How can Jericho be mentioned again (Joshua 16:1) if Joshua 6 supposedly left the city in total ruins? Historical Context of Jericho’s Destruction Jericho’s fall in the days of Joshua (Joshua 6) describes a decisive victory that left the city in ruins. The text states that the walls “collapsed flat,” and it records a curse against anyone who would rebuild the city (Joshua 6:26). From a straightforward reading within a historical timeline consistent with Ussher’s chronology—placing the conquest around the mid-fifteenth century BC—Jericho’s destruction is presented as sudden, thorough, and divinely orchestrated. Yet, when Joshua 16:1 mentions Jericho again—“The allotment for the descendants of Joseph went out from the Jordan at Jericho”—some have questioned how a city said to be in “total ruins” can appear once more. The following sections examine this issue comprehensively, taking into account the naming conventions and ongoing references to sites in the biblical narrative, as well as potential archaeological and cultural explanations. Name Continuation and Regional References Even though the walls of Jericho were broken down, names of cities and regions often persisted long after their physical destruction. Biblical texts regularly refer to a location by its historic name even if that site has changed status or population. Joshua 16:1 describes tribal territory boundaries, referencing a landmark that was still identifiable in geographical terms. This naming convention does not necessarily imply that the city was fully inhabited or fortified. Rather, it underscores the region’s enduring identity, much like how ancient tells (mounds) retain their names to the present day. In many parts of Scripture, “Jericho” can denote the broader vicinity rather than a thriving, walled metropolis. Second Kings 2:4, for instance, references Elisha passing through Jericho when traveling with Elijah, yet the text need not suggest that Jericho stood as a fully reestablished city. Instead, it points to the continued recognition of the location’s name. Evidence of a Small-Scale Return or Occupation Another explanation is that Jericho’s prohibition on rebuilding (Joshua 6:26) did not preclude minor habitations or outposts. Archaeological evidence from Tell es-Sultan (the most commonly identified site for ancient Jericho) reveals multiple layers of destruction and rebuilding. Some scholars, such as John Garstang in the 1930s, argued that they found walls from the time of Joshua’s conquest; later reevaluations by Kathleen Kenyon in the mid-20th century also suggested strong markers of a significant destruction layer. While these layers remain debated in modern archaeology, the consensus is that the site went through cycles of settlement, destruction, and limited resettlement. Joshua 16:1 does not speak of a bustling city with fortifications; it merely groups Jericho with border points for the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants. This usage can indicate either minimal habitation or simply the acknowledgment of the area where Jericho once stood, now used as a geographical marker for boundary lines. Later Attempts to Rebuild and the Curse’s Consequences First Kings 16:34 states that Hiel of Bethel later rebuilt Jericho, at great personal cost: “He laid its foundations at the cost of Abiram his firstborn.” This verse supports that any attempt to restore Jericho as a fortified city was in direct defiance of Joshua’s curse. By that point, the “mention” of Jericho even before Hiel’s work would not require the city to be intact; it could continue as a small settlement or as farmland still bearing the name. Over time, partial occupation or peripheral dwellings may have kept the name alive, setting the stage for Hiel’s eventual (and ill-fated) rebuilding program. Geographical and Textual Indicators The Jordan Rift Valley location—near the northern end of the Dead Sea—makes Jericho significant for travel and trade even if its walls lay desolate. The biblical text in Joshua 16:1 specifically mentions the boundary “from the Jordan at Jericho”, delineating tribal lands to the west. This phrasing suggests a reference to the region’s association with the Jordan crossing, rather than a statement that Jericho’s walls were back in place. This pattern is not unusual elsewhere in Scripture. Many ancient sites are referenced repeatedly for directional or historical reasons, often long after their primary destruction. For example, Genesis 19:28 references the smoldering site of Sodom yet continues to locate it in subsequent geography. Similarly, the identification of Jericho’s region—ruined or not—remained pertinent to Israel’s land distribution. Archaeological Findings and Young-Earth Considerations Working from a young-earth viewpoint and a biblical timeline suggests that Jericho’s destruction aligns with the Exodus and Conquest dating. Archaeologists have debated the exact layers corresponding to Joshua’s entry into Canaan. Supporters of a fifteenth-century BC destruction date, citing evidence such as scarab finds and grain storage remains in layers at Tell es-Sultan, argue that the biblical chronology is consistent with a massive city-wide demolition. A mention of Jericho in Joshua 16:1 can still align with these findings. The region could remain known by its original name, even if the once-mighty fortifications had crumbled. The continued identification of ancient mounds as “the place of Jericho” provides a real-world parallel: many tells keep their ancient names despite long periods of ruin. Theological and Textual Implications From a theological standpoint, the curse in Joshua 6:26 served as a solemn warning. Its primary purpose was to prohibit reestablishing the city as a fortress aligned with pagan practices. Yet Scripture does not forbid the mention of the city’s location or the minimal settlement of the area. The record of Jericho’s name in later passages highlights that even the cursed ground can still serve as a living reminder of God’s judgment and deliverance rather than a contradiction in the biblical text. Additionally, the consistent naming throughout Scripture underscores the unity of the biblical narrative. As commentators have observed, the Bible’s use of established landmarks for boundary descriptions in Joshua ensures continuity with future historical accounts. Whether the city lay in ruins or had a small population, the region’s identity as “Jericho” remained intact. Conclusion Jericho’s reappearance in Joshua 16:1 is best understood by recognizing that “Jericho” can denote the region or a small settlement bearing that historic name. The thorough destruction under Joshua does not conflict with a subsequent reference in tribal allocation. Villages, small populations, or simply the geographical label could persist without violating the curse imposed in Joshua 6:26. Outside historical and archaeological findings show a pattern of layered destruction and minor rebuilding in the ancient Near East, aligning with the straightforward reading of Scripture. The mention of Jericho in Joshua 16:1 is not a contradiction but rather a reflection of how biblical texts consistently refer to recognizable locales, even when they have been reduced to ruins. This cohesive narrative remains intact, pointing to the reliability of the biblical record. |
    |