Reconstruction of ancient Jericho, with outer and inner walls, walls in bad repair, and houses/rooms built into the outer wall itself; the collapsed walls made it much easier for Joshua and the Israelites to gain access to the city
by
Damien F.
Mackey
Against
my fundamental archaeological view (following the likes of Cohen, Anati, and Osgood)
that the Exodus Israelites were the Middle Bronze I people, conquerors of
EBIII/IV Palestine and Transjordan, a reader has thrown up in opposition to
this what he considers to be archaeological anomalies, places such as Elealeh
and Bozrah whose earliest levels, he claims, well post-date MBI.
Dear Mr. Damien Mackey, I just read your article posted on
Academia subtitled Middle Bronze I Israelites, in which you seem to prefer an
Exodus at this period of time, citing the work of Rudolph Cohen. The problem?
The Bible states that Moses's Israelites conquered the city of Elealeah and
that Reuben settled there (Numbers 32:3, 37). "And...the sons of
Reuben...built...Heshbon, Elealeh..." It is identified today with El-Al
and it is no earlier than Iron Age I. No Bronze Age sherds have ever been found
there (see p. 116. Burton MacDonald. East of the Jordan, Territories and Sites
of the Hebrew Scriptures. Boston, American School of Oriental Studies. 2000).
"The Hebrew Wlealeh is preserved in the archaeological site of El-Al
located 3 km northeast of Tall Hisban...Glueck found no Bronze Age sherds at
the site, he did find numerous Early Iron I and II, some Hellenistic, and...
medieval sherds...Iron I and Iron II, Persian sherds among those Ibach
collected at the site (1987:11)..." Heshbon, also built with Eleahleh, has
no Middle Bronze I sherds either, it is Iron Age too. MacDonald: "...the
archaeological evidence does not support the location of an Amorite capital
city at Tall Hisban in either the Late Bronze or Early Iron Ages." (p.93,
MacDonald)I doubt that most archaeologists would endorse Elealeh and Heshbon
being in existence in Middle Bronze I for Moses to capture and Reuben to settle
at. ....
I
replied:
Thank you very much for that ....
.... Sometimes, as you would
know, biblical sites have been wrongly identified.
Regarding Judith of Simeon's important town
of "Bethulia", for instance, I had been following C. R. Conder's view
that it was modern Mesilieh (or Mithilia).
But now I believe that Charles C. Torrey
absolutely nailed it, as Shechem.
See e.g. my:
"Judith's City of 'Bethulia'. Part Two (ii): Shechem".
https://www.academia.edu/34737759/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_ii_Shechem
and
https://www.academia.edu/36533218/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_iii_Shechem_continued_
My best wishes,
and
https://www.academia.edu/36533218/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_iii_Shechem_continued_
My best wishes,
Damien.
Later,
I was critical of the methodology of a critic’s picking out a site, or two, of
apparent anomaly, whilst ignoring the vast evidence that is now available from
revisionists for a basic overlay of MBI sites upon the biblical places of
occupation during the Conquest:
....
Are you sure that these ... sites have been
properly identified ...?
For you to hold up just one place, your
initial example of Elealeh, against the abundant MBI on EB III/IV situations
that revisionist scholars have identified, seems to me to be a position of
weakness.
Surely more power would belong to those who follow the Dr. Cohen line of thinking of MBI as Israelites, and who are able to show just how well MBI matches the abundant biblical evidence of the Conquest.
On this, I would enthusiastically refer you to Dr. John Osgood's parallel maps:
"Figure 7. Expected MB I sites according to Exodus narrative".
and "Figure 8. Actual findings of MB I (EB-MBA). (Sources—references 10,12–22.)",
in his article, "The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest":
https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-mdash-the-archaeology-exodus-to-conquest
That would be my starting point, rather than simply to isolate Elealeh - though I am not hiding from the fact that it, too, would need to be explained in order to complete the large picture. ....
Surely more power would belong to those who follow the Dr. Cohen line of thinking of MBI as Israelites, and who are able to show just how well MBI matches the abundant biblical evidence of the Conquest.
On this, I would enthusiastically refer you to Dr. John Osgood's parallel maps:
"Figure 7. Expected MB I sites according to Exodus narrative".
and "Figure 8. Actual findings of MB I (EB-MBA). (Sources—references 10,12–22.)",
in his article, "The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest":
https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-mdash-the-archaeology-exodus-to-conquest
That would be my starting point, rather than simply to isolate Elealeh - though I am not hiding from the fact that it, too, would need to be explained in order to complete the large picture. ....
The
same reader, then, without evidently showing the slightest interest in any of
this, proceeded to toss up Bozrah as another seeming anomaly, the last of his
comments on this being as follows:
As you should know, scholars understand when an ancient
tell is abandoned, its name frequently is transferred to the nearby newer
settlement. Ancient Jericho is called Tell es Sultan, but the newer settlement
is Eriha in Arabic, a form of Jericho. The same logic applies to Bozrah,
preserved in the nearby village of Buseirah. So away with your nonsense about
Bozrah not being correctly identified. The plain truth is that a 725 BC Bozrah
reveals Genesis was composed after that date, in the 8th or 7th century BC and
was not written by Moses in your MB I scenario. ....
To which I have
just answered:
My
view ... is (as the traditional one) that the Pentateuch was
"substantially" written by Moses, that “substantially” being the key
word.
But
Moses did not write Genesis, which is essentially (another key word) a series
of pre-Mosaic family histories. See e.g. my:
“Toledôt of Genesis. Part One (a): Colophon Key
to the Structure of Genesis”
My
“substantially” and “essentially” allow for editorial contributions down the
line, too, e.g. by Solomon; by Samuel; by Ezra; etc.
The
documentary system (JEDP) that you apparently follow cannot explain the
prevailing Egyptian influence throughout the Pentateuch (cf. professor A. S.
Yahuda) - JEDP no doubt compiled by earnest people who generally did not have a
grain of knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language, and who could not,
therefore, locate its influence throughout the texts.
An
Egyptian word for the Ark (‘tebah’), for, instance. Why? If it was all
Babylonian???
See
e.g. my:
“If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, why
an Egyptian ‘loan word’ for Noah’s Ark?”
Jericho
is so distinctive a site that - apparently unlike Bozrah [which I suggested may
be Petra] - its location was never going to be forgotten.
Mesha
of Moab, who rebuilt it, as he says “with prisoners from Israel”, called Jericho,
“Qeriho”. Conventionally bound archaeologists fail, of course, to locate or identify
this “Qeriho”.
The
biblical Mesha is also the biblical Hiel the Bethelite. See e.g. my:
“Hiel's Jericho. Part Two (a): Who was
this “Hiel of Bethel”?”
Abnail - babyliss nano titanium flat iron
ReplyDeleteAdjacent to the titanium tent stakes house and outside the house. It's mens titanium watches a comfortable fit for all of titanium nipple jewelry the time, comfort, and titanium bikes stability of the two-tower bingo parlor $59.00 · In stock race tech titanium