the cross-section of Kenyon's work-area would

suggest an upper wall 6.5 feet wide and 12 feet high (1990, p 54).

(5) According to the Scriptures, Jericho was to be a city "devoted"

to God, hence, the Hebrews were to confiscate the silver and gold, and

the vessels of brass and iron for Jehovah's treasury. However, they

were to take no personal possessions (6:17-19). The archaeological

evidence confirms this. As indicated earlier, a considerable amount of

grain was found in Jericho. Grain, in biblical times, was exceedingly

valuable, being frequently used as a monetary exchange (see I Kings

5:11). It is therefore unthinkable, unless by divine design, that the

Israelites would have taken Jericho, and left the grain intact. The

Bible is right!

(6) The Scriptures state that during the destruction of Jericho,

the city was set on fire (6:24). When Miss Kenyon dug down into the

city she discovered that the walls and floors of the houses were

"blackened or reddened by fire...in most rooms the fallen debris was

heavily burnt" (Kenyon, 1981, p 370; as quoted in Wood, 1990, p 56).

(7) The Bible indicates that Rahab's house was built "upon the side

of the wall, and she dwelt upon the wall" (2:15). A number of houses

were found just inside the revetment wall, which could have abutted the

wall [see point (1) above] thus easily accommodating an escape access

from the city (Wood, 1990, p 56). The evidence indicates that this area

was the "poor quarter" of the city---just the type of residence that

one might expect a harlot to have.

(8) Whereas Kathleen Kenyon contended that Jericho (City IV) had

been destroyed about 1550 B.C., and abandoned thereafter, hence, there

was no city for Joshua to conquer in 1400 B.C. (according to the

biblical chronology), the actual evidence indicates otherwise. A

cemetery outside of Jericho "has yielded a continuous series of

Egyptian scarabs [small, beetle-shaped amulets, inscribed on the

underside, often with the name of a pharaoh] from the 18th through the

early-14th centuries B.C.E., contradicting Kenyon's claim that the city

was abandoned after 1550 B.C.E." (Wood, 1990, p 53).

Other evidences indicate a harmony with the biblical chronology as

well. There is absolutely no reason to contend that the book of Joshua

is in error in its description of the conquest of Jericho.

MORAL DIFFICULTIES

Some have argued that the account of Jericho's destruction places

the Bible in a morally compromising position. It is alleged that

Rahab's lies (Joshua 2:4-5) condones situation ethics, and that the

slaughter of the city's women and children (Joshua 6:21) is

reprehensible---a reflection upon a benevolent God. These objections

simply are not valid.

First, one should note that the Scriptures do not attempt to

conceal Rahab's falsehood. Her weakness is bluntly revealed. This

evidences the impartiality of the divine record and is an indirect

suggestion of inspiration. Too, one should understand that this woman

was from a pagan environment. Her concept of morality and her personal

lifestyle (she was a harlot) needed considerable refining. In spite of

her sordid background, she had developed a sincere faith in Israel's

God (see Joshua 2:9ff). Consequently, when the spies approached her,

she was not "disobedient" as were the others of Jericho. She received

the spies and sent them out another way. It was by these "works" of

faith that she was delivered (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). She was not

"justified" by lying; rather, she was justified by her faith and her

works, in spite of her ignorance and/or weakness. It would be a gross

misuse of this narrative to employ it as proof that there are occasions

when it is divinely permissible to lie.

We must not pass from this point without noting that the case of

Rahab demonstrates the wonderful harmony between faith and works in the

divine plan. The writer of Hebrews states that Rahab perished not, as a

result of her faith; James declares that she was justified by her

works. These two requirements are not mutually exclusive of one

another.

Second, while the extermination of an entire population may seem

excessively cruel when viewed as an isolated incident, other factors

shed light on that situation. Consider the following: (a) The

destruction of Canaan's heathen tribes was justified in view of their

utter abandonment of moral restraint. The ancient evidence indicates

that they practiced child-sacrifice, religious prostitution, sodomy,

etc. A people can reach a state of such deep depravity that the justice

of God demands punishment. (b) Their destruction had not been rendered

impetuously. Jehovah had been patient with them for more than 500

years; finally, their cup of iniquity ran over and the time for

judgment came (see Genesis 15:16). (c) This type of punishment was

implemented on a rather limited basis---principally, upon the tribes of

Palestine. This was due to the fact that God had chosen Canaan as the

place where the Hebrew nation was to be cultivated in view of the

coming Messiah, the Savior of the world. It was an example of moral

surgery for the benefit of all mankind. (d) Finally, it is still true

that these Old Testament narratives illustrate the fact that innocent

people (e.g., infants) frequently have to suffer the consequences of

evil acts which others generate, due to the kind of world in which we

live. This should motivate us to want a better state wherein wickedness

does not exist. And so, though such cases as the fall of Jericho may

entail some difficulty, the problem is not insurmountable.

THE PROPHETIC CURSE

Following the destruction of Jericho, Joshua pronounced an

imprecation upon the ancient city, saying: "Cursed be the man before

Jehovah that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: with the loss of

his firstborn shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of

his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it" (Joshua 6:26).

Some writers have assumed that this prophecy failed, for not many

years after Jericho's fall, one reads of people living in Jericho (see

Joshua 18:21; Judges 3:13; II Samuel 10:5). In fact, it is specifically

called "the city of Jericho." And yet, there is no record of the

"curse" being fulfilled in those times proximate to Joshua's invasion.

In response to this charge, several factors need to be noted. First,

the prophetic curse did not state that Jericho was never to be

inhabited. It does not even indicate that the city was never to be

rebuilt. The divine prediction was simply this: The man who attempts to

rebuild Jericho, as a fortress city (cf. "set up the gates of it,"

6:26) would be the recipient of the divine curse (see Coslinga, 1986, p

73).

The fact of the matter is, five and a half centuries later, during

the reign of Ahab of Israel, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho as a

fortress. And, precisely as Joshua had declared, he lost his oldest

son when the foundation was laid, and his youngest son when the gates

of the city were set up (see I Kings 16:34). The prophecy was

fulfilled. There is no discrepancy in the Bible record.

REFERENCES

C. J. Coslinga (1986), `Joshua, Judges, Ruth' (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan).

John Garstang (1937), "Jericho and the Biblical Story," `Wonders of the

Past', ed. J. A. Hammerton (New York: Wise).

Kathleen Kenyon (1957), `Digging Up Jericho' (London: Ernest Benn).

Kathleen Kenyon (1981), `Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The

Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell', ed. Thomas A. Holland

(London: British School of Archaeology).

Magnus Magnusson (1977), `Archaeology of the Bible' (New York: Simon &

Schuster).

Bryant G. Wood (1990), "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?---A New

Look at the Archaeological Evidence," `Biblical Archaeology Review',

16[2]:44-58.

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, AL 36117-2752

 

 


Index of Preacher's Help and Notes

These documents are free from BelieversCafe.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.