Johnson Kuppayil

Conquest of Jericho: Archaeological Findings and Biblical Understanding

Johnson Kuppayil
0. Introduction
The conquest of Jericho under Joshua has been a fascinating and at the same time
‘disturbing’ incident in the Bible. On the one hand this conquest has been one of the greatest
challenges against the belief in the God of the Old Testament because of the narration that
under the divine direction Joshua and the Israelites captured and destroyed great towns and
cities and put to death the noncombatants like babies, children, and the elderly. On the other
hand, It has been interpreted since centuries as an inspiring example to demonstrate the power
of prayer and the rendering of the seemingly impossible into possible thanks to an unflagging
faith in Yahweh. This aspect of faith is reiterated in the letter to the Hebrews 11:30-31 which
says: “By faith the walls of Jericho fell after they had been encircled for seven days.” As far
as the conquest of Jericho is concerned, there are only two references (I Kgs 16:34; Heb
11:30-31) outside of the book of Joshua. However, the archeological findings have some
startling remarks and enlightening observations regarding the conquest of Jericho especially
concerning the destruction of the walls as mentioned in the Bible (Josh 6:1-27). How do we
reconcile the archaeological findings with the biblical presentation on the conquest of
Jericho? In this article we try to understand the major findings of the archaeology concerning
the conquest of Jericho with special emphasis on the destruction of the walls and thereafter we
will analyse the biblical understanding of the conquest.
1. Jericho
Jericho is the first city to be captured by the Israelites under Joshua (Josh 6). Jericho's
location is the key to understanding its significance. It is, an oasis, and is known in the Bible
sometimes as "the city of palm trees"( Deut 34:3; Judg 3:13). Its tropical climate and
irrigation potential is perfect for fruit trees. It is located in Jordan Valley about ten miles
northwest of the Dead Sea and at a depth of 258 m below sea level which makes it the lowest
town on the surface of the earth.1 The site of Jericho was attractive to settlers because of the
perennial spring, ‘Ein es-Sultan, (which is also known as Elisha's Fountain since the

1
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to
1700 (5th ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 327.
!1
 Johnson Kuppayil

Middle Ages,) as well as three wadis, or seasonal rivers, that water the area. The first human
settlement in Jericho was by Mesolithic people of the Natufian age, 12500 to 10300 B.P and
the evidence for that is within and above a 30 cm clay layer of swamp environment at Tel
Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) overlying a Late Cretaceous chalky limestone subcrop.2 The fertility
of the place depends on the spring rather than to the river which lies some miles to the East. It
is interesting to be informed that the destruction of the irrigation system by enemies, or the
interruption of the water supply as a result of the earth movements to which the Jordan Valley
is liable, may account for the periodic abandonments of the ancient site that excavation has
revealed. 3 Jericho enjoys the honour of being the world’s oldest city.
Ancient Jericho is in fact several different sites. From Mesolithic period through Iron
Age and into the Persian Period, Jericho was located at Tell es-Sultan. From the Hellenistic
through the Early Arab Period, the site of Tulul Abu el-'Alayiq was occupied. Both of these
sites are distinct from modern Jericho, a site that probably hides other archaeological
remains.4 There are two sites associated with biblical Jericho. The OT city was situated on a
mound now called Tell es-Sultan, on the North West outskirts of the modern town. NT or
Herodian Jericho is located on a higher elevation one mile West of the modern city in the
ruins on both banks of the Wadi Qelt; this site is known as Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq. Its strategic
site by a ford of the Jordan controlled the ancient trade routes from the East. After crossing
the river these branched out, one going toward Bethel and Shechem in the North, another
westward to Jerusalem, and a third to Hebron in the South. Thus Jericho controlled the access
to the hill country of Palestine from Transjordan. The site has occasioned much controversy
and archaeological interpretation has been complicated by significant amounts of erosion.

2
David Neev and K.O. Emery, The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and Jericho: Geological ,
Climatological and Archaeological Background, New York, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 91,93.
3Kathleen M. Kenyon, “Jericho” The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, vol 2, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society, 1993, p. 674.
4
Ely Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols), Nashville, Abingdon Press,
2009, Olive tree bible software.
!2
 Johnson Kuppayil

The archaeological evidence of settlement in Jericho is from 8000 BC and the oldest
known fortification at Jericho is from 7000 BC.5 As to when the Israel arrived in Canaan6 ,
there is no unanimous opinion among the scholars. Some place the invasion at the end of the
15th century; others at the end of the 13th century.7 If one holds to a late date for the conquest
(i.e., ca. 1250–1230 BC), then according to the archaeological record no one was living at
Jericho at the time when Joshua supposedly conquered it. However, if one holds to an early
date for the conquest (i.e., ca. 1406 BC), then the archaeological profile fits much better. To
be sure, archaeological remains from LB I (1550–1400 BC) are not plentiful on the tell but
pottery from nearby tombs indicates that people were living there at the time of the conquest.
In addition, it is interesting to note that scarabs of the early kings of the Eighteenth Egyptian
Dynasty up through the rule of Amenhotep III have been found at Jericho. Since the scarabs
of later Egyptian kings are not found at Jericho, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this is
because Jericho ceased to be a viable city during the reign of Amenhotep III (1391–1353 BC)
—possibly because of the Israelite conquest around 1406 BC. The much-sought-after walls
that collapsed in the attack (Josh 6:20) were probably the walls of the MB II city, found by
Kenyon, that were used by people living at Jericho during LB I—up until the conquest of the
city by Joshua.8
Although the presence of a group called Israel is already attested in Canaan by 1207
BC thanks to Merneptah Stele, the evidence on the general political and military landscape of
Canaan suggests that a lightning invasion by this group would have been impractical and
unlikely in the extreme.9 Thus in short, there was no trace of settlement in Jericho of any kind

5 The Chronological Study Bible, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2008, p. 6.

6The only mention of “Israel” in ancient Egyptian writing is found in a hieroglyphic stele called
Merneptah Stele which dates about 1210 BC. Based on this fact some argue that there is no doubt that
Israel was in the land by the thirteenth century BC, though not established as a nation with a king or
kingdom as yet. “Israel” is written with an Egyptian determinative symbol in the Merneptah Stele,
which indicates Israel was a people at this time and not a land. The dating for Israel’s presence in the
land supplied by the Merneptah Stele fits well with the timing of the Exodus from Egypt and the
subsequent conquest of Canaan in about 1400 BC. (Cf. Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The
Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries Confirm the Reliability of the
Scriptures,Oregon, Harvest House, 2013, p. 231. )
7
The Chronological Study Bible, p. 229.
8 Cf. Carl G. Rasmussen, Zondervan Atlas of the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010, Kindle
edition, (under: “Conquest of Canaan”).
9
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of
Ancient Israel and the Origins of its Sacred Texts, New York, Touchstone, 2001, p. 76.
!3
 Johnson Kuppayil

in the 13th century BC, and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to 14th century BC, was
small and poor, almost insignificant and unfortified. There was also no sign of a destruction.10
The identification of remains that could be associated with the account in Josh. 6 has for long
been the desire of archeologists. If precise evidence could be obtained of a destruction that
could definitely be ascribed to the Israelites, it would be of great help in determining the date
of the entry of the Israelites into Canaan.
2. History of Archaeological Excavations and its findings in Jericho: An overview
The identification of the main mound of the oasis, Tell es-Sultan, with the oldest city,
Jericho, is generally accepted. The mound rises to a height of 21.5m and covers an area of
about one acre. It stands quite near ‘Ein es-Sultan (Elisha’s Well). As the Bible states, after its
destruction, Jericho was abandoned for centuries until a new settlement was established by
Hiel the Bethelite ( I Kg 16:3411). The archaeological evidence shows that occupation on the
ancient site came to an end at the time of the Babylonian Exile.12 There are also other sites in
the vicinity, but these do not attest occupation from the period concerned.
The earliest known account of exploration pertaining to ancient Jericho dates to AD
333 and comes from the “pilgrim of Bordeaux.” who distinguished between the modern
Jericho and the earlier city of Jericho by Elisha’s fountain.13 However, the first preliminary
excavations at Jericho were initiated by Charles Warren in 1868 on behalf of the Palestine
Exploration Fund. He sank a number of shafts into the mound and found little that interested
him except pottery and grinding stones. Two of his shafts were identified in the 1957-1958
excavations, one of them penetrating the Early Bronze Age town wall and the other missing
the great Pre-Pottery Neolithic stone tower by only one meter.14 He concluded that: “Very
little was found except pottery jars and stone mortars for grinding corn. The general

10
Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, p. 82.
11 “In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho; he laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his
firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of
the Lord, which he spoke by Joshua son of Nun.”
12
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 674.
13John R. Barlett, “What has Archaeology to do with the Bible or vice versa”, in John R. Barlett (ed.),
Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, New York, Routledge, 2002, p. 3.
14
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 674.
!4
 Johnson Kuppayil

impression given by the result of the excavations is that these mounds are formed by the
gradual crumbling away of great towers or castles of sunburnt brick”.15
The first large-scale excavations were made by E. Sellin and C. Watzinger from 1907
to 1909. It was an Austro- German expedition to the site. They dug out fairly extensive areas
of the tell. These excavations uncovered much of the Early Bronze Age city wall and the
Middle Bronze Age fortifications as well as houses that may have dated to the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic. Because they were working before the establishment of any conventions of
chronology, we cannot always determine what they found.16 However, Sellin and Watzinger
concluded that Canaanite Jericho had been destroyed earlier, no later than 1600 B.C, and there
was therefore no city there in Joshua's day.17 Sellin and Watzinger, working with A. Nöldeke,
excavated Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq in 1909 and 1911 on a very small scale, they were the first to
identify the remains as Herodian Jericho.18
J. Garstang of the University of Liverpool excavated the site from 1930 to 1936.
According to him that there was evidence from the time attributable to Joshua of occupation
in Jericho, including large city walls.19 He brought with him a better understanding of pottery
chronology and seriation. His excavation determined that a long Neolithic occupation
predated the Early Bronze. He noticed that a large portion of this material was from an
aceramic culture, but he thought that he could identify a transition to the use of pottery.
Garstang still lacked a good understanding of stratigraphy, and thus misidentified many
structures and fortifications.20 He traced a succession of four town walls encircling the mound
of Tell es-Sulṭan. The wall that he considered (in fact erroneously) to be the latest was heavily
burned and showed evidence of collapse, probably from earthquake. Garstang, considering
this wall to be the latest, associated it with the latest buildings he found. He correctly ascribed
these and some tombs to the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1200 B.C.), but was misled by

15 T. A. Holland “Jericho”, Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols), Doubleday, Yale University Press, 1992,
Olive tree bible software.
16 Ely Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.

William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, Seattle, University of
17

Washington Press, 1990, p. 46.

18
Ely Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
19Pekka M.A. Pitkänen, Joshua, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, Downers Grove, InterVarsity
Press, 2010, p. 163.
20
Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
!5
 Johnson Kuppayil

incorrect dating of comparable pottery from Beth-shean into suggesting that the terminal date
was ca. 1400 B.C.21 Even though the knowledge of pottery chronology had improved, the
excavation technique lagged and lack of detailed stratigraphy still often made the dating of the
structures mere guesswork. The dating of the successive Bronze Age defensive systems by
Garstang is proved to be wrong. No Late Bronze Age wall survives. Thanks to the advanced
knowledge of pottery chronology, the dating given to the scanty Late Bronze Age levels from
the mound and the tombs was shown to be incorrect. The most important contribution of
Garstang was the discovery that beneath the Bronze Age levels there was a deep Neolithic
accumulation, usually of the Pre-Pottery stage. He believed that there was a transition to the
use of pottery at the site, but this was a mistake.22 In short, as far as Jericho and its wall are
concerned, he tried to move up the date of the destruction to the fifteenth century B.C., in
order to match the conventional date for Joshua. And thus when he discovered a great mud-
brick city wall system that had collapsed outward in a fiery destruction, which he dated to the
Late Bronze I period, just after I500 B.C., he concluded that he had found the very city walls
destroyed by Joshua according to Jos 6:I5-2I.23
The excavations undertaken by K. M. Kenyon between 1952 and 1958 on behalf of
the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem have in fact brought out many revealing
insights in to the archaeological understanding of Jericho. Our knowledge of pre-historic
Jericho, to a larger extent, comes from her excavations. According to her, Jericho did not exist
by the time Joshua reached the Promised Land in the 13th century BC. The Jericho she
discovered had fortified walls that were burnt, and most likely existed in the 16th century BC
which is far too early for Joshua to conquer.24 Thanks to the vastly improved modern
methods, Kathleen Kenyon showed beyond any doubt that Garstang’s city wall was destroyed
ca 2400 BC, which means, nine hundred years earlier than Garstang claimed. She went on
confirming that there simply was no Late Bronze occupation at Jericho after about 1350 BC
and therefore there was no occupation whatsoever at the site in Joshua’s day.25

21K. M. Kenyon, “Jericho: Archeology of Bronze and Iron Age Jericho”,International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia 4 vols (2nd ed.), Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1986, Olive tree bible software.
22 New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 674.
23
Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p .47.
24 Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, p. 183.
25
Cf. K. M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, London, Ernest Benn Ltd., 1957, pp. 167-72, 256-63.
!6
 Johnson Kuppayil

We will see some of the major results of her excavations. She excavated largely the
site of Tell es Sultan. The mound rises to a maximum height of 21.5 m above the surrounding
plain, and to an average height of 17 m. Bedrock has been reached in a sufficient number of
places to show clearly that all of this height was built by human occupation.26 The earliest
remains, with an oblong structure enclosing a clay platform, belonged to the Natufian culture
were found. The associated flint and bone industries, including a harpoon head and a lunate
found in layer K, are clearly related to the Lower Natufian of Mount Carmel.27
There was obviously an occupational gap between the Proto-Neolithic and the PPNA.
The first widespread settlement which involved hut-like dwellings in the previous periods
was followed by round sunken dwellings of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Period (PPNA). Later
during the PPNA, the inhabitants of Jericho built the first city wall. Dating from
approximately 8000 BC, Kenyon attributed the wall to a communal need for military
defense.28 The PPNA culture of Jericho came to an abrupt end, and it was followed by Pre-
pottery Neolithic B. It arrived at Jericho almost fully developed and the noteworthy contrast
with PPNA was the architecture. The houses were far more elaborate and sophisticated, with
large rooms, rectangular in plan and grouped around courtyards. The discovery of ten human
skulls with features restored in plaster seems to indicate a cult of ancestor worship. Many of
the buried bodies had the cranium removed which could be an indication that the wisdom of
the individual was preserved for the benefit of the descendants. During PPNA and PPNB
cultures at Jericho the settlement assumed the character of a walled town.29
The destruction of PPNB Jericho was followed by a considerable period of erosion.
Then we have Pottery Neolithic A and B (ca. 5200- 4000 B.C). The Pottery Neolithic A
people lived in pit dwellings which were cut in to the PPNB ruins of the earlier town. As per
the present evidence, the PNA people built no free-standing structures. Their PNB successors
eventually began to construct free-standing houses having round and rectilinear walls, with
stone foundations and a superstructure of handmade planoconvex (bun-shaped) mud bricks.

26 New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 675.

27
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 675.
28 Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
29
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 677.
!7
 Johnson Kuppayil

There is a large wall of bun bricks with stone foundations (Wall EO) which may represent a
town wall.30
After another gap of several centuries, in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I era (which
Kenyon calls “Proto-Urban”), humans again centered activities on Tell es-Sultan. This
observation is based on the discovery of a group of shaft tombs which contain multiple
burials. Kenyon attributed both tombs and settlement to nomadic or semi-nomadic groups
newly arrived at the site. On the mound in EB IA and IB there are indications of architectural
reappearance in the form of apsidal-ended houses which could point towards the fortification
wall and a semi-circular tower.31
Again in Early Bronze II-III, the age of major urbanisation of Palestine, Tell es- Sultan
was again fortified, in this instance with the large brick walls B (EB II) and C (EB III) that
underwent as many as 17 phases of construction.32 The growth and prosperity of cities in
Palestine in this period are often attributed to the sphere of influence of the Old Kingdom in
Egypt. Similarly, the decline of the Early Bronze cities coincides with the decline of the Old
Kingdom. Kenyon called this decline in urbanism the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle
Bronze Period.33
The Middle Bronze Age town was surrounded by a succession of mud brick walls.
This defensive structure signals the arrival of a new cultural group, sometimes called
Amorites, Canaanites or Hyksos. An earthen rampart was built up to a height of 17 m above
the surrounding ground level and a wall was built on its top.34 MB II Tell es-Sultan ended in
destruction, probably at the hands of Egyptian forces.35 The final Middle Bronze Age
buildings at Jericho were violently destroyed by fire approximately in 1560 BC. This is
probably related to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt and the subsequent campaigns of
the Pharaohs of the early Eighteenth Dynasty. It was this destruction that Garstang wrongly

30 T. A. Holland “Jericho”, Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols), Olive tree bible software.
31 Paul F. Jacobs, “Jericho”, Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000, Olive
tree bible software.
32 Jacobs, “ Jericho”, Eerdman’s dictionary of the bible. Olive tree bible software.
33
Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
34 Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
35
Jacobs, “ Jericho”, Eerdman’s dictionary of the bible. Olive tree bible software.
!8
 Johnson Kuppayil

attributed to Joshua and Israelites.36 However, thereafter, the site was abandoned, during most
of the second half of the sixteenth century and probably most of the fifteenth.37 The city walls
destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, were not rebuilt, and the city remained
unfortified.38
However, archaeologist Bryant Wood has challenged Kenyon’s findings with a
detailed analysis of pottery and an examination of stratigraphy which have shown walls of
Jericho to have collapsed as described in the Joshua 6:20-24.39 Wood claims that the Middle
Bronze Age destruction of the city must have actually occurred around 1400 BC in the Late
Bronze Age, which brings the archaeological data at Jericho in line with the biblical text.
Thus, Wood redates the Middle Bronze Age destruction of Jericho to the Late Bronze Age. He
provides four lines of evidence to support the conclusion that City IV was destroyed in about
1400 BC, namely: ceramic data, stratigraphical considerations, scarab evidence and a
radiocarbon date.40 Unfortunately, as appealing as Wood’s redating of pottery may seem to be
at first glance, it is very unclear whether he has succeeded in redating the Jericho wall
destruction to c. 1400 BC and thus the time of Joshua’s conquest.41
3. Biblical Understanding on the conquest of Jericho
To know what the text itself speaks is mandatory before jumping into conclusions
based on the studies outside of the text. The pericope has several textual variants. First of all,
we notice that the pericope Josh 6: 1-27 is not the same in MT and LXX. MT Joshua 6 is
approximately 30 percent longer than LXX Josh 6. To be precise LXX lacks Josh 6:3b-4, 6b,
15b, 17b, 20b compared to the MT. The textual criticism of the pericope brings out the
differences between LXX an MT. We will see some of them. The LXX lacks at least 92 words
out of a total of approximately 350 words especially in Josh 6: 1-20.42 “In the face of sons of

36 Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
37 New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 680.
38 Levine, “Jericho”, New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Olive tree bible software.
39 Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, p. 183.
40
Bryant G.Wood,“Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?A NewLook at the Archaeological
Evidence,”Biblical Archaeology Review, 16:02 (March/April 1990), 44-58; online version at
www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/ Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-
Archaeological-Evidence.aspx.
41 Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, p. 236.
42
Eun-Woo Lee, Crossing the Jordan: Diachrony Versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua, New York,
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013, p. 129.
!9
 Johnson Kuppayil

Israel” ( ‫ ִמפּ ְֵנ֖י בּ ְֵנ֣י יִשׂ ְָר ֵ ֑אל‬v.1b) is lacking in the LXX. It could be an “explanatory” plus in the
later Heb. tradition. According to the MT, the first appearance of second person “You” (you
shall encircle (‫ ) ְוסַבּ ֶ ֹ֣תם‬the city) in v.3 is plural while its second appearance is in singular ( you
shall do (‫ )תַ ע ֶ ֲ֖שׂה‬six days). While v.4 (Seven priest shall carry seven trumpets of rams’ horns
before the ark, but on the seventh day you shall encircle the city seven times while the priest
blow on their trumpets) is totally absent in LXX, it is present in MT. The LXX lacks the
clause v.5 of MT and when there is a blast of the ram’s horn.
Regarding the procession around Jericho in 6:6-20 (MT), both the LXX and the MT
differ on the instruction to the priests and the people (vv. 6-10) and in the account of the event
(vv. 11-20). The MT maintains a clear separation between Joshua, the priests, and the people
in the instruction for waging war in vv.6-10. Only Joshua receives the revelation of the ritual
procedures for destroying Jericho (vv. 1-5). As a result the priests require separate liturgical
instruction concerning the ark and the seven rams’ horns (v. 6). Once the priests receive their
instruction from Joshua, they in turn address the people about their role in the procession,
which includes the need for warriors to follow the ark and the remaining people to surround
the city (v. 7). The ritual procession begins immediately—apparently in the camp (vv. 8-9)—
to provide the setting for Joshua’s instruction to the people on how they will wage war by
shouting (v. 10). The address of Joshua to the people during the procession indicates that the
people are not part of the ritual of the ark, the priests, and the warriors. This is also evident in
their absence during the weeklong procession in vv. 11-16a. The LXX presents a different
account of the events in vv. 6-20. The separation between characters breaks down in the LXX
version. The ritual procedures for conquering Jericho require no special revelation to Joshua,
nor are the priests separated out for special instruction. Instead, Joshua’s opening speech to
the priests in vv. 6-9 functions as indirect instruction for the people, not the priests. The
content of the instruction includes all of the ritual procedures concerning the ark, the priests,
the trumpets, the warriors, and the people in an abbreviated form. Only after all the priests and
people are informed of the rituals does Joshua instruct the people on how they will wage war
by shouting (v.10). The inclusion of the people in the ritual procession is underscored in v.13
when the narrator states, “the rest of the crowd [entered] behind the ark of the covenant of the

!10
 Johnson Kuppayil

Lord.” The inclusion of the people in the ritual process requires a clarification on the role of
the priests and the blowing of the trumpets in vv. 9, 13, 20.43
In 6:13 we notice certain striking differences. The MT and the LXX differ in the order
of the march and the procedure of the ritual. The order of the march in the LXX is: the seven
priests/seven trumpets, the ark, the warriors, and the remaining crowd. The order of the march
in the MT is: the warriors, the seven priests/seven rams’ horns, the ark, and the rearguard.
The most striking difference is the focus in the LXX on the people, who are mentioned twice
in the verse (the remaining crowd, ὄχλος marches behind the ark, and they circle the city).
The people are absent in the MT.44
Moreover, the MT and the LXX diverge in the conclusion of the narrative (6, 21-27).
The speeches by Joshua are different indicating that the two versions represent distinct
interpretations of the destruction of Jericho. The comparison of Joshua’s two speeches
clarifies contrasting points of view in the MT and the LXX with regard to non-Israelites, city-
states, and urban life.
We have seen some of the textual variants that exist between LXX and MT on this
pericope which are sufficient enough to show that the destruction of Jericho has not been
interpreted in the same manner. It also shows that the text has not yet assumed a stable form at
least until the 3 or 4 BCE when LXX has been made. Moreover, the whole episode is overtly
cultic, with its complicated ritual and climactic theophany. The story is dominated by cultic
detail: the procession with the ark, the presence of priests, the trumpet blasts and the shout,
are all features that could appear in a purely cultic context as easily as in a military one.45
While we need to recognise that the ancient Near Eastern peoples have regarded religion as
being integral to warfare, as to every aspect of life, in this instance the emphasis is obviously
on cultic miracle. The great symbolic value of the first victory is emphasised by the elaborate
ceremonial, and the detailed account of the thorough destruction.46
The priestly redaction is evident in the pericope especially in vv. 4, 6, 8-9 and 12-13,
where the emphasis is on the role of the priests in carrying and sounding the shofars-

43Thomas B. Dozeman, Joshua 1-12, The Anchor Yale Bible, Vol 6B, London, Yale University Press,
2015, p. 310.
44
Dozeman, Joshua, 1-12, p. 312.
45 Gordon Mitchell, Together in the Land: A reading of the Book of Joshua, Sheffield, JSOT Press,
1993, pp. 51-52.
46
Mitchell, Together in the Land: A reading of the Book of Joshua, p. 52.
!11
 Johnson Kuppayil

(trumpets) which thereby show great interest in cultic and ceremonial aspects concerning the
procession around Jericho. The repetition of the number 7 also signals to the priestly
redaction. In the pre-priestly layers such as vv.,2-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 14-15, 16b-17, 20b-24a, 25
the mention of priests are totally absents the pericope runs around Yahweh, Joshua and
people.47 With its 22 times seven words or the importance given to the number 7, its repetition
of key terms concerning priests and priestly privileges and priestly property, it seems that this
redaction transformed an older narrative (vv.,2-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 14-15, 16b-17, 20b-24a,25) into
the present cultic ceremony.48
Conclusion
Having analysed the archaeological considerations on the conquest of Jericho and the
destruction of its wall, we realise the difficulty to reach a precise conclusion. Some are for
historicity of the conquest and the destruction of the walls, while others are against such a
possibility. When we analysed the pericope Josh 6:1-27 biblically we came across an array of
textual variants between MT and LXX. It shows that no unique interpretation suits the
pericope. Thus the interpretation of the pericope is open. Taking into consideration the
archaeological proofs about the impossibility of a conquest as mentioned in the Bible, and the
textual variants between MT and LXX we are obliged to bypass a literal interpretation of the
pericope. The enormous textual variants do not seem to support a literal reading of the text.
Having said that, it is important to be cautious that an archaeological excavation is not the
final word on a pericope, rather a pericope has to be understood and interpreted in the larger
context of the Bible. As far as our pericope is concerned the interpretation of the text is open.
There is no unique scenario to interpret this pericope. The priestly embellishments of the
pericope favour the possibilities for the reader to have a different way of reading the text like
a symbolic reading of it.

47Michaël N. van der Meer, “ Sound the Trumpet: Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2-25”, in
Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de vos eds., The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology,
Leiden, Brill, 2009, p. 31.
48
Meer, “Sound the Trumpet”, p. 43.
!12
 Johnson Kuppayil

Bibliography

BARLETT, John R. ed., Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, New York, Routledge,
2002.

BROMILEY, Geoffrey W. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 4 vols (2nd ed.), Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1986, Olive tree bible software.

DEVER, William G. Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, Seattle,

University of Washington Press, 1990.

DOZEMAN, Thomas B. Joshua 1-12, The Anchor Yale Bible, Vol 6B, London, Yale
University Press, 2015.

FINKELSTEIN, Israel and SILBERMAN, Neil Asher. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s
New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of its Sacred Texts, New York, Touchstone,
2001.

FREEDMAN, David Noel ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols), Doubleday, Yale University
Press, 1992, Olive tree bible software.

HOLDEN, Joseph M. and GEISLER, Norman. The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and
the Bible: Discoveries Confirm the Reliability of the Scriptures,Oregon, Harvest House, 2013.

KENYON, K. M. Digging Up Jericho, London, Ernest Benn Ltd., 1957.

LEE, Eun-Woo. Crossing the Jordan: Diachrony Versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua,
New York, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

MITCHELL, Gordon. Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua, Sheffield,
JSOT Press, 1993.

MURPHY-O’CONNOR, Jerome. The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from

Earliest Times to 1700 (5th ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.

NEEV, David and EMERY, K.O. The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and Jericho:
Geological Climatological and Archaeological Background, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1995,

PITKÄNEN, Pekka M.A. Joshua, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, Downers Grove,
InterVarsity Press, 2010.

RASMUSSEN, Carl G. Zondervan Atlas of the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010,
Kindle edition.

RUITEN, Jacques van and CORNELIS de Vos, J. eds., The Land of Israel in Bible, History
and Theology, Leiden, Brill, 2009.
!13
 Johnson Kuppayil

SAKENFELD, Katherine Doob. New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols), Nashville,
Abingdon Press, 2009, Olive tree bible software.

STERN, Ephraim ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, vol 2, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society, 1993.

The Chronological Study Bible, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2008.

WOOD, Bryant G. “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?A NewLook at the Archaeological
Evidence,”Biblical Archaeology Review, 16:02 (March/April 1990), 44-58; online version at
www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/ Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-
at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.

!14