Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Introduction: The Intersection of Archaeology and Biblical Faith

Archaeology plays a pivotal role in illuminating the historical context of the Bible. One of the most debated sites in biblical archaeology is Jericho, famously associated with the Israelite conquest under Joshua (Joshua 6). This ancient city, situated near the Jordan River, has been the subject of extensive excavation and scholarly debate. While liberal and secular scholars often question the biblical account of Jericho’s destruction, conservative evangelical scholars, relying on a literal interpretation of Scripture, assert that archaeological evidence aligns with the biblical narrative.

This article examines Jericho’s history, the archaeological findings, and their alignment with the Bible, employing a conservative evangelical lens. By focusing on the Bible’s inerrancy, we explore how Jericho exemplifies the fulfillment of divine promises and underscores Jehovah’s sovereignty.

The Biblical Account of Jericho’s Conquest

The fall of Jericho, recorded in Joshua 6, is among the most dramatic events in the Bible. According to the narrative, after crossing the Jordan River, the Israelites besieged the fortified city. For six days, they marched around Jericho, and on the seventh day, they encircled it seven times. When the priests blew their trumpets and the people shouted, the city walls collapsed by divine intervention. This event, dated to approximately 1406 B.C.E. based on the conservative chronology, marked the beginning of Israel’s conquest of Canaan.

The Bible explicitly attributes Jericho’s fall to Jehovah’s power, not military strategy. Joshua 6:2 records Jehovah’s words: “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.” The account further emphasizes that the city and its contents were placed under a ḥerem (a ban), reserved for destruction or consecration to Jehovah, demonstrating Israel’s obedience to divine commands.

Historical Context: Jericho in the Late Bronze Age

Jericho, one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world, had a long history before its destruction by the Israelites. Known as Tell es-Sultan in archaeological terminology, it was a prominent city during the Early Bronze Age and continued to thrive through the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages.

During the Late Bronze Age, Jericho was heavily fortified. Excavations have revealed evidence of substantial defensive structures, including a massive mudbrick wall atop a stone retaining wall. The city was strategically located near major trade routes and fertile agricultural land, making it a valuable target for conquest.

The Archaeological Excavations at Jericho

Jericho has been excavated by several prominent archaeologists, including Charles Warren (1868), Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger (1907–1911), John Garstang (1930–1936), and Kathleen Kenyon (1952–1958). Each of these excavations has contributed to our understanding of Jericho’s history, but the interpretation of their findings has led to significant controversy.

John Garstang’s Findings

John Garstang, a British archaeologist, conducted extensive excavations at Jericho during the 1930s. Garstang identified a layer of destruction that he dated to around 1400 B.C.E., aligning with the biblical date for the conquest. He described the collapsed mudbrick walls as consistent with the account in Joshua 6, where the walls “fell down flat” (Joshua 6:20). Garstang concluded that Jericho’s destruction was sudden and catastrophic, supporting the biblical narrative.

Garstang also uncovered evidence of a massive fire that destroyed the city, consistent with Joshua 6:24: “Then they burned the whole city and everything in it.” His findings were hailed by many conservative scholars as confirmation of the biblical account.

Kathleen Kenyon’s Reassessment

In the 1950s, Kathleen Kenyon re-examined Jericho using more advanced stratigraphic techniques. She concluded that the city’s walls had been destroyed around 1550 B.C.E., during the Middle Bronze Age, and that Jericho was uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age when the biblical conquest is traditionally dated. This led many liberal scholars to dismiss the biblical account as historically inaccurate.

However, Kenyon’s conclusions were based on her interpretation of pottery styles and stratigraphy, which are not without controversy. Critics argue that her dating methods were overly reliant on negative evidence—the absence of specific Late Bronze Age pottery types—rather than positive evidence. Moreover, her interpretation has been challenged by subsequent studies, particularly those by Bryant G. Wood.

Bryant G. Wood’s Re-Evaluation

Bryant G. Wood, a conservative evangelical archaeologist, has conducted a detailed re-evaluation of Kenyon’s findings. Wood argues that the evidence uncovered by Kenyon, when properly interpreted, supports a destruction date of around 1406 B.C.E. He highlights several key findings:

Collapsed Walls: The fallen mudbrick walls discovered by both Garstang and Kenyon align with the biblical description of the walls collapsing outward, allowing the Israelites to enter the city (Joshua 6:20).
Burned Remains: The layer of ash and debris, indicating a massive fire, corresponds with the biblical account of the city being burned (Joshua 6:24).
Storage Jars: Kenyon found jars filled with grain, a rare find in archaeological sites. This suggests that Jericho fell shortly after harvest, consistent with Joshua 3:15, which states that the Jordan River was at flood stage during the Israelite crossing—a time associated with the barley harvest.

Wood’s re-evaluation underscores the alignment between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative, reaffirming the historicity of the conquest.

Reconciling Archaeology and Biblical Chronology

The apparent discrepancy between Kenyon’s conclusions and the biblical account has fueled debates among scholars. However, the conservative evangelical perspective holds that the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is inerrant and historically accurate. Any apparent conflicts between Scripture and archaeology are attributed to limitations in the archaeological record or errors in interpretation.

The Problem of Archaeological Gaps

Archaeology is an inherently fragmentary discipline. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jericho’s relatively small size and the limited scope of excavations mean that much of its history remains uncovered. As Alfred J. Hoerth observes in Archaeology and the Old Testament, “archaeology rarely provides a complete picture of ancient events and must be interpreted cautiously.” Even with that word of caution, we have discovered literally tens of thousands of artifacts that have supported the Bible’s authenticity, accuracy, and reliability. Jericho has been one of the most excavated sites in the Bible lands and we can be most certain that the Exodus was in 1446 B.C.E. and the Israelites crossed the Jordan and brought down the walls of Jericho in 1406 B.C.E.

The Role of Presuppositions

Interpretations of archaeological data are deeply influenced by the presuppositions held by the researcher. Liberal scholars often approach the Bible as a human document, viewing it as a collection of myths, legends, or exaggerated accounts. Their interpretations often aim to undermine the Bible’s historical reliability because, for them, it is not regarded as the inspired Word of God. Consequently, they feel no obligation to reconcile their findings with Scripture, freely disregarding it as a source of truth when it conflicts with their conclusions.

Conservative scholars, on the other hand, begin with the conviction that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God and therefore historically accurate. This belief informs their approach to both Scripture and the archaeological record. However, it is incorrect to assert that conservative scholars ignore evidence or distort findings to fit preconceived conclusions. Rather, they rigorously follow the evidence where it leads, while maintaining confidence that the Bible will ultimately be vindicated as true.

History has repeatedly validated this confidence. For instance, when Kathleen Kenyon’s findings initially seemed to challenge the biblical account of Jericho, conservative scholars acknowledged the apparent discrepancy but maintained that the evidence was incomplete. This patient confidence bore fruit when Bryant G. Wood reevaluated Kenyon’s data and demonstrated that it could be reconciled with the Bible’s chronology.

Similarly, in the 19th century, skeptics dismissed the biblical account of Belshazzar, claiming there was no historical record of such a Babylonian king. However, archaeological discoveries eventually revealed that Belshazzar was a co-regent under his father, Nabonidus. The Bible was proven accurate, not only in naming Belshazzar but also in describing his role as “king” during the fall of Babylon (Daniel 5). Another example is the skepticism surrounding Shalmaneser, a king mentioned in the Bible (e.g., 2 Kings 17:3). Critics argued that he was a fictional figure, only for later discoveries to confirm his existence and reign.

These examples illustrate that conservative scholars have not simply interpreted the Bible in isolation but have engaged with archaeological evidence, confident that further discoveries will align with Scripture. This is not blind faith but a reasoned trust in the reliability of the Bible, informed by a long history of such confirmations. Indeed, archaeology often lags behind the biblical record, as the fragmentary nature of archaeological data means that many pieces of evidence remain undiscovered. Nevertheless, when such evidence does emerge, it has consistently validated the biblical text.

Theological Implications of Jericho’s Fall

The destruction of Jericho holds profound theological significance. It demonstrates Jehovah’s faithfulness in fulfilling His promises to Israel. As recorded in Joshua 1:3, Jehovah assured Joshua, “I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.” The miraculous fall of Jericho underscores that the conquest of Canaan was not achieved by human might but by divine intervention.

Moreover, the account of Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute who hid the Israelite spies and was spared during the destruction (Joshua 2; 6:22–25), highlights Jehovah’s mercy and the inclusiveness of His covenant. Rahab’s faith in Jehovah (Joshua 2:11) led to her inclusion in the lineage of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5), illustrating that salvation is available to all who trust in Him.

Conclusion: Affirming the Bible’s Historical Reliability

The archaeological evidence from Jericho, while subject to interpretation, aligns with the biblical account when viewed through a conservative evangelical lens. The findings of Garstang and Wood, in particular, provide compelling support for the historicity of the conquest as described in Joshua 6. While debates will undoubtedly continue, the testimony of Scripture remains unwavering: Jericho’s walls fell by the power of Jehovah, fulfilling His promises to Israel and demonstrating His sovereignty over history.

You May Also Enjoy

What Have Archaeologists Found that Shows that Jericho Was Captured in a Short Time?

Jericho, City by the Jordan River

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).