didyou not make the claim that part of the evidence against any possibility of Israelite invasion and overthrow off Jericho was based on Bart Erhmans claim there is not evidence of even a fotress in that time? Did you not quote Bart saying it wasnt even a fortress in 13th century BC? How is it that even secular historians have dated Jericho as a fortress more than 8,000 years before Barts claim? That was what i was responding too.
You cannot make reference to other writers, who have provided you with incorrect information, then attempt to worm your way out by saying "i didnt say that".
Yours is an ecllectic faith, and it lets you down in this area as you are chosing only to reference some writers...irrespective of whether or not they are providing you with the correct information. I have studied Bart Erhman theological claims at length, what you need to realise is that he is not known for Old Testament expertise...he is a New Testament Scholar with expertise on the historicity of Jesus (and thats it).
My basis is the lack of evidence for an invasion, even though Jericho had a fortress wall at one time to me is indifferent as to the evidence. There were at least several battles for Jericho. The number of cities Joshua claimed to have taken and completely conquered Canaanit is even in contradiction with other references in the Torah..
The Lack of evidence for an invasion is simply based on the lack of evidence for large numbers involved in any migration such as Exodus, and the lack of evidence for a large influx of Hebrews into Canaan. The lack of Egyptian records increases the problem.
Bart is right on many references including scripture. I have to check on when Jericho was a walled city. I know at times it was and at times it was not.
The problem remains as to when the different battles for Jericho took place, and when it was a walled city. The following possibly reflects what Bart refers to.
Yes, there was some sort of settlement at Jericho at the time described in the Joshua, but a walled city is not documented in the present evidence. I believe it was the Egyptians who were likely responsible for the earlier better documented battle to conquer the lower Nile Kingdom of Hyksos.
en.wikipedia.org
Origins and historicity
Depiction of the battle by
Jean Fouquet (c. 1415–1420)
Excavations at Tell es-Sultan[edit]
In 1868,
Charles Warren identified
Tell es-Sultan as the site of biblical Jericho.
[5] Ernst Sellin and
Carl Watzinger excavated the site between 1907–1909 and in 1911, finding the remains of two walls which they initially suggested supported the biblical account of the Battle of Jericho. They later revised this conclusion and dated their finds to the Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 BCE).
[6] In 1930–1936,
John Garstang conducted excavations there and discovered the remains of a
network of collapsed walls which he dated to about 1400 BCE.
Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated the site over 1952–1958 and demonstrated that the destruction occurred at an earlier time, during a well-attested Egyptian campaign against the
Hyksos of that period, and that Jericho had been deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century BCE, the supposed time of Joshua's battle.
[7] Sources differ as to what date Kenyon instead proposed; either c. 1500 BCE [7] or c. 1580 BCE.[8] Kenyon's work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries BCE.[8] A small unwalled settlement was rebuilt in the 15th century BCE, but it has been agreed that the tell was unoccupied from the late 15th century until the 10th/9th centuries BCE.[2]
More recently, Lorenzo Nigro from the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan has argued that there was some sort of settlement at the site during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE.[9] He states that the expedition detected Late Bronze II layers in several parts of the tell, although its top layers were heavily cut by leveling operations during the Iron Age, which explains the scarcity of 13th-century materials.[10] Nigro says that the idea that the Biblical account should have a literal archaeological correspondence is erroneous, and "any attempt to seriously identify something on the ground with biblical personages and their acts" is hazardous.[11]
Historicity
The strong consensus among scholars is that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.
[12] Its origin lies in a time far removed from the times that it depicts,
[13] and its intention is primarily theological in detailing how Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the
Book of Deuteronomy.
[14] The story of Jericho and the rest of the conquest represents the nationalist propaganda of the
Kingdom of Judah and their claims to the territory of the
Kingdom of Israel after
722 BCE;
[3] and that those chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua likely written late in the reign of King
Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the
fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the
Babylonian exile in 538.
