How do archaeological findings suggesting Jericho was uninhabited at the time reconcile with Joshua 2:1?

Historical Context and the Archaeological Debate

For many years, scholars have examined Jericho’s archaeological layers to determine when the city was inhabited and destroyed. Early excavations by John Garstang (1930s) suggested a date that could align with the biblical account of Joshua’s conquest around the Late Bronze Age (circa 1400 BC). Later work by Kathleen Kenyon (1950s) concluded that the key destruction level at Jericho dated to around 1550 BC, implying that the site was abandoned or sparsely inhabited at the time Scripture places the events of Joshua 2:1.

However, subsequent research—most notably by Dr. Bryant Wood and others—has challenged Kenyon’s conclusions on both stratigraphy and dating methods. Dr. Wood reexamined pottery styles, grain storage, walls, and other data. He concluded that the city’s destruction layer could well date closer to 1400 BC, which would match the biblical timeline in Joshua. These contradictory findings have prompted lively debate. Some archaeologists suggest that if Kenyon’s dating is too rigidly interpreted, it might overlook evidence that Jericho remained inhabited during much of the Late Bronze Age.

Revisiting Joshua 2:1

In the Berean Standard Bible, Joshua 2:1 records:

“Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim, saying, ‘Go and explore the land, especially Jericho.’ So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.”

This verse indicates a functioning city with a residence owned by someone named Rahab. Skeptics question how the city could have supported such activity if archaeological findings (according to some interpretations) suggest it was unoccupied. Yet, this is precisely where alternate views of the evidence become critical.

Discrepancies in Dating Methods

Several factors may lead to conflicting conclusions in archaeology related to Jericho:

1. Varying Stratigraphic Interpretations: Excavations at Tell es-Sultan (the site of ancient Jericho) involve multiple layers of collapsed walls and settlement remains. Scholars such as Garstang and Kenyon sometimes disagreed on which layer corresponded to the biblical Jericho.

2. Pottery Chronology: Pottery shards often establish a relative dating framework. Garstang and later Dr. Wood argue that the pottery from the destruction level has parallels to 15th-century BC forms, situating the fall of Jericho around Israel’s entry into Canaan.

3. Radiocarbon Dating Challenges: Organic remains (e.g., seeds and charcoal) can yield radiocarbon dates. However, calibration and contamination issues can sometimes produce dates that conflict with pottery-based chronologies. Interpretations of these dates can differ, leading to disagreement over exact timelines.

4. Evidences of a Viable Settlement: Dr. Wood’s reexamination noted an abundance of grain storage, which may indicate a sudden conquest rather than a long siege. Grain would likely have been consumed if the city had been under extended attack or unoccupied. This aligns with the biblical account where Jericho’s conquest happened quickly (Joshua 6:15–20).

Possible Explanations for “Uninhabited” Conclusions

Some excavations focus primarily on major destruction levels, underemphasizing interim habitation arcs. If Kenyon concentrated her excavation on a single stratum representing a specific destruction event, she might have concluded that after a cataclysmic period, no significant city existed on that layer. Yet, remains from slightly later or earlier layers could point to reoccupation.

Additionally, the term “uninhabited” can be misleading if it suggests the entire tell was deserted. Sites in the ancient Near East sometimes had smaller or shifting population centers after a major destruction, making it harder to establish a continuous chain of evidence. Scholars such as Dr. Wood propose that a layer corresponding to Rahab’s city may have been overlooked or mislabeled, instead of truly absent.

Correlating Scripture with Broader Archaeological Evidence

Jericho is a prominent example of the complexities in biblical archaeology. Similar discussions arise with sites like Ai, Heshbon, and Hazor. In some instances, layers traditionally dated to earlier periods are reassessed, and new pottery or coin findings shift consensus. Such reevaluation occurs whenever archaeologists refine or expand their excavation strategies, incorporate improved dating methods, or reexamine existing artifacts.

Moreover, many archaeological discoveries do align consistently with scriptural narratives. Tel Dan’s inscription (attesting to the House of David), Hezekiah’s Tunnel in Jerusalem, the Siloam Inscription, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (affirming textual continuity of the Old Testament) all demonstrate broad archaeological support for biblical narratives. Though challenges remain in dating certain sites, these examples illustrate that archaeology does not universally contradict the biblical record.

Harmonizing the Narrative with Evidence

1. Acknowledging Disputed Dating: The data on Jericho is not entirely unanimous. Ongoing research, like that of Dr. Bryant Wood, supports a late date for Jericho’s destruction (circa 1400 BC). This timeframe reconciles effectively with the Exodus and Conquest accounts found in the Bible.

2. Considering Partial Occupation: Even if some archaeologists claim Jericho lacked a robust population, Scripture’s account in Joshua 2 does not demand a massive metropolis. The text references a functioning settlement with city walls and at least one designated house—fitting a range of possible occupation levels, including a fortified settlement smaller than at its peak.

3. Evidential Weight of Other Conquest Narratives: The broader biblical account of Israel’s conquests includes multiple cities and tribal encounters (Joshua 6–12). Many of these have corresponding archaeological layers indicative of Late Bronze Age destruction and rebuilding phases. Jericho stands as part of this collective pattern.

4. Historical Reliability of Biblical Texts: Archeologists who adhere to a high view of the Old Testament’s historicity point to the consistency of place names, titles, and cultural practices described in Scripture. These details often match the known contexts of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Such congruence, along with the recognized unity of the biblical manuscripts, supports the reliability of Joshua’s descriptions.

Encouragement for Further Study

For those examining potential conflicts between archaeology and the biblical text, numerous resources offer balanced assessments. Scholars suggest studying both primary excavation reports (such as Kenyon’s and Garstang’s) and more recent reanalyses by Dr. Bryant Wood and others. Journals like the “Biblical Archaeology Review” and publications on pottery typology in the Levant provide additional insight. Likewise, specialized organizations that explore ancient Near Eastern archaeology in relation to Scripture can guide deeper exploration and understanding.

Conclusion

Archaeological findings at Jericho do not necessarily invalidate Joshua 2:1. While Kenyon’s dating suggests an earlier destruction, subsequent investigations point toward reoccupation periods that align with the biblical narrative. Differences in stratigraphy, pottery dating, and radiocarbon analysis can lead to conflicting conclusions about the city’s habitation.

Nevertheless, the overall body of evidence—when carefully reexamined—allows for a cohesive reading of Scripture alongside archaeology. As with many historical questions, ongoing study often refines our understanding of ancient events. Jericho stands as a compelling example of how multiple lines of research can converge to affirm rather than contradict the biblical record.