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
andhttps://www.academia.edu/36533218/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_iii_Shechem_continued_
My best wishes,
andhttps://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”?”
No comments:
Post a Comment