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.