[Eternal_Bear]

Jericho was uninhabited and unwalled during the time when the Hebrews supposedly crossed over from the Jordan; had been that way for several centuries.

[aruanan]

Jericho was uninhabited and unwalled during the time when the Hebrews supposedly crossed over from the Jordan; had been that way for several centuries.

Ha ha ha. Obviously, if the Hebrews went through there and it was inhabited, then the dating system is off. And of course, this is what has happened. The earlier date of exodus is both consistent with Biblical chronology as well as with the archaeology. However, when one is dealing with ancient records which were more or less contemporaneous with the events they describe and there appears to be a discrepancy with a modern archeological interpretations, the benefit of the doubt is given to the ancient source. It is more likely to be correct; the modern spin, suffering from a lack of information. This has been demonstrated numerous times.

[week 71]

Archeologists also contended there was no written language at the time the Torah was was alledged to be written... then they found Hamarabi's code. They also said there was no name Abraham during the time of Abaham's life... then they found and inscription on stone with the name Abram pre-dating the Biblical Abraham. They used to say there was no city of Ur until they found evidence and changed their mind. They said all the Gospels were written in the second or third century, until they found manuscripts dating from the first century. I'm certain the myth of no Jericho will be debunked with time.

[sargon]

I've read an in-depth article on the Jericho issue in an early 1990's Biblical Archaeology Review (a nominally secular magazine), which seemed to adequately present an argument for the more biblical interpretation. It certainly indicated, at least, that the opposing view is not definitive.