THE FALL OF AS EARTHQUAKE MYTH

JONATHAN L. FRIEDMANN

The conquest of as presented in the Book of has long been the subject of debate. Negative archaeological evidence poses serious chal- lenges to the book’s portrayal of a military conquest.1 The fall of Jericho, in particular, has generated a variety of theories and conjectures that alternately support, dismiss, or reconcile the historicity of the biblical account. Among the possibilities is reading the fall of Jericho in the context of earthquake my- thology. This perspective considers the theological, military, and ceremonial roles of the in Israelite culture, and the belief that shofar blasts could signal or channel divine power, sometimes with ground-shaking results. Like other earthquake myths, which incorporate indigenous environmental and cultural elements, the Joshua account uses a familiar artifact to explain a seismic event.

THE FALL OF JERICHO Joshua 6 begins with a summary of the conquest of Jericho, which is de- tailed in the rest of the chapter. The Lord said to Joshua, “See, I will deliver Jericho and her king [and her] warriors to your hands. Let all your troops march around the city and complete one circuit of the city. Do this six days, with seven priests carrying seven ram’s horns [shofarot] preceding the Ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blow- ing the horns. And when a long blast is sounded on the horn – as soon as you hear that sound of the horn – all the people shall give a mighty shout. There- upon the city wall will collapse, and the people shall advance, every man straight ahead (Josh. 6:2-5). The classical date of Jericho’s fall, derived from synchronisms with Egyp- tian absolute chronology, puts the event in the Late Bronze Age, perhaps around 1400 BCE. This was a period of Egyptian hegemony in Canaan. Skeptics observe that there are no Egyptian records of the conquest, and that the fails to mention an Egyptian presence in the land. Fur- thermore, Canaanite cities were rarely fortified with walls during this period,

Cantor Jonathan L. Friedmann, Ph.D., is professor of Jewish music history and associate dean of the Master of Jewish Studies Program at the Academy for Jewish Religion, California. 172 JONATHAN L. FRIEDMANN due to Egypt’s control of the region.2 Archeological corroboration is similar- ly lacking for many of the other cities Joshua reportedly conquered (listed in Josh. 12:9-24).3 German archeologists Carl Watzinger and Ernst Sellin investigated the Jer- icho site in 1907-1909, expecting to validate the biblical chronology. Instead, they determined that the city was unoccupied during the purported time of Joshua’s conquest.4 A second excavation in the 1930s supported the classical dating of the conquest.5 Those findings were discredited by Kathleen Ken- yon’s excavations in the 1950s, which dated the destruction layer to around 1560 BCE.6 Radiocarbon dating of Kenyon’s site samples in the 1990s con- firmed her thesis.7 Others have tried to reconcile the biblical account with Egyptian history, either by advancing a later date (when Egypt’s control of the region was waning),8 proposing a peaceful takeover of Jericho around 1400 BCE,9 asserting that the Jericho settlement reused earlier fortifica- tions,10 or arguing that incongruities between the classical and archaeological dates have resulted from examining the wrong set of walls.11 Complicating these conclusions are attempts to link the Joshua narrative with various earthquakes that have afflicted the city over the millennia. Jeri- cho is the one of the world’s oldest cities. Archaeologists have uncovered the remains of more than twenty successive settlements in Jericho dating to roughly 9000 BCE, close to the beginning of the Holocene epoch.12 The site experienced many destructions and reconstructions, sometimes due to war- fare, but more often resulting from earthquakes. Yet, tectonic activity also helped make the low-lying city inhabitable. Even more important than its human made fortifications were natural barriers created by seismographic movement. The city is well protected by Mount Nebo to the east and the Cen- tral Mountains to the west—natural defenses that rise a mile above the city. A spring also emerged from the nearby Jericho Fault, which has provided fresh water for thousands of years. Local tradition identifies that water source as Elisha’s Spring, following the biblical story of the prophet purifying the spring (II Kgs. 2:18-22). Some hypothesize that earthquakes contributed to Joshua’s conquest. For example, according to the biblical account, the impassable waters of the Jor- dan River were suddenly cut off upon touching the feet of priests holding the (Josh. 3:13). The stoppage may have been caused by a

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY THE FALL OF JERICHO AS EARTHQUAKE MYTH 173 landslide triggered by an earthquake, which interrupted the river’s flow. Six such landslides have been recorded since 1000 BCE, typically blocking the river for a day or two.13 That same earthquake may have also weakened or collapsed Jericho’s fortifications. Still, linking earthquake hypotheses with a definite date, whether 1400 BCE or another, is notoriously difficult. As Nicholas Ambraseys writes in Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: “The problem here is that archaeological evidence for an earthquake is rarely unambiguous, and its dating is frequently based on, or influenced by, literary sources, which often, as in this case, provide examples of how their assumed accuracy, coupled with occasional inaccurate commentaries, may influence archaeologists’ in- terpretations and dating. This then develops into a circular process in which the uncertain date of an earthquake is transformed into a fact and used to con- firm the dates of the proposed destruction strata.”14 More likely is that the fall of Jericho began as a recollection of an ancient earthquake, accumulated folk- loric details in the oral transmission, and was eventually incorporated into the conquest narrative.15

EARTHQUAKE MYTHS The fact that Joshua 6 does not explicitly mention an earthquake might raise doubts regarding its placement among earthquake myths.16 However, our modern scientific understanding of seismic activity only began to develop in the mid-1800s, and our current knowledge of plate tectonics did not emerge until the 1960s.17 Naturalistic descriptions and interpretations of envi- ronmental hazards, such as floods, fires, storms, and earthquakes, were non- existent in ancient times, as there was no clear division between supernatural- ism and the observation of nature.18 Different groups had culturally specific myths to explain these phenomena, drawing on features and objects of the physical and human landscapes. Such myths were prevalent around earth- quakes, which, unlike other natural disasters, occurred without visible warn- ing signs. It is therefore possible that the biblical story of Jericho’s fall began as a supernatural explanation for a regional earthquake and gradually ex- panded into the story of a tribal hero. Specifically, it connected the earth’s violent movement with a belief in the divinely infused power of the shofar. Through this narrative overlay, the were able to appropriate and

Vol. 48, No. 3, 2020 174 JONATHAN L. FRIEDMANN insert themselves into the region’s folk history, whether or not they experi- enced the earthquake themselves or arrived there by conquest or some other means. Earthquake myths are found in virtually every earthquake-prone region, just as flood-prone regions generally produce tales of great deluges submerg- ing all or much of the world. The content of these myths is directly tied to the natural and cultural characteristics of the locations that produce them. In Japan, for instance, a giant and mischievous catfish named Namazu was believed to swim beneath the earth and cause earthquakes. In ancient Greece, Poseidon was thought to create earthquakes and other calamities with his trident. In China, an enormous frog was thought to carry the world on its back. Whenever the frog twitched, earthquakes resulted. Hindu mythology includes a story of eight mighty elephants holding the land in place. When an elephant grew tired and lowered its head, the earth would shake. A legend from Siberia tells of the world resting on a dog sled driven by the god Tull. When the dogs stopped to scratch at fleas, the world shook.19 These examples draw from indigenous beliefs, cultural elements, and natu- ral features: catfish in the island of Japan; anthropomorphic theology in Greece; frogs in China; elephants in ; and dog sleds in Siberia. By using familiar story elements, these myths were accepted as reasonable depictions of cause and effect. The people of would have likewise accepted the plausibility of pow- erful shofarot in the Jericho story. The shofar’s audible force was exploited in civic, ceremonial, and military contexts, where its ear-splitting tones and bone-rattling vibrations announced kings, signaled the divine presence, sounded warnings, and gathered soldiers to battle. The physiological impact on the human body was, perhaps, amplified and projected onto the walls of Jericho, which shook to the point of falling. But it was not the blast of the seven shofarot alone, nor the added cacophony of human shouts, that caused the earth to shake. Rather, these sounds channeled the destructive power of God. As Alfred Sendrey wrote in his classic text, Music in Ancient Israel: “In primitive religions the rule of invoking the deity was: the louder, the better! When the human voice was not powerful enough, one resorted to the use of musical instruments. Most of the Oriental peoples availed themselves of per-

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY THE FALL OF JERICHO AS EARTHQUAKE MYTH 175 cussion instruments for this purpose—the Jews used an instrument the sound of which was closest to the human shrieking voice, the shofar.”20 With this, the Jericho account stands apart from other earthquake myths. Whereas the catfish, dogs, elephants, and the like are independent and unpre- dictable actors who move the earth haphazardly, the priest-blown shofarot initiate the earthquake, thereby giving human beings some control over the physical world through their connection with God. This is similar to the mor- al dimension present in the biblical flood story, which attributes the deluge to a breach in the human-divine relationship (Gen. 6:9-9:17). As opposed to the Epic of Gilgamesh, Epic of Atrahasis, and other regional flood myths, which depict the event as a random act of a capricious or impersonal god, the Gene- sis flood is brought on by human behavior. Thus, in the biblical view, chaotic natural phenomena – both fortuitous and disastrous – are imbued with a sense of order reflective of the order-making deity and humanity’s ordered relation- ship with the deity.

SONIC POWER Framing the fall of Jericho as an earthquake myth is consistent with a cul- tural-anthropological approach to the Hebrew Bible, which relies on indige- nous concepts and practices as hermeneutical keys for interpreting texts.21 From this perspective, the Jericho account combines the shofar’s culturally specific roles in theophany, warfare, and ceremony with earthquake imagery. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the sound of the shofar is portrayed as syn- onymous with God’s presence. This is why the text focuses on priestly and autonomous (divine) soundings of the horn, but omits mundane uses, such as its role as a shepherd’s horn.22 In the case of theophany and ceremony, God’s presence is primarily awe-inspiring, albeit still potentially earth-shaking. During wartime, the sonic presence takes on a more forceful quality. The association of the shofar and God’s presence is introduced at the reve- lation at Sinai: On the third day, as morning dawned, there was thunder, and lightning, and a dense cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud blast of the shofar; and all the people who were in the camp trembled…and the whole mountain trembled violently. The blare of the horn grew louder and louder (Ex. 19:16, 18-19). This passage projects the shofar’s emotional effect onto the earth: just as the horn makes people tremble, so does it make the earth

Vol. 48, No. 3, 2020 176 JONATHAN L. FRIEDMANN tremble. The Book of Amos also begins with God’s sonic manifestation, this time linked explicitly with an earthquake. Although the text does not mention a shofar, it nonetheless depicts destruction through divine sound, much like the Jericho story: The Lord roars from Zion, shouts aloud from ; and the pastures of the shepherds shall languish, and the summit of Carmel shall wither (Amos 1:2; cf. Isa. 29:6; Joel 4:16). The Hebrew Bible generally identifies earthquakes as ra’ash, which also means “noise,” implying that the Israelites primarily perceived earthquakes—an invisible phenomenon— through hearing, and related their disconcerting sound to that of the shofar. The shofar also had a prominent place in warfare, where it was used to warn the Israelites of an impending attack, signal the onset or cessation of hostilities, and frighten the enemy. The Hebrew Bible includes nineteen in- stances of shofar blasts during battle.23 Following Rav Saadia Gaon, Marvin A. Sweeney connects these wartime blasts to the shofar’s function in High Holiday services. In the liturgical setting, shofar blasts signal the enthrone- ment of God as king, the security of the nation, and the restoration of order to the world.24 In much the same way, Sweeney argues, the Jericho shofarot announced a new Israelite political order in Canaan, with God as the ultimate ruler.25 Thus, the upheaval of the earth becomes a metaphor for political up- heaval. Additionally, the description of seven priests marching around the city for six days and circling the city seven times on the seventh day recalls the hakafot (circumambulations) of the sanctuary during the festival of . Moreover, the priests marched with the Ark of the Covenant in much the same way as participants carry Torah scrolls on Sukkot.26 From a symbolic- ceremonial perspective, the blowing of shofarot on the seventh day not only toppled Jericho’s fortifications, but also inaugurated a new era of God’s cre- ated order, following the seventh day motif in Genesis 2:1-3. This imagery suggests that the highly coordinated and ritualized blasts induced God’s physical presence, which, as elsewhere, manifests through both the sound of the shofar and the trembling earth.

JERICHO EARTHQUAKE Unlike the other earthquake myths cited in this paper, the fall of Jericho was not meant to explain the phenomenon of earthquakes generally, but to

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY THE FALL OF JERICHO AS EARTHQUAKE MYTH 177 inform a narrative of Israel’s conquest of Canaan. Nevertheless, it joins these myths in portraying familiar cultural elements as the cause of seismic activi- ty. The fall of Jericho accords with other biblical passages in attributing movements of the earth to God’s sonic presence, especially as revealed through the shofar. The biblical account of Jericho’s fall includes various aspects of the Israel- ites’ multilayered relationship with the shofar. Proponents of reading Joshua 6 as an earthquake myth contend that the story began as a distant folk memory of a major earthquake, and was theologized, ceremonialized, and politicized as it was passed down through the generations. At the core of the story is the belief that the shofar can harness divine energy and cause the earth to tremble.

NOTES 1. J. A. Callaway, “The Settlement in Canaan: The Period of the Judges,” in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, ed. H. Shanks (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999) p. 65. 2. R. A. Fox, “Custer’s Last Battle: Struggling with Scale,” in Confronting Scale in Archaeolo- gy: Issues of Theory and Practice, ed. G. Lock and B. Molyneaux (New York: Springer, 2006) p. 163. 3. The conquered lands listed in Joshua 12:9-24: Jericho, Ai near Bethel, Jerusalem, , Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Debir, Geder, Hormah, Arad, Libnah, Adullam, Makkedah, Bethel, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, Sharon, Madon, Shimron-meron, Achshaph, Taanach, Megid- do, Kedesh, Jokneam in the Carmel, Dor in the district of Dor, Goiim in Gilgal, and Tirzah. A possible exception is Hazor, which appears to have been captured and burned as described in Joshua 11:10-11. See A. Ben-Tor, “Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor?” Biblical Archaeology Review 39:4 (2013) pp. 27-36, 58-60. 4. E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913). 5. J. Garstang, The Story of Jericho (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1948). 6. K. M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho (London: Ernest Benn, 1957). 7. H. J. Bruins and J. van der Plicht, “Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of Short- lived Cereal and Multi-Year Charcoal Samples from the End of the Middle Bronze Age,” Radio- carbon 37:2 (1995) pp. 213-20. 8. W. F. Albright, “Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58 (1935) pp. 10-17. 9. M. D. Lemonick, “Score One for the Bible: Fresh Clues Support Story at the Walls of Jeri- cho,” Time, March 1990, p. 59. 10. Y. Yadin, “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Relia- ble?” Biblical Archaeology Review 8:2 (1982) pp. 16-23.

Vol. 48, No. 3, 2020 178 JONATHAN L. FRIEDMANN 11. A. Habermehl, “Archaeoacoustics and the Fall of Jericho,” Archaeoacoustics III: The Ar- chaeology of Sound, Conference Proceedings, Portugal 2017, pp. 79-84. 12. J. M. Beard, Environmental Chemistry in Society (New York: CRC Press, 2014) p. 315. 13. J. Zeilinga de Boer and Donald Theodore, Earthquakes in Human History: The Far-reaching Effects of Seismic Disruptions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005) p. 38. 14. N. Ambraseys, Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) p. 66. 15. R. Dawkins, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True (New York: Free Press, 2011) p. 209. 16. Earthquakes are expressly mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, e.g., 1 Kings. 19:11-12; Isaiah 29:6; Ezekiel 38:19; Amos 1:1; and Zechariah 14:5. 17. R. Reitherman, Earthquake Mythology (Richmond, CA: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 2013) p. 1. 18. E. Guidoboni, “Earthquakes, Theories from Antiquity to 1600,” in Sciences of the Earth: An Encyclopedia of Events, People, and Phenomena, vol. 1, ed. G. A. Good (New York: Garland, 1998) pp. 197-205. 19. These examples are drawn from Reitherman, Earthquake Mythology, pp. 6–14, and R. Daw- kins, The Magic of Reality, pp. 210-14. 20. A. Sendrey, Music in Ancient Israel (New York: Philosophical Library, 1969) p. 497. 21. R. N. Soulen and R. K. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 4th ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011) p. 48. 22. J. Montagu, “The History and Ritual Uses of the Shofar,” in Qol Tamid: The Shofar in Ritu- al, History, and Culture, ed. J. L. Friedmann and J. Gereboff (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2017) pp. 12-13. 23. C. Adler, The Shofar: Its Use and Origin (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1894) pp. 444-46. 24. M. A. Sweeney, “The Shofar in War and Worship in the Bible,” in Qol Tamid: The Shofar in Ritual, History, and Culture, ed. J. L. Friedmann and J. Gereboff (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2017) p. 32. 25. Sweeney, “The Shofar in War and Worship in the Bible,” p. 47. 26. For the theme of seven in the story of Jericho, see Michael Hattin, Joshua: The Challenge of the Promised Land (Milford, CT: Maggid, 2013) pp. 108-11.

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY