"Siege of Jericho - Actual or Myth?" Topic

The Bible describes the Hebrew tribes under Joshua besieging the city of Jericho. According to Ancient Warfare magazine, only a minority of scholars believe there was an actual siege. What do you believe?

* the Biblical account is a factual record of the siege
* the Bible preserves a story based on an actual event
* the Biblical siege is only a myth

The biblical siege is a myth. Why we persist in claiming that myths are "only" is beyond me; but I don't think that story is passing on historical information. Unless, of course, we are using "based on" in the such a loose sense of the word that it becomes meaningless.

It depends on what you believe about the Bible.

Also, doesn't this post, due to the possible answers and responses cross line about rules of Religious discussion?

The second response is just a question because I never sure where the line is or how it is crossed.

Can I discuss religion here?
No. [RELIGION RULE]

Mr Editor, you should know better.

Based on an actual event.

Based on an actual event.

Agreed. The horns, for instance, probably did not bring the walls down. They might have been a signal for some subterfuge to take place (capturing the gates from within or something). There is no reason not to believe that Jericho was a real siege but the events as told in the bible are probably a bit dubious.

I have read that the ruins at Jericho are in an active seismic zone.
So, when de walls come a-tumblin' down, well, you just build another!
And the de walls come a-tumblin' down again.

The Book of Joshua is pretty widely accepted as being written well after the fact, even by religious Biblical scholars, and thusly having little historical value. Not a factual record.

Christians beleive that the Bible is inerrent. That what is in the Bible is truth. Therefore, it follows that seige of Jericho as described is how it went down (no pun intended). I happen to believe what is written is true.

On the other hand, if a person does not beleive, then it is a myth like any other and may of may not have happened as written.

Erm… in no way do Christians beleive the Old Testament to be utterly infaliable.

Which is why most Christians accept the Theory of Evolution for example.

As for Jericho, I'd go for a garbled folk memory of what actually happened.

Myth. Jericho was not inhabited at the time of the (probably also mythical or much embellished) Exodus from Egypt.

Hesky the goat-boy returns from a full day of slinging stones at scorpions out in the desert. "Grandpa, you are so wise and you know everything, what is that ruined city down the wadi?"

Grandpa doesn't know anything about the city down the wadi. What he knows is, the only reason the family still feeds him is because he's so wise and knows everything. So he makes up a good story. "Hesky m'boy, sit here on Grandpa's lap, no, a little to the left, aaah good, and let me tell you the marvellous story of how the mighty walls of Jericho fell before the trumpet blasts of our triumphant people. Uh, back when we were mighty and numerous and all people feared us…"

possible answers and responses cross line about rules of Religious discussion?

Yeah, I think I see a line in my rear view mirror now.

Erm… in no way do Christians believe the Old Testament to be utterly infallible.

Some do, some don't.

And this thread has definitely crossed the line now.

Your initial statement is incorrect, twowheatons. There is considerable disagreement among Christians as to whether or not the Bible is inerrant, or even claims to be, or (in the few passages that seem to make such claims) exactly what constitutes the "Scriptures" being referred to (as the Bible as we know it was not compiled into a single collection of revered works until the 7th Century, A.D.). Certainly the book of Joshua is not among the five "Books of the Law" that constitute the strict definition of the Jewish Torah, nor is it among the collection known as "The Prophets," so whether it is included as "inerrant" comes down to how strict one's source of doctrine is regarding which various texts the writers were upholding as sacred. "Profitable for instruction in righteousness" is the strongest claim one can make for Joshua, and that of course is not the same thing as "inerrant" at all. So some may say it is, some may not, while others would be found scattered along a gradient of opinions and beliefs— alas, exploring as to which is correct or not would of course delve into the verboten sphere of religion. Suffice it to say that there is far from the unified consistency of belief your statement implies.

As for me, I believe that the Siege of Jericho is indeed based on some historic event, which might have been anything from a providential earthquake that coincided with the Hebrew invasion of Canaan, leaving the city exposed to attack (whether a single assault or multiple raids), to an actual miracle (as a believer, I would not rule out the latter by any means). In short, something happened that stuck in the Israelite memory as significant. And certainly it wasn't long before the city was thoroughly in Israelite hands, which lends at least some credence to a successful conquest, however achieved.

As for gaming it, well, in the "it was a miracle" approach, one would not want to be the Canaanite player, would one?

(How many points is the Divine Will of Providence worth on the army list?)

Bangorstu-

I think a discussion about how Christians view the OT is a step outside the bounds of this discussion and maybe outside the bounds the forum guidelines/rules.

The point I was trying to make is that what one beleives will more than likely sway one to see the OT as history or myth.

The funny thing is that I will be leading a Bible study Saturday evening about the relevance of the OT for Christians today.

Respectfully.

I absolutely believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that He remains involved in His creation -- including miraculous acts. God is certainly capable of bringing down city walls.

I also believe that all truth is one, and is of God. Any seeming contradiction between God's revealed truth in Scripture and truth discovered by scientists is only that: seeming rather than real.

There is almost certainly fiction in the Bible (e.g. Jesus' parables) and it is not always clear what category a writing belongs in (e.g. is the Book of Job a parable?) And I agree with Lentulus that one should not say "only" myth, as myths contain truth too -- but not the same sort of truth as history. Is Joshua history? Dunno, but it reveals truths about God.

Ask me if I care! But dig Gospel great Mahalia Jackson on the topic. YouTube link

Now, ask me about Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego.

nor is it among the collection known as "The Prophets,"

Not true, according to this:
crivoice.org/canonot.html

Can I discuss religion here? No. [RELIGION RULE]

It is based on these events:

YouTube link

This didn't really have to be a religious discussion, and I don't think that the initial question breaks the rule. There are facts in the Bible, correct? Some named individuals and places actually existed, according to the archaeological and historical record, right?

A discussion of the Bible as a scholarly source, and if there are any other sources or things in the archaeological record that could support the claim, or not, should be appropriate. Asking this question isn't much different than asking about the truthfulness of the Taiheiki or Heike Monogatari in my opinion.

Now, ask me about Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego.

"They wouldn't bend, they wouldn't bow, they wouldn't burn."

As for the initial question, yes it is an actual event. As for whether one believes that the source material is factual – i.e. the "Holy Bible" depends upon your own faith & as such is left to each individual to make that assessment. I do believe that it is true as is the rest , so i have no doubt in its integrity. Hope this has not 'crossed the line'?

I believe in the interpretations of historians.

But whether there was an actual siege of Jericho is much muddied by religion and politics.

* the Bible preserves a story based on an actual event

That one.

I think Parzival pretty well covered my view on it. I think there is a kernel of truth in most of the events but they were embellished for whatever reason. So, I do think the Hebrews invaded Canaan and (mostly) pushed out the inhabitants. The Bible is not a history book, but if you look at the account of Joshua's campaign, it follows a more or less plausible pattern. Most of the engagements in the campaign seem to be recorded as straight battles, with the Hebrews relying largely on sticking to the hills and using lots of irregular tactics like ambush, decoys, and general subterfuge. This makes sense to me given that the average Hebrew was a peasant infantryman while the Canaanites relied on their powerful chariot forces. The account also goes on to show the Canaanites as a fragmented group, with no single leader and every city-state pretty much on their own, facing a huge, unified invasion force. That, to me, also seems plausible, and seems to agree with the historical assessment of Canaan at that point in its history.

But then we get down to the Siege of Jericho, and the account changes drastically. There is a very elaborate series of actions at Jericho, finally culminating in the walls coming down. It just sort of comes out of left field. I think something different did occur at Jericho that set it apart from the other battles, and the Bible account is an attempt to explain it.

First of all, I think that's the only "siege" of that campaign. Most of the others were setpiece battles. I don't think the Hebrews had the capacity to even engage in siegecraft. I think a huge, neon clue is the two "spies" who sneak into the city and are aided by Rahab. She then hangs a rope out her window and is subsequently spared from the massacre that followed the battle. Maybe she helped them disable a gate or tunnel through a wall (Notably, her house happened to be positioned right on the wall, in fact.) All that marching around 7 times and blowing trumpets could have been to divert the garrison's attention from the work being done. And then, when the men got into the city, those big, imposing walls were suddenly useless. In a sense, they were knocked down.

Anyway, that's one possiblity, I think.

Now, ask me about Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego.

"They wouldn't bend, they wouldn't bow, they wouldn't burn."

My favorite bible story, here. YouTube link

My view is that the story is based on a real event. It is a very powerful story regardless.

If you have Comcast On-Demand, under the History channel this week is a 2 hour drama/documentary named "Bible Battles". They cover many battles starting with Abraham and including Joshua and the battle of jericho. They claim the trumpet blowing was a distraction to get men into the city unnoticed. The when enough were inside the hollow walls they attacked from within, and opened the gates to let the main army in. So their take is that the walls did not physically come down.
They also claim David was probalby inhis early 20's and well trained with the sling when he slew Goliath.

The latest archeological evidence in the area suggests that there wasn't not a single battle, i.e. at Jericho, but a serious of cival wars in the region that lasted several decades, if not a century. Also that it wasn't that the Jewish people came into the area and started up risings, but that there was a uprising of the lower class people against their rulers in the area, and that these people after the uprisings were over, now showed archeological evidence of following the Jewish faith.

Doesn't mean that there wasn't a battle at Jericho, but it does suggest that the people fighting were inside Jericho to begin with (or at least some of them anyway), and were not all fighting outside the walls. Could even be that the whole "walls coming down" is a mis-remembering of forces inside the city, capturing and opening the gates to an invading force.

Only a myth.

I don't have an opinion on the matter, nor is the question a "violation" of the rules. It is possible to discuss certain events in the Bible without discussing religion; to include size and composition of armies, weapons and tactics used, etc.

The question then arises, do I place my faith in somebody who claims the Bible stories are a myth, or do I place my faith in the God I walk with and talk with everyday and who reveals Himself to me in many ways, as well as speaking to me thru the written Word, the Bible. I choose the latter. I don't intend to offend anyone, but that's the way I see it.

Interesting wiki on Jericho here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho, might be useful for links to the archaeology.

Apparently "Bronze-age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BCE."

From a military history perspective the Bible version was one of the precedents cited by nominally Christian forces to justify murdering everyone if forced to storm a besieged city. I guess it's somewhat of a dilemma for a devout character in a wargame or RPG. Your leader says that God has instructed him to murder the civilians. Do you follow his command or do you send for the men in white coats?

It's a Good Thing that we dropped the Wargamers and Religion and Wargamers and Christianity Boards a few years ago.
God only knows what kind of mischievious topics people could have snuck past The Editor!

Christians beleive that the Bible is inerrent. That what is in the Bible is truth.

This is how Catholics (like me) and Mormons( like…err, who?) get defined as "non-Christians".

Why can't a myth be true?

Joe Collins

Two Hebrew soldiers sitting around the fire one night looking up at the full moon outside the walls of Jerhico?
"What a moon -- some say someday we will walk on it"

"Ya, next we will hear that someday they will be putting one mans heart into another mans chest and walking on the bottom of the ocean".

"Next thing we be hearing is that we will be able to be in instant contact with everyone around the world"

Big bunch of laughter !!!

'What a big bunch of fairy tales" they both exclaim as they walk of.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

I stand with Doug MSC and twowheatons. Jericho is as true an account in scripture as the death and resurrection of Jesus.

jb

Who would ever have thought that an innocent question about whether or not you believe 100% in the Bible's account of a miracle could lead to a religious discussion?

It's a boastful tale created to boost the Hebrews' collective ego… I find it hard to believe that these guys were ever mighty warriors and conquerors considering the number of times they'd gotten stomped on and absorbed into neighboring empires.

I would place that story as "something significant happened there" to stick in the tribal memory or the Israelites.

Whether that's invasion-by-subterfuge (see also Trojan Horse), a successful mine to breach the walls, a convenient earthquake, or a no- miracle is something that we are too far from the history to know today.

(I've heard that 'turned into a pillar of salt' was the poetic phrase for 'had a seizure', for example)

But I firmly believe that *something* happened there, or it would not have been included in the Bible.

The Pentateuch is a collection of stories collected together into a chronological narrative with a family tree. The chronological order is in error in many places and the family tree is made up.

The stories of Abraham/Abram probably date to a time after the invasion of Canaan from the south. The route of the invasion from the south passing east of Moab (or through it in Deuteronomy) and then west across the Jordan is probably an attempt to reconcile stories of invasions from the east and the south. Archaeology indicates a migration of peoples from Syria down the Jordan valley and then west into the Judean Hills.

There is a story in Numbers 21 1-3 where the Israelites defeat a Canaanite army and destroy their cities "and called the place Hormah" (destruction). They would need to enter Canaan to destroy their cities. This may be a surviving remnant of the actual story of the invasion of Judea by desert nomads. There are 2 other stories that give different reasons for the name "Hormah".

Any one of many sieges of Jericho by anyone at any time, or walls destroyed by earthquake, could have been added to the collection of stories.

Druzhina
sites of wargaming interest

It's a boastful tale created to boost the Hebrews' collective ego… I find it hard to believe that these guys were ever mighty warriors and conquerors considering the number of times they'd gotten stomped on and absorbed into neighboring empires.

But LBW, if you consider how bad the REST of Exodus makes the Hebrews look -- golden calf, wandering in the desert, all that stuff -- it's hard to argue the story was intended to inflate their ego. And even at Jericho, isn't it pretty clear that the HEBREWS didn't do it, but their God did?

My personal opinion is the opposite: I think God gave Himself a big handicap (like a golfer) in choosing them as His people. And my reading of Exodus tends to confirm that.

twowheatons-I think a discussion about how Christians view the OT is a step outside the bounds of this discussion and maybe outside the bounds the forum guidelines/rules.

Ditto's reply-<Jaw dropping> Oh for the love of goodness then what the blazes did you just do, then? I don't like it when people make blanket absolutist statements about things (especially when they involve me) and then start quoting rules to people who disagree with their wide sweeping generalizations.

Response-I was not trying to make a broad statement and then quote rules to hide behind. My impression is that religious discussion is not acceptable on this forum. I was only trying to respect that rule. If a religious discussion is acceptable, I will discuss all day long in support of my beliefs and my belief that Jericho happened as stated in the Bible.

I will say that seperating religion from history regarding Biblical topics is like trying to seperate religion and politics. It cannot be done as our beliefs are a part of who and what we are and believe. One carries over into the other.

I think they did a "Time Tunnel" episode with the Jericho siege as the plotline.

Ditto,

I understand what you are saying. My point is that to go deeper requires a religious discuss, which is not what the forum members what, so I stayed away.

Well, it's Day 2 and I am just amazed that this thread still has not resulted in yet another mass-DHing. But the day is still young…

Which is why most Christians accept the Theory of Evolution for example.

I think that statement is a bit of a stretch…

Did Christians write the old testament? I thought they just edited it.
Like much of Biblical "history"… the Jericho story is just that, a nice story.

At the risk of being doghoused again (because of comments I made on this same subject) the Old Testament, which contains the story of Jericho, is parts of the Jewish Holy book the Masoretic Text of Judaism. Only parts because the majority of the Christian churches picked those parts of the Masoretic Text they felt relevant to Christianity (By the way, the Protestants have a different Old Testament, they cut out even more then Catholic and Eastern Christianity has in theirs).

In other words, to say that the Old Testament is the "word of God" is to imply that the Jewish Masoretic Text is the "word of God" plus a bunch of other stuff, which isn't the word of God because if it was it would have been included in the Christian (non-Protestant) version of the Old Testament.

A rather offensive viewpoint to the Jews I think.

And the knowledge of Bible scholorship rears it's ugly head yet again.