alt.history.ancient-egypt

"JTEM" wrote in message
news:99a4803f-e72a-4caf-9909-b3d62350387c@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> "Lars Wilson" wrote:
>
>> The fall of Jericho is dated
>
> ....to the 16th century B.C....
>
> : Kathleen Kenyon found much of the same
> : evidence--collapsed walls, stores of grain and an
> : ash layer from a massive conflagration. However,
> : she reached a completely different conclusion.
> : Rather than supporting the biblical account, her
> : finds at Jericho, she said, disproved the biblical
> : story. Why? She dated the city's destruction to
> : around 1550 B.C., meaning the site had been
> : abandoned and therefore there was no city for
> : the Israelites to capture at the time of the conquest.
> http://www.lycos.com/info/kathleen-kenyon.html
>
OMG, JTEM? You actually have a brain?!!! I'm flaborghasted!
>
> : However, in the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon
> : conducted further excavations at Jericho and
> : concluded that the destruction of Garstang's
> : City IV should be dated ca. 1550 B.C., not ca.
> : 1400 B.C. In fact, Kenyon found no evidence
> : at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
> http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
>
Thanks for giving the source of your information. YOUR
PROBLEM is that Kenyon is not saying the Israelites never
came to Jericho, just NOT in 1407 or around 1550 BC where
the walls were found. You are quoting other sources regarding
that specific earlier occupation where there were walls in which
others think Kenyon should have matched with the Israelites
but with which she HERSELF does not. She specifically dates
the Israelites at the later LBA level which she dates as being
destroyed c. 1350-1325 BCE. YOU ARE CONFUSED.
There is more than one destructive level here. Yes, Kenyon
dismisses the Israelites association with 1407 or 1550 BCE, but
not with the LBA occupation.

Not sure if you understand this and just trying to be contrary or
you are really confused. But just realize there are TWO occupations
and two destructive levels beind discussed. Kenyon indeed dismisses
the Israelites from the earlier 1550 BCE period or the 1407 BCE
dating which is around the time some think the Bible would date
the fall of Jericho. That's because using the Assyrian period
dating, they date Ahab and Karkar c. 853 BCE which then dates
the Exodus c. 1446 BCE and the fall of Jericho 40 years later c.
1407/1406BCE. So Kenyon is dismissing that dating. There was no true
occupation in 1406 BCE per her findings. She was forced, therefore,
to date the Israelites where she clearly states, destroying the LBA
city that sprung up per her between 1400-1350 BCE and then destroyed
sometime between 1350-1325 BCE.

NOTE: I quote HER directly, not discussions of her findings. You are
NOT getting the whole picture. Though at least this time you are showing
where you are getting confused over this. So maybe some progress can be
made and you can stop calling me a liar, which I'm not.
>
> : According to Kathleen Kenyon, this city was
> : destroyed (along with many others in the country)
> : when the Egyptians established control in Canaan
> : after driving out the Hyksos -- an event usually
> : dated to 1550 BC, long before the time of Joshua.
> : She finds no city at Jericho again until the 11th
> : century, well after the time of Joshua.
> http://www.netours.com/jrs/2003/jericho-debate.htm
>
Now this is INCORRECT or INACCURATE. She finds
a "town" at Jericho which she specifically assigns to the
Israelites as destroying 1350-1325 BCE. The above
statement is misleading. Again, you have no direct
quote of Kenyon, just someone using her as a reference for
another period.
>
> : Then when Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated Jericho in the
> : 1950s using meticulous stratigraphic methodology, she
> : found that Garstang's destruction layer was actually a
> : Middle Bronze destruction dating to ca. 1560 B.C. far
> : too early for the time of Joshua, regardless of the dates
> : proposed for the Conquest.
> http://www.reviewandexpositor.org/Drinkrev.doc
>
Yes, again, 1560 is far too early for Joshua. But that is where
everybody else wanted to try and date Joshua. But that is not
what Kenyon's final conclusion was. She dismisses the 1560 BC
dating with Joshua. So this quote is correct. BUT, this does not
mean she does not date Joshua to a later time, which she does.
Her own statement shows she dismisses the earlier association
with Joshua by her conclusion that he came through c. 1350-1325 BCE.

Here is her DIRECT QUOTE FROM HER BOOK, again. This
does not contradict the above!! You are too dumb to know there is
more than one destructive level being discussed for some reason. Or
you refuse to admit it -- I can't tell for sure.

Here's the DIRECT QUOTE you need to focus on:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Thanks for the references though, I can see why you got confused.

PLEASE REPLY!

Lars Wilson