Talk:Fall of Jericho

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)

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)

Actually it is very much from a Christian/Jewish viewpoint and that is not acknowledge here. Just using terms like "Battle" and "victory" to describe it as there isn't any mention of actual fighting, just a slaughter and looting (except for the prostitutes). Utter destruction without provocation. The continued veneration of the story as "a miracle of God" because of the walls falling from the trumpets does not describe the event except from a point of view that dehumanizes the inhabitants of Jericho.

Just as the story of Christopher Columbus, the United States and Canadian invasion and genocide of the natives are being addressed and separated from previous propaganda by entitled people stealing the lands of the "heathens", it's about time to accurately describe the events in the Bible for what they were. Whinestein (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. What a load of bias. Totally what one expects from people who think "consensus" is science... 47.187.206.15 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Archaeology, as taught at WP:CHOPSY, has no doubt that the Israelite conquest of Canaan did not happen. Stop pushing WP:FRINGE views. In mainstream archaeology, the issue is settled. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? The source for the fictional conquest is the Book of Joshua, which is a fairy tale contradicting the historical record. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2024 (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 I 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)

@AbrmJoseph: By "calibration" he means something else than you mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: There is a relevant discussion about the archaeological evidence for Late Bronze Age Jericho and its implication for the historicity of the biblical account at chapter 5 of this book.

I think we could employ it in the article. How do you view it? Potatín5 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

He believes in the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. That's not a good start for me. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

And what's the problem with that? Is it a crime here to believe that the story of the conquest of Canaan is not merely a piece of propagandistic fiction?

Ralph Hawkins is certainly a real scholar [1] and he cannot be labeled as a fundamentalist since in that same book he also critizes fundamentalist evangelicals who hold for a literalist date of the Exodus-Conquest during the 15th century BC as well as Wood's redating of the destruction of Jericho's Middle Bronze Age wall. I just think his discussion of the evidence for the historicity of the biblical account may be useful for improving the article. Potatín5 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Same as the reply to those who accuse Wikipedia of violating their human rights: Wikipedia is about WP:MAINSTREAM academic knowledge, not about imparting happiness/justice to the world or WP:RGW. So, no, it's not a crime, but it is WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia is biased against fringe views. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hawkins' position is only fringe in what pertains about his opinion on the historicity of the israelite conquest of Canaan, but not in his description of the archaeological evidence for Jericho during the Late Bronze Age. There he even quotes Piotr Bienkowski which I doubt you would regard as a marginal scholar. And that's precisely the information of the Wikipedia article which I would like to be reassesed. Potatín5 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Bruins does not deny that Kenyon's reasoning could be flawed, however he states that her conclusion (dating) is essentially correct. Hawkins could be trusted to correctly render the scholarly positions of other scholars. And I have already offered a WP:RS/AC-compliant quote. It does not deny a short-lived settlement in Jericho about 1400 BC. But that's about it, no larger claims could be made by the scholarly consensus about the Jericho from 1400 BC. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: I have found that this source from the recent Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan [1] also claims that there was some occupation during the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC). This contradicts the statement made in Wikipedia's article that "the tell was unoccupied from the late 15th century until the 10th/9th centuries BCE". Potatín5 (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: 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.

And your source is not that great for your POV: "There is no way, however, to link them directly to the Bible, except for the fact that the biblical author may have reused one of these stories to validate the historicity of his narration (Liverani 2003, 316–317)." tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: Hubbard's 2009 statement that there was no occupation in Jericho during the Late Bronze Age was written prior to the end of the more recent excavations at the site by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2017), so his comment seems to be outdated. Lorenzo Nigro clearly states that there was some occupation at the site during the 14-13th centuries BC.

And no, I am not claiming that the recent excavations have "proved" the historicity of the biblical narrative; I am just noting that recent excavators indicate that there was some occupation in Jericho during the Late Bronze Age, contrary to what the Wikipedia article states, and so I think we should include the remarks of Lorenzo Nigro in order to update its information. Potatín5 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: I see no contradiction between there was some occupation at the site during the 14-13th centuries BC and a small, short-lived settlement (ca. 1400 B.C.). Perhaps it is arguing if the glass is half full or half empty. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: By the contrary, I see a notable contradiction between there was some occupation at the site during the 14-13th centuries BC and the tell was unoccupied from the late 15th century until the 10th/9th centuries BCE. The later assertion supposes that the short-lived settlement you have mentioned ended in the late 15th century (ca. 1400 B.C.), while the former claims that there was yet another settlement in the 14-13th centuries as indicated by Lorenzo Nigro. Potatín5 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Wait, on page 202 there is no citation more recent than Hubbard (2009), so his comment seems to be outdated seems not to apply. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: But on page 204 Nigro clearly states at the beginning that the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2017) has found Late Bronze II occupational layers. So yeah, Hubbard (2009) seems to be outdated. Potatín5 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Okay, I see, there was a settlement, but details about it are extremely scarce. Could have been a town, or just a tiny village, the source does not say which it was. And, most of all: it does not fit the narrative from the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: So I can include Lorenzo Nigro's remarks in the "Excavations at Tell es-Sultan" section, then? Potatín5 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: I don't know precisely what you mean by Nigro's remarks. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I mean, Nigro's statement that there was some sort of settlement during the 13th and 14h centuries BC. Potatín5 (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In his 1995 paper, Bruins says "the end of the Middle Bronze Age". Since 1995, the calibration curve for radiocarbon has been updated several times, so it is interesting to recalibrate Bruin's carbon dates using the latest curve (Intcal 2020). For the short-lived cereal grains, the average carbon date was 3306 BP, which calibrates to 1613–1533 BCE. For the charcoal, except for a single anomalous sample, the average carbon date was 3370 BP, which calibrates to 1688–1620 BCE. The anomalous sample shows the carbon date 3614 BP, which calibrates to 2030–1899 BCE. The large ranges in calibrated dates are due to wriggles in the curve caused by fluctuations in atmospheric carbon isotopes. All of these dates are in the Middle Bronze Age or just over the end of it, supporting Bruins' description. Zero^talk 02:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps somewhat. There is a easy to used online calculator from Oxford that uses Intcal 2020 and you can simply plug in the info from Bruins data into it. It produces a date of 1619 BC to 1517 BC which is a Middle Bronze to Late Bronze I date. A little closer. 73.41.52.95 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html 73.41.52.95 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Author bias

This whole article is written in a very biased fashion, as if it is dedicated to refuting the historicity of the Bible. These arguments should remain, but not in the introductory paragraph. Everything should be restructured. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:B954:CD69:B022:A33F (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"as if it is dedicated to refuting the historicity of the Bible." At least in the case of the Book of Joshua, there is no historicity. Per the main article:

• • "The strong consensus among scholars is that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value for early Israel and most likely reflects a much later period. The earliest parts of the book are possibly chapters 2–11, the story of the conquest; these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua likely written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), but the book was not completed until after the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE, and possibly not until after the return from the Babylonian exile in 539 BCE."
  • "The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events. The apparent setting of Joshua in the 13th century BCE corroborates with the Bronze Age Collapse, which was indeed a time of widespread city-destruction. However, with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish), the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time. The archaeological evidence shows that Jericho and Ai were not occupied in the Near Eastern Late Bronze Age. Ai was first excavated by Judith Marquet-Krause. According to some scholars, the story of the conquest represents the nationalist propaganda of the 8th century BCE kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel; incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE). The book was probably revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE."
  • Basically some 6th century or 5th century BCE writers invented a propaganda narrative about the distant past of their nation. The book never resembles the archaeological record. Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  So how do you explain Rehab, Boaz, Ruth, King David as the ancestral line of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is, who was, and who is coming again? 76.176.52.82 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Pseudohistory

Wood is a WP:FRINGE archaeologist, cannot be trusted. Besides, it's remarkably old news: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html (roughly 35 years old claim, so the WP:RS/AC had all the time to either approve or disapprove of it). But, of course, according to Wood, mainstream archaeology is a Satanic plot. Maybe he does not say it loudly, but the argument was articulated by his fellow creationist apologist Henry M. Morris: Morris, Henry M. (2000). The Remarkable Record of Job: The Ancient Wisdom, Scientific Accuracy, & Life-Changing Message of an Amazing Book. New Leaf Publishing Group, Incorporated. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-61458-132-1. Retrieved 17 March 2024. Also quoted at https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade02-1-06 He shares Morris's assumptions, so it's hard to admit that his take greatly differs from Morris's. I would be greatly amazed if he doesn't think that mainstream archaeologists send innocent souls to hell. I was part of a similar sect, and our pastors preached the same line.

To cut a long story short, there were some corrections made to Kenyon's findings (e.g. new findings by the Italian-Palestinian expedition), but archaeologists still agree that Jericho debunks the Israelite conquest. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That is not true. As this source notes, Kathleen Kenyon did find a LB destruction layer at Jericho. Potatín5 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: What is not true? There are plenty of WP:RS that Jericho debunks the Israelite conquest. E.g. [2] and [3] and [4]. Also, your RS makes a WP:RS/AC claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Joshua does not reflect any historical military campaign. I would not count on any of its information to be accurately reflecting the actual conditions of Bronze Age Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: My WP:RS notes that the popular claim that there is no evidence of a LB conquest of Jericho is based on a misunderstanding of the archaeology of the site and the actual findings of Kenyon's excavations. And Hawkins is not the only scholar who defends the historicity of the Israelite conquest. This source also argues in detail for its existence. Potatín5 (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

One of the writers of your source is Richard Hess. He is a biblical scholar, not an archaeologist.Dimadick (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Battle of Jericho → Fall of Jericho – Although "battle" is in the popular consciousness (e.g. "Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho"), according to the biblical account (which is all we have to go on), there was no battle.[5] "Fall of Jericho" has solid attestation in reliable sources:[6] e.g. "The Fall of Jericho as an Earthquake Myth" in the Jewish Bible Quarterly, 2020. See WP:UCRN: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It does appear that "fall of Jericho" is more popular in discussions of the actual biblical text. Srnec (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. "Battle" seems to be more common colloquially, but "Fall" appears to be the usual scholarly/RS term. Luke10.27 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.