Current Biblical Archaeology

[Beagle]

Hi John. I'm not really replying to your post because I make it a point to stay out of these endless and fruitless discussions on religion. Why should I read about this little war when I can watch the real thing on TV?

I'm just saying Hello . Welcome to the forum.

[Guest]

Lightcatcher productions

judging a book by its cover i see...shame shame. as gomer pyle would say.

here is an excerpt from page 11

"i have not written this book for those happy in the conceit thateverything taught by the rank and file of archaeology is the truth and cannot be challenged. i have undertaken this task ever since i doscovered thatthe whole studyof antiquity is simply a house of theoretical cards built upon shaky ground. it is a modern framework superimposed onthe span of the centuries that is ill fitting and often incomprehensible."

and then there is this...

"every new disclosure of evidence that might broaden our viewof the Bible's historical aspects is met with howling rebuttal. men of science will remind us that this is the acid test of peer review that allows discoveries to be granted a sealof approval-- but the seal is never granted."

then this...

"however, her thesis was faulty from the beginning. kenyon's proposed date of this event was pure conjecture and her conclusions were not based on what she found-but what she did not find at jericho, those who march lockstep with ms. kenyon have created an archaeological maze further complicated by a dating system that is terribly flawed."

(remind you of what i have said?)

If you are happy listening to some jerkoff make shit up so you feel vindicated, who am I to quibble?

it is not i who listen to made up garbage but people like you who have decided that those who do not tell the truth are what you want to listen to.

[Minimalist]

"i have not written this book for those happy in the conceit thateverything taught by the rank and file of archaeology is the truth and cannot be challenged. i have undertaken this task ever since i doscovered thatthe whole studyof antiquity is simply a house of theoretical cards built upon shaky ground. it is a modern framework superimposed onthe span of the centuries that is ill fitting and often incomprehensible."

And, of course, that is exactly the kind of mentality that he is seeking to sell his nonsense to. I imagine he has your credit card on speed dial.

Like I said, I'm glad you two found each other but if you persist in putting this moron's "Quotations" ( notice I do not say evidence as YOU obviously think his word is enough) you will continue to hear about it.

There is no history shakier than the bible.....OT and NT are fables designed to scare children.....and adults who want to remain children.

[Minimalist]

it is not i who listen to made up garbage but people like you who have decided that those who do not tell the truth are what you want to listen to.

Hey, you listen to Billy Graham and other phony preachers, too. You are consistent in the shit you believe.

[Minimalist]

"however, her thesis was faulty from the beginning. kenyon's proposed date of this event was pure conjecture and her conclusions were not based on what she found-but what she did not find at jericho, those who march lockstep with ms. kenyon have created an archaeological maze further complicated by a dating system that is terribly flawed."

(remind you of what i have said?)

Yeah...so? He agrees with you. Best evidence yet that he is nut. Besides, Kenyon's dating has been verified by carbon 14 dating. I know you prefer your bible bullshit but science says otherwise.

[Guest]

Besides, Kenyon's dating has been verified by carbon 14 dating.

you have said that before but offer no proof. kenyon's dating was way off and it is not hard to manipulate the c-14 dating system, i have shown that before with quotes as well.

but science says otherwise.

science isn't infallible and is corruptable, and not the definitive answer to all things.

[Minimalist]

As a matter of fact I provided a write up of the report. You are willfully blind when it comes to stuff you do not want to see. And you see shit that isn't there when it comes to your bible.

I really think medication might help you.

[Guest]

i probably forgot about it

it happens.

though given the nature of corruptibility of the dating system, i wouldn't be surprised that it did agree with kenyon. especially since she had no way of determining the dates when she excavated and arbitrarily placed dates upon strata at a whim.

[Minimalist]

Don't forget that Kenyon's dates also coincide with the Egyptian military campaign against the Hyksos. Having driven these Canaanite interlopers out of Egypt they pursued them and gave them such a drubbing that the area remained an Egyptian sphere of influence for centuries.

[Guest]

as i recall no mention of the destruction of jericho was mentioned by the egyptians in any annals.

[Guest]

Don't forget that Kenyon's dates also coincide with the Egyptian military campaign against the Hyksos.

what proof did she use to make such a declaration? as far as i remember she had no reason to place the destruction of jericho at that time except for just arbitrarily placing it at that time.

[Minimalist]

You forget that Egypt has its own history and is not dependent on your bible.

Ahmose was the founder of the 18th Dynasty. While reading the following try to keep in mind that Kenyon is excavating one piece of the puzzle up north while Egyptologists are deciphering Ahmose's monuments in the south.

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/ahmose1.htm

After Ahmose I's campaigns in Nubia, he once again returned to Palestine during his 22nd year in power and may have fought his way as for as the Euphrates, according to information on a stela of Tuthmosis I.

Regardless of the exact timing, we know the result of these campaigns from the Amarna library from the reign of Ahknaten. The Canaanites were completely cowed and there is not a word about any Hebrews.

[Minimalist]

Here, I'm feeling kind today,

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch3.html

Conservative archaeologist Dr. Bryant Wood, one of the few remaining defenders of a literal conquest, has put forward his own argument with regard to Jericho (Wood 1990). Wood's rather audacious claim is that the chronology of the site is substantially mistaken, and that the destruction of the city currently assigned to the Middle Bronze actually happened in the Late Bronze as a result of Joshua's conquest.

Less clear is how Wood's hypothesis accommodates the fact that there was a Late Bronze settlement, though a small one, at Jericho. According to the Bible, following Joshua's destruction Jericho was not rebuilt until the time of Hiel the Bethelite (1 Kings 16:34), a contemporary of King Ahab, whom we know to have reigned during the Iron Age and more specifically around 850 BCE. But as already stated, a LB resettlement does exist, although sparse; the one ceramic juglet found in situ is of "14th century BC type" (Bartlett 1982, p. 97). LB remains are also known from tombs associated with the site (Holland and Netzer 1992, p. 736). If MBII Jericho was destroyed by Joshua, who rebuilt and occupied it in the Late Bronze? Wood's hypothesis does not answer these questions.

Additionally, Wood's argument falters on an important point having to do with updated data that has become available since he first proposed it. One of Wood's arguments for dating the final MB city (which he calls City IV) to the Late Bronze has to do with carbon-14 dating; a sample of charcoal, labeled BM-1790, taken from the destruction layer of City IV was radiocarbon dated to 1410 BCE plus or minus 40 years (Wood 1990, p. 53). This would indeed fall within the Late Bronze Age. However, unfortunately for Wood's argument, this date is now known to be in error. The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young. The revised date falls within the range 1740 to 1440 BCE, which, while not ruling out Wood's dating, is also fully consistent with a Middle Bronze destruction.

Worse for Wood's argument, however, is the fact that additional radiocarbon dates have been published for Jericho City IV. If a tree is cut down and later burned for charcoal, the C-14 date will reflect the date the wood was cut rather than the date it was burned. However, this is not a problem with short-lived cereal grains, of which six samples were found in City IV. High-precision radiocarbon dates of these cereal samples yielded a date range from 1601 to 1524 BCE (Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, p. 218) - solidly contradicting Wood's chronology, which requires City IV to have been destroyed circa 1400 BCE.

What is particularly galling about scads of 'religious' web sites is that they are so willing to lie by omission to preserve their little tribal drama.

They dutifully report Garstang's early dig and fume about Kenyon's re-dating in the 1950's. Then, almost as if they were awaiting a miracle, they jump on Bryant Wood's bandwagon as if he were the saviour himself.

But none of them have the intellectual integrity to post the follow up which dismisses Wood's theory and verifies Kenyon's original hypothesis.

BTW, Kenyon used stratigraphy to make her determination not c14. I don't know where you got that idea. Carbon dating was not in general use until the 1960's and much refinement has gone into the technique since the early days. Kenyon was long since dead when radiocarbon verified her original dating.

[Guest]

The British Museum has issued a correction for radiocarbon dates published between 1980 and 1984 (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 59) - an error in equipment calibration made these dates, one of which is BM-1790, too young. The revised date falls within the range 1740 to 1440 BCE

i find that a little too convenient and no i would not trust the british museum.

i have not study much of wood's work and have come across him when he is mentioned in passing so i can't make judgment on his conclusions yet.

But as already stated, a LB resettlement does exist, although sparse; the one ceramic juglet found in situ is of "14th century BC type" (Bartlett 1982, p. 97). LB remains are also known from tombs associated with the site

too scant to be of real value and there are numerous reasons why tombs could be found at the site. could have been nomads wanting a safe place to bury their dead.

Kenyon used stratigraphy to make her determination not c14. I don't know where you got that idea.

i know she didn't have c-14 available to her i probably mis-wrote. anyways, she may have , due to some error, mis-dated even using stratigraphy. i am very skeptical of kenyon and her work despite the bandwagon load of supporters for her endeavors.

what motivation would she have to say' the Bible is true'? the underlying motivations play a large part in one's conclusions. we see the same evidence and attribute it to a different source, i think i have proventhat time and again.

[marduk]

i would not trust the british museum.

mutual I'm sure