Evidence for the Old Testament Miracles: The Jericho Wall

Evidence for Old Testament Miracles  ·  Post 6

When the Walls Came Down:
The Fall of Jericho

Archaeology, pottery, burned grain, and a section of wall still standing after 3,400 years

Old Testament Series · Apologetics · Biblical Archaeology

By Rajkumar Richard W.J.F

There is a story that every Christian child knows. For six days, the army of Israel marched silently around the city of Jericho -- once each day, saying nothing, blowing no horn, offering no threat. On the seventh day, they marched seven times. Then the priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and the walls of one of the most fortified cities in the ancient Near East collapsed. The army walked straight in. The city burned. Only one family survived -- a woman named Rahab, whose house was built into the city wall itself, and who had hidden Israel's spies and hung a scarlet cord from her window.

Skeptics have had a field day with this account. Walls do not fall because people march around them and shout. And for much of the twentieth century, the dominant scholarly view was that there was no walled city at Jericho at the time of Joshua at all -- making the whole account, in the words of archaeologist William Dever, a case of Joshua destroying a city that was not even there.

But archaeology tells a far more interesting story than that. When the evidence is examined carefully -- not through a single scholar's narrow trench, but across more than a century of excavation -- it becomes clear that Jericho was exactly the kind of city the Bible describes: heavily fortified, destroyed suddenly, burned completely, and deserted at a date that lines up with Joshua's campaigns. Every detail in the Joshua narrative that can be tested archaeologically has been confirmed. That is a remarkable thing. And it demands a serious look.

"So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they captured the city."

Joshua 6:20 (ESV)

The Hebrew phrase translated "fell down flat" carries the specific sense of the wall falling "beneath itself" -- collapsing downward and outward at its own base. That is a precise physical description. And it is precisely what the archaeological record shows.

Evidence 1

A Century of Excavations at Tell es-Sultan

Ancient Jericho has been dug up more times than almost any other site in the biblical world. What the archaeologists found -- and how they disagreed about what it means -- is the heart of the Jericho debate.

Ancient Jericho sits at a site called Tell es-Sultan, just west of the Jordan River near the Ein es-Sultan spring. No archaeologist disputes that this mound is biblical Jericho. The question has never been whether this is the right site -- it is. The question is how to date what was found there, and that question has driven one of the longest-running debates in the history of biblical archaeology.¹

Excavation	Period	Key Findings	Date of Destruction Proposed
Charles Warren	1868	First recorded excavation of the site; limited soundings	Not determined
Ernst Sellin & Carl Watzinger	1907-1909, 1911	Found mudbrick wall remains and houses built against the north wall; initially dated destruction to Late Bronze Age, later revised to Middle Bronze Age	Revised to ~1550 BC
John Garstang	1930-1936	Found fallen walls, massive burn layer, grain storage jars; dated destruction to ~1400 BC in line with biblical chronology	~1400 BC (Late Bronze Age)
Kathleen Kenyon	1952-1958	Confirmed fallen walls and burn layer; found grain in storage jars; redated destruction to ~1550 BC based on absence of Cypriot imported pottery	~1550 BC (Middle Bronze Age)
Bryant Wood (reanalysis)	1990	Reexamined Kenyon's own pottery evidence; argued local pottery, scarabs, and stratigraphy support a ~1400 BC date matching biblical timeline	~1400 BC (Late Bronze Age I)
Italian-Palestinian Expedition	1997-2000, 2009-2017	Confirmed mudbrick wall collapse outward; found revetment wall intact with collapsed bricks piled at its base; continued stratigraphic investigation	Ongoing research

The Physical Evidence Everyone Agrees On

Despite their disagreement over dating, every major excavator of Jericho has confirmed the same physical findings. Garstang found them. Kenyon confirmed them. The Italian-Palestinian expedition documented them again in the 1990s. The physical facts of the destruction of City IV at Tell es-Sultan are not in dispute:

A Heavily Fortified City

Jericho's defenses consisted of a stone revetment wall at the base of the mound, approximately 12-15 feet high, supporting a plastered earthen rampart. On top of the rampart sat a mudbrick city wall roughly 13-15 feet thick and 20-26 feet high. A second mudbrick wall higher up enclosed the inner city. Total height from ground level to the top of the inner wall reached an estimated 25-30 feet. This is exactly the kind of formidable fortification Joshua 6:1 describes.²

Walls That Fell Outward

The mudbrick wall did not fall inward as it would from a battering ram or undermining. It collapsed outward, down the slope of the rampart, piling up at the base of the stone revetment wall. Kenyon herself recorded "fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment" on the west side of the tell. This outward collapse is rare in ancient sieges and formed a natural ramp directly into the city.³

A Massive Destruction by Fire

The entire city was burned completely. Kenyon's excavation report records: "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt." A burn layer in some areas reached nearly a meter deep.⁴

A Small City -- Right Size for Marching

The upper city of Jericho enclosed approximately 6 acres. Including the full fortification system, the total area was roughly 9 acres. An army could march around a 9-acre site seven times in a single day. Joshua 6:15 specifies that on the seventh day, Israel marched around the city seven times before the walls fell. The site dimensions match the narrative exactly.

Verdict: Every excavator agrees -- the city was heavily fortified, its walls fell outward, and it was destroyed by a massive fire. The physical facts of Joshua 6 are confirmed by archaeology.

Evidence 2

The Dating Debate: Kenyon vs. Wood

The entire controversy over Jericho comes down to one question: when did City IV burn? Kathleen Kenyon said 1550 BC. Bryant Wood said 1400 BC. And Wood's case, built from Kenyon's own evidence, has never been adequately refuted.

How Kenyon Dated the Destruction to 1550 BC

Kathleen Kenyon was one of the most skilled archaeologists of the twentieth century, and her development of stratigraphic excavation methods transformed the field. Her conclusion that Jericho was destroyed around 1550 BC was not careless. But it rested on a single, significant argument: the absence of a specific type of imported Cypriot pottery known to be common in Canaan around 1400 BC. She had not found any in her narrow excavation trenches. She concluded, therefore, that the city could not have survived into the Late Bronze Age when that pottery was in use.⁵

This is what logicians call an "argument from absence" -- reasoning from the fact that something was not found to the conclusion that it did not exist. It is one of the weakest forms of argument in archaeology, and for good reason: Kenyon dug in two narrow 8x8 meter squares out of a 9-acre site. The absence of expensive imported pottery in those two squares cannot establish its absence from the city as a whole.

Bryant Wood's Reanalysis of Kenyon's Own Evidence

In 1990, Dr. Bryant Wood -- a specialist in Canaanite pottery of the Late Bronze Age -- published a landmark article in Biblical Archaeology Review titled "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" that turned the Jericho debate on its head.⁶ Wood went back to the pottery, the scarabs, and the stratigraphy that Kenyon and Garstang had themselves excavated and published. His findings were striking.

Bryant Wood's Four Lines of Evidence for a 1400 BC Destruction

Local Pottery

Garstang found pottery in the City IV destruction layer that Wood identified as Late Bronze I in type -- that is, pottery consistent with a date around 1400 BC, not 1550 BC. Critically, this was locally produced pottery, not imported luxury ware. A border city like Jericho would naturally have less imported Cypriot pottery than coastal trading centres. Kenyon's argument from the absence of imports ignored the evidence of the local pottery that was present.⁷

Scarab Evidence

Garstang recovered Egyptian scarabs from the cemetery at Jericho -- small amulets bearing royal cartouches. The scarabs found included those of Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III, and Amenhotep III -- pharaohs who reigned between approximately 1500 and 1352 BC. The series of scarabs ends with Amenhotep III, who reigned until around 1352 BC. As Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer observed, if the city had survived into the 13th century BC, one would expect to find scarabs from the many pharaohs who reigned after Amenhotep III -- but there are none. The cemetery was clearly abandoned around 1400 BC.⁸

Cypriot Pottery

Garstang actually recorded finding imitation Cypriot bichrome pottery in association with the City IV destruction layer. At the time of his excavation, the significance of this pottery type as a Late Bronze I indicator had not yet been recognized, so it was published without special emphasis. Wood identified it in Garstang's records and noted that this pottery type is precisely what one would expect in a Late Bronze I context -- that is, around 1400 BC. Kenyon ignored this evidence in her own analysis.⁹

Carbon-14 Dating

Wood reported that a charcoal sample from the City IV destruction layer had been carbon-14 dated by the British Museum to 1410 BC, plus or minus 40 years. It was later established that the British Museum's radiocarbon apparatus had calibration errors during that period, so this specific date is not reliable on its own. However, the first three lines of evidence -- pottery, scarabs, and imitation Cypriot ware -- remain intact and have never been adequately refuted by Kenyon's defenders.¹⁰

"When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho with the biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction of Jericho, we find remarkable agreement. The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative is substantial."

-- Dr. Bryant G. Wood, Biblical Archaeology Review (1990); quoted in Deseret News, February 21, 1990

Kenyon was a more careful archaeologist than Garstang. Shouldn't her conclusions take priority?

Kenyon's stratigraphic methods were genuinely more advanced than Garstang's -- nobody disputes that. But Wood's argument is not that Kenyon's methods were wrong. His argument is that her conclusion was based on a logical error: reasoning from the absence of evidence in two small trenches to a conclusion about an entire city. More importantly, Wood's reanalysis used Kenyon's own published data -- the pottery reports she produced -- and showed that the evidence she herself uncovered was consistent with a Late Bronze I date of around 1400 BC. A better method does not automatically produce a better conclusion if the reasoning from the evidence is flawed.

Verdict: Wood's reanalysis of Kenyon's own evidence -- pottery, scarabs, and imitation Cypriot ware -- provides a strong case for dating the destruction of Jericho to approximately 1400 BC, consistent with the biblical timeline.

Evidence 3

The Burned Grain Jars: A Unique Find in the Annals of Archaeology

Both Garstang and Kenyon found large storage jars full of grain, caught in the fire that destroyed the city. Biblical Archaeology Review called it unique. The explanation comes directly from the Book of Joshua.

Of all the physical evidence for the fall of Jericho, the burned grain jars may be the most revealing. Both John Garstang and Kathleen Kenyon -- excavators who disagreed sharply on the date of the city's destruction -- independently found the same thing in the ruins of City IV: large storage jars, full of grain, scorched and preserved in the ashes of the destruction fire. Kenyon reported recovering over six bushels of grain in a single excavation season alone.¹¹

Biblical Archaeology Review summarized the significance of this find directly: "The most abundant item found in the destruction, apart from pottery, was grain. This is unique in the annals of Palestinian archaeology. Perhaps a jar or two might be found, but to find such an extensive amount of grain is exceptional."¹²

Three Things the Grain Jars Prove

The Siege Was Short

A heavily fortified city with adequate food and water could hold out for months, sometimes years. Ancient sieges were designed to starve defenders into surrender. If the fall of Jericho had been a normal siege, the grain would have been consumed before the city fell. The jars were full. Joshua 6 describes a siege of seven days. Only a seven-day siege leaves the grain stores untouched -- and that is exactly what the archaeology shows.

The Attack Came at Harvest Time

The grain jars were full because the spring harvest had just been brought in. Three separate details in the biblical narrative independently confirm a spring attack: Rahab was drying freshly harvested flax on her roof (Joshua 2:6); the Jordan River was in flood at harvest time when Israel crossed it (Joshua 3:15); and Israel celebrated Passover just before attacking the city (Joshua 5:10). The full grain jars confirm all three details simultaneously.

The Grain Was Not Looted

Grain was one of the most valuable commodities in the ancient world. Any conquering army's first act after taking a city was to plunder its food stores. At Jericho, the grain was not plundered. It was left in the jars and burned. The Bible explains why. GOD commanded through Joshua that Jericho was to be entirely devoted to HIM -- a practice called herem, or the ban. No plunder was to be taken (Joshua 6:17-19). The burned, unplundered grain is an archaeological fingerprint of that specific divine command.¹³

A Combination Found Nowhere Else

No other excavated site in Palestinian archaeology has produced this combination: a city destroyed by sudden, catastrophic fire, with full grain jars left unplundered, at harvest time, after a very short siege. The combination is unique -- and it matches the Joshua 6 account in every detail simultaneously. The probability of this combination arising by coincidence is extraordinarily small.

Verdict: The burned grain jars confirm the short siege, the spring timing, and the command not to plunder -- three independently verifiable details of the Joshua account confirmed by a single unique find.

Evidence 4

Rahab's House: A Section of Wall Still Standing

The walls of Jericho fell everywhere -- except in one specific location on the northern side of the city, where a section of mudbrick wall still stood eight feet high, with houses built against it.

The story of Rahab is one of the most beautiful in the entire Old Testament. A Canaanite woman living in Jericho -- a woman with a damaged reputation, an outsider in every sense -- heard what the GOD of Israel had done in Egypt and at the Jordan River, and she believed. She hid the Israelite spies sent by Joshua, helped them escape, and asked for one thing in return: that her family would be spared when the walls came down. The spies promised. The sign was a scarlet cord hung from her window (Joshua 2:18-19).

Joshua 2:15 describes Rahab's house as being built into the city wall itself -- literally against the wall, with the wall forming the rear of her dwelling. When every other section of Jericho's wall collapsed outward on the day of the great shout, her section of wall did not fall. her family survived. She was brought out safely and incorporated into the people of Israel (Joshua 6:22-25).

What makes this detail so remarkable is what the German excavation of 1907-1909 found at the northern end of the tell. Archaeologists Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger documented a specific section of the lower city wall that did not fall with the rest of the perimeter. A portion of mudbrick wall on the north side remained standing to a height of approximately eight feet. And against that standing section of wall, they found houses still intact.¹⁴

"At the north end of the tell of Jericho, archaeologists made some astounding discoveries that seem to relate to Rahab. The German excavation of 1907-1909 found that on the north a short stretch of the lower city wall did not fall as everywhere else. A portion of that mudbrick wall was still standing to a height of over two metres (eight feet). What is more, there were houses built against the wall!"

-- Dr. Bryant G. Wood, "The Walls of Jericho," Associates for Biblical Research, biblearchaeology.org

Wood notes that since the city wall formed the back wall of these houses -- exactly as Joshua 2:15 describes Rahab's house -- the spies could easily have let themselves down from the window by a rope, as the biblical account describes. The description in Joshua 2:15, translated literally, reads: "Her house was against the vertical surface of the city wall, and in the city wall she lived." The German excavation found precisely this: houses built against and into the standing wall on the north side of the city.¹⁵

If GOD used an earthquake to bring down the walls of Jericho -- a mechanism consistent with the geological record of seismic activity in the Jordan Valley -- the same earthquake could have protected one specific section of the northern wall while bringing down the rest. Whether the mechanism was seismic or purely miraculous, the result is the same: the wall fell everywhere except where HE had promised it would stand.

Verdict: A standing section of wall with houses built against it, found on the north side of Jericho by the 1907-1909 German excavation, corresponds precisely with the biblical description of Rahab's house location.

Evidence 5

Biblical and Theological Evidence

The fall of Jericho is treated as literal history by the New Testament, carries a specific theological message about GOD's sovereignty, and produced one of the most remarkable women in the lineage of Jesus HIMSELF.

Hebrews 11 -- Faith Hall of Fame

The author of Hebrews, in the great roll call of faith in Hebrews 11, devotes two specific verses to the fall of Jericho: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace" (Hebrews 11:30-31). The author places this alongside Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, Moses' departure from Egypt, and the crossing of the Red Sea -- all treated as concrete historical events that demonstrate the nature of genuine faith in GOD.

If the fall of Jericho were legend or exaggeration, the author's theological argument would collapse. He is not offering Israel's legends as examples of faith. He is pointing to events that actually happened as demonstrations that GOD rewards those who trust HIM and obey HIM even when HIS instructions seem humanly absurd. An ordinary general would never march his army in silence around a city for a week. It made no military sense. It was an act of faith -- and the walls came down.

Rahab in the Lineage of Jesus Christ

The theological significance of Rahab does not end at Jericho. Matthew 1:5 records her name in the genealogy of Jesus Christ: "Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab." A Canaanite woman, a former prostitute from a city under divine judgment, who believed in the GOD of Israel on the basis of what she had heard -- she became an ancestor of JESUS HIMSELF. HER story is not a footnote. It is a preview of the Gospel: that salvation is available to anyone, of any background, any history, any nationality, who places genuine faith in the living GOD.

James 2:25 also cites Rahab as a demonstration that genuine faith produces action: "And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" James is not saying she was saved by her works. He is saying her works proved her faith was real. She did not merely believe -- she acted on what she believed, at personal risk, in a way that changed history.

Joshua's Curse and Its Fulfillment

After the destruction of Jericho, Joshua pronounced a solemn curse over the site: "Cursed before the LORD be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho. At the cost of his firstborn shall he lay its foundation, and at the cost of his youngest son shall he set up its gates" (Joshua 6:26). Archaeology confirms that Jericho was not rebuilt as a significant fortified city for an extended period after its destruction. And 1 Kings 16:34 records the precise fulfillment of this curse centuries later: "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 the son of Nun." The fulfillment of a specific, named curse across centuries of history is not the stuff of legend. It is the fingerprint of a GOD who keeps HIS word.

The walls fell because of an earthquake, not because GOD made them fall. That removes the miracle.

Both Garstang and Kenyon found evidence of earthquake activity associated with the destruction of Jericho. An earthquake is the most likely natural mechanism for the kind of sudden, outward collapse documented by every excavator. But an earthquake that strikes at the precise moment seven trumpets sound and a vast crowd shouts -- after seven days of silent marching, on the seventh circuit of the seventh day -- is not a coincidence. It is GOD's sovereign use of a natural mechanism at the exact moment HE chose. The miracle is not diminished by the mechanism. It is heightened by the precision of its timing. And the one section of wall that was promised to survive -- Rahab's section on the north -- did survive the same earthquake that brought down the rest. That is not geology. That is GOD.

The biblical account is a nationalistic legend designed to justify Israel's conquest of Canaan. It should not be taken as history.

This objection proves too little and asks too much. The same argument could be applied to any ancient national narrative -- and it would disqualify most of ancient history from serious study. More importantly, the Joshua narrative does not behave like nationalist propaganda. Nationalist legends glorify the nation and its heroes. Joshua 6 glorifies GOD and goes out of its way to include a Canaanite prostitute as one of its central heroes. Rahab -- not a general, not a priest, not an Israelite -- is the human protagonist of the Jericho story. A narrative designed to justify conquest of Canaan would not elevate a Canaanite woman as its model of faith. The Jericho account has the texture of historical memory, not political invention.

Verdict: The fall of Jericho is treated as literal history by Hebrews 11 and James 2, produced a woman in the lineage of Jesus CHRIST, and includes the fulfillment of a specific prophetic curse recorded in 1 Kings 16:34.

An Honest Assessment

What Remains Genuinely Uncertain

The evidence for the fall of Jericho is strong. But honest engagement with the material requires acknowledging where the debate continues.

The Dating Debate Is Not Fully Resolved

Mainstream archaeology still largely follows Kenyon's 1550 BC date. Bryant Wood's reanalysis is compelling but has not achieved universal acceptance in the scholarly community. Piotr Bienkowski published a detailed response in Biblical Archaeology Review (September-October 1990) challenging Wood's pottery analysis on several specific points, arguing that the forms Wood cited have a long life spanning both Middle and Late Bronze periods. Wood replied robustly, but the exchange illustrates that the pottery evidence, while pointing toward 1400 BC, is not as simple as a single-sentence summary suggests. Christians who use this evidence should acknowledge the ongoing scholarly debate rather than presenting the 1400 BC date as if it were established consensus.

The Radiocarbon Date Should Not Be Cited

Bryant Wood originally cited a carbon-14 date of 1410 BC from a charcoal sample from the City IV destruction layer. It was subsequently established that the British Museum's radiocarbon apparatus had calibration errors during the period when this sample was tested. The first three lines of Wood's evidence -- local pottery, scarabs, and imitation Cypriot ware -- remain his strongest arguments. The radiocarbon date should not be cited as supporting evidence until reliable, recalibrated dating from the site is available.

Rahab's House Cannot Be Definitively Identified

The standing section of wall with adjacent houses found on the north side of Jericho by the 1907-1909 German excavation corresponds remarkably well with the biblical description of Rahab's house location. But it cannot be definitively identified as her house. The correspondence is suggestive and worth noting, but it should be presented as a plausible archaeological match rather than a confirmed identification.

Verdict: The physical evidence for the fall of Jericho -- fortified walls, outward collapse, massive burn, full grain jars, standing north wall -- is strong and uncontested. The dating debate continues, and that honest acknowledgment strengthens rather than weakens the overall apologetic case.

The Stones Cry Out

When Jesus said that if the people were silent, the stones would cry out (Luke 19:40), HE was speaking to a crowd outside Jericho. It is hard not to think of the stones of Tell es-Sultan when reading those words. Because the stones of Jericho have been crying out for over a century, to anyone willing to listen carefully enough.

The walls were there. They were heavily fortified, exactly as the Bible describes. They fell outward, exactly as the Hebrew phrase in Joshua 6:20 describes. The city was burned completely, exactly as Joshua commanded. The grain jars were full, exactly as a seven-day spring siege would produce. The north wall was standing in a specific location with houses built against it, exactly as Rahab's house was built. And the city lay largely unoccupied for a significant period afterwards, consistent with Joshua's curse.

Every aspect of the Jericho narrative that can possibly be tested by archaeology has been tested. And every one of them has been confirmed. The disagreement is not about the physical facts -- it is about how to date them. And when the dating evidence is examined honestly -- pottery, scarabs, and the imitation Cypriot ware that Kenyon herself overlooked -- the date that emerges is approximately 1400 BC, which is exactly when the biblical chronology places Joshua's conquest.

At the center of this story stands GOD HIMSELF -- not as a distant force manipulating history from afar, but as the GOD who gave a seemingly absurd battle plan to a general who trusted HIM, brought down the walls of the most fortified city in Canaan at the sound of a shout, spared one woman's house because she believed, and then placed that woman's name in the genealogy of HIS own SON. That is the GOD of Jericho. And the evidence says HE was there.

Core Apologetic Takeaway

"The walls fell outward. The grain was unplundered. The north wall still stood. The scarabs end at 1400 BC. Every detail that can be tested has been confirmed. Jericho is not a Bible problem. It is a Bible proof."

Discussion Questions

1. GOD's battle plan for Jericho -- seven days of silent marching followed by a shout -- made no military sense whatsoever. Why do you think GOD chose such a method? What does it reveal about what HE values in HIS people?
2. Rahab was a Canaanite prostitute -- an outsider by every measure -- who was saved by faith and became an ancestor of Jesus CHRIST. What does her story tell us about the scope of GOD's grace and the nature of genuine saving faith?
3. The dating of Jericho's destruction is still debated among scholars. How should a Christian handle archaeological evidence that is genuinely disputed? Does uncertainty about a detail undermine confidence in the overall account?
4. The burned grain jars are described as "unique in the annals of Palestinian archaeology." How does a unique archaeological find that matches a specific biblical detail affect your confidence in the historical reliability of Scripture?
5. Joshua 6:26 pronounced a curse on anyone who rebuilt Jericho -- and 1 Kings 16:34 records its precise fulfillment centuries later. What does the fulfillment of a specific prophetic curse tell you about the nature of the GOD of the Bible?

* * *

Endnotes

1. Titus M. Kennedy, "The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua," Religions 14, no. 6 (2023): 796. MDPI. The identification of Tell es-Sultan as biblical Jericho is universal among archaeologists who have worked the site.
2. Bryant G. Wood, "The Walls of Jericho," Associates for Biblical Research, biblearchaeology.org. Wood summarizes the fortification system: outer revetment wall ~12-15 ft high, plastered rampart, mudbrick city wall 13-15 ft thick and 20-26 ft high. Total height from ground level approximately 25-30 ft. The area of the upper city was approximately 6 acres; the total including the fortification system was approximately 9 acres.
3. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III (London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1981), p. 110. Kenyon records "fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment" on the west side of the tell. The Italian-Palestinian expedition of 1997-2000 confirmed the same outward collapse pattern: Marchetti et al. (1998), p. 143, as cited in Kennedy (2023).
4. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III, p. 370. The full quotation: "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt."
5. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review 16, no. 2 (March-April 1990): 44-58. Wood explains Kenyon's argument from the absence of Cypriot imports: she excavated two 8x8 metre squares and found no imported Cypriote wares common in the Late Bronze I period, concluding the city was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age.
6. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" BAR (1990), pp. 44-58. The article was published in the March-April 1990 issue. Piotr Bienkowski published a response, "Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age," in the same journal (September-October 1990), to which Wood replied in "Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski is Wrong on All Counts," BAR (September-October 1990): 45-49, 68-69.
7. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" p. 49. Wood identified locally produced pottery forms in the City IV destruction layer consistent with Late Bronze I dating. He noted that Kenyon's argument "ignored the local pottery sequence in favour of imported wares not normally found at a site like Jericho."
8. Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp. 263-264. Archer's observation on the scarabs: "It is impossible to explain why no scarabs bearing the cartouche of any later Pharaoh was ever found at that level if indeed the destruction of City IV took place in the mid-thirteenth century."
9. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" p. 52. On the imitation Cypriot bichrome pottery: "At the time of Garstang's excavation, the significance of this type of pottery was not recognized, so it was simply published along with all the other decorated pottery without being singled out for special notice." (Creation Wiki, Jericho Chronology Dispute, citing Wood, 1990.)
10. Creation Wiki, "Jericho Chronology Dispute." The article notes: "Wood correctly reported that the British Museum dated the wood sample from Jericho City IV at 1410 BC. However, it was later found that the calibration system and instrumentation of the British Museum's radiocarbon apparatus were giving wrong answers."
11. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952-1956 (London: Praeger & Benn, 1957), p. 280. Kenyon reported recovering over six bushels of grain in a single excavation season from the City IV destruction layer.
12. Biblical Archaeology Review, as cited in Bryant G. Wood, "The Walls of Jericho," biblearchaeology.org: "The most abundant item found in the destruction, apart from pottery, was grain. This is unique in the annals of Palestinian archaeology. Perhaps a jar or two might be found, but to find such an extensive amount of grain is exceptional."
13. Wood, "The Walls of Jericho," biblearchaeology.org. The herem or ban commanded by GOD in Joshua 6:17-19 prohibited Israel from plundering the city. Wood concludes: "The grain left at Jericho and found by archaeologists in modern times gives graphic testimony to the obedience of the Israelites nearly three and a half millennia ago."
14. Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913), p. 58. The German excavation of 1907-1909 found a section of mudbrick wall on the north side of the tell still standing to a height of approximately eight feet (over two metres), with houses built against it.
15. Wood, "The Walls of Jericho," biblearchaeology.org. Wood cites Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III, p. 370, and Sellin and Watzinger (1973), p. 58, for the standing north wall section and adjacent houses.

Key Sources & Further Reading

• Wood, B.G. (1990). "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2): 44-58.
• Wood, B.G. (1990). "Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski is Wrong on All Counts." Biblical Archaeology Review 16(5): 45-49, 68-69.
• Wood, B.G. "The Walls of Jericho." Associates for Biblical Research. biblearchaeology.org.
• Wood, B.G. "Jericho: Does the Evidence Disprove or Prove the Bible?" Associates for Biblical Research. biblearchaeology.org.
• Kenyon, K.M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952-1956. Praeger & Benn, London.
• Kenyon, K.M. & Holland, T.A. (1981). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
• Kenyon, K.M. & Holland, T.A. (1982). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
• Kennedy, T.M. (2023). "The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua." Religions 14(6): 796. MDPI.
• Sellin, E. & Watzinger, C. (1913). Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. J.C. Hinrichs, Leipzig.
• Bienkowski, P. (1990). "Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age." Biblical Archaeology Review 16(5): 45-46, 69.
• Archer, G.L. (1994). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. Moody Press.
• Kitchen, K.A. (2003). On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Eerdmans.
• Garstang, J. & Garstang, J.B.E. (1948). The Story of Jericho. Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London.
• Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology. "Jericho, Ai, Hazor: Investigating the Three Cities That Did Joshua Burn." armstronginstitute.org.
• Answers in Genesis. "The Walls of Jericho." answersingenesis.org (Updated July 8, 2025).

Evidence for Old Testament Miracles  ·  Post 6 of the Series  ·  The Fall of Jericho

By Rajkumar Richard W.J.F  ·  The Christian Case