Artificial intelligence: overview and applications

¶ … location of the city of AI mentioned in Joshua 7-8

has long been a matter of mystery and controversy"

(Wood 2010, ¶ 1).

The Biblical reference to AI in the book of Joshua notes that Joshua's army conquered this mysterious city. In the article, "The Mystery of Joshua's AI Solved?," Bryant Wood (2010), PhD, University of Toronto, explains that the exact location of the city of AI challenges archeologists and stimulates spirited debates. "Excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir," Wood states, "have uncovered topography, fortifications and pottery that strongly suggest this site as a candidate for the city." Although the location of Ai, known as a "heap of ruins," remains controversial, the city, also known as "Aija or Aiath or Hai" (Blue Letter Bible 2010), according to the majority of archaeologists was at et-Tell, 1 kilometer east of Khirbet el-Maqatir. This paper, which examines the enigmatic city of Ai, simultaneously references Joshua 7:2 and 8:29.

In the quest to decipher the literature encompassing Ai, along with relating perceptions regarding Joshua 7:2 and 8:29, the researcher addresses the primary research question: What lessons may one learn from the mysteries surrounding the city of Ai? To complement this question, the researcher also seeks to answer the following three sub-questions.

1. What does history reveal about the city of Ai?

2. What directives did God give Joshua in regard to Ai?

3. How did Joshua respond to God's directives regarding Ai?

Historical Accounts of Ai

Ai reportedly, not as large as Jericho, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (1985) explain in the book, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, comprised a city "well fortified and her soldiers well entrenched" (p. 344). A number of archeologists relate Ai to the site of et-Tell ("the ruin"). Excavations at this site, albeit have not revealed any evidence that a settlement actually existed at this site during the account recorded in the Biblical account in Joshua. The geography of et-Tell, albeit, completely matches details Joshua records in chapter 8 (Ibid.; Harris, Brown and Moore 2000). Walvoord and Zuck project that the king of Ai could have led forces that were mobilizing for the battle that transpired in a region already destroyed instead of a bustling city. Archeologists who challenge this assertion continue to search for other areas where Ai may have been located. Currently, archeologists have begun excavating particular areas near the site of Khirbet Nisya.

Ai initially appears in the Bible during the account in Genesis of Abraham's earliest journey through Palestine. According to Edward Mack (2010) in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia entry, "AI," the city of Ai, depicted a "a town of central Palestine, in the tribe of Benjamin, near and just east of Bethel[,] & #8230;identified with the modern Haiyan, just south of the village Der Diwan… or with a mound, El-Tell, to the north of the modern village"(¶ 1). In this context, Ai, evolving from the form of the word Hai, including the article in transliterating, is reported to have been located east of Bethel; close the altar Abraham constructed between Bethel and Hai.

In the article, "Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered," David Livingston (2009), PhD, asserts that a primary challenge regarding resolving the mystery of Ai's location relates to the identification of Beitin as Bethel. The ongoing controversy regarding Ai's location has stimulated numerous theories regarding the Bethel-Ai locations. W.F. Albright suggests that perhaps some of the Biblical writes mistook Ai for Bethel. Some researchers propose that Ai depicts an inconsequential outpost once erected from wooden structures; now completely obliterated. Other researchers, albeit, assert that Bethel is located near Shechem.

Joseph Callaway's excavations reportedly led Callaway to determine et-Tell was Ai. He contends the Conquest occurred "in Iron I (12th century B.C.), later than most scholars accept. Grintz has suggested that et-Tell is actually Beth-Aven Noth and others dismiss the whole biblical account as unhistorical and therefore unreliable, little more than aetiology" (Livingston 2009 ¶ 15). Callaway asserts in regard to the et-Tell=Ai equation, that Ai serves to embarrass views of that Conquest that subscribe to the serious perception of biblical archaeological evidence.

From the research and evacuations Livingston (2009) conducted at Khirbet Nisya from 1979-2002, he identifies the Ai that Joshua conquered as Khirbet Nisya. Figure 1 depicts the location of the mysterious city of Ai -- accented with a "?."

Figure 1: Map of Ai (Mack. 2010).

Livingston (2009) asserts that evidence to confirm the identification of Beitin as Bethel proves to be inadequate and, in turn, argues that the following geographical reasons indicate Beitin is not Bethel:

1. Roads

a. Beitin is not on the main crossroad in the area

b. It is on only one of three Roman roads going from Bireh to Nablus.

c. It was not even on the main northerly Roman road, from Jerusalem to the Roman capital at Caesarea through Gophna, at the time when Eusebius-Jerome would have made their Onomasticon.

d. It is a "dead town" today simply because it is not on main crossroad.

2. Borders

a. There is an abnormal northerly bend if Beitin is on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim, Judah and Israel.

b. There is no natural topographical feature enabling it to become a border town.

3. Ai has not been discovered east of Beitin.

4. The distance from Jerusalem mentioned by Eusebius-Jerome does not bring one to Beitin.

5. Town names move. Perhaps so in this case. (Nor can certain proof be advanced that Beitin-Bethel etymologically.). (Livingston 2009, Geographical section)

In regard to the topographical components, reasons, Livingston (2009) asserts, even though a small hill exists northwest of et-Tell, the fact that a small valley instead of a mountain is located between Beitin and et-Tell additionally suggests that Beitin is not Bethel.

The following archaeological findings also indicate Beitin is not Bethel, Livingston (2009) stresses:

1. The Bible does not record that Joshua burned Bethel.

2. No archaeological evidence identifies Beitin to be Bethel.

3. The location of Jeroboam's sanctuary has not been determined.

4. The site's chronology agrees with high dating.

5. No definite evidence confirms that Beitin was occupied during Eusebius-Jerome's time (Livingston 2009).

These considerations, Livingston (2009) argues, consequently challenge the current contention of the et-Tell=Ai equation. The Archaeological Study Bible (2005) concurs that Khirbet el-Magatir, as Edward Robinson, the English scholar, asserted in 1838, fits the Biblical criteria to qualify as the Ai noted in Joshua. As this source concludes that et-Tell most likely constitutes the site of Ai, however, the mystery regarding this particular city continues.

God's Directives to Joshua

The first Biblical account the researcher references in this paper, Joshua 7:2 (NKJV), does not reflect a mystery, albeit, as it plainly recounts: "Now Joshua (?

Y-howshuwa) sent (? shalach) men (?

'enowsh) from Jericho (?

Y-riychow) to Ai (?

'Ay), which is beside (?

'im) Beth Aven (?

Beyth 'Aven), on the east side (? qedem) of Bethel (? --?

Beyth-'El), and spoke (? 'amar) to them, saying (? 'amar), "Go up (? 'alah) and spy (? ragal) out the country (? 'erets)." So the men (?

'enowsh) went up (? 'alah) and spied (? ragal) out Ai (?

'Ay)" (Blue Letter Bible 2010).

"But…," the ominous word introducing Joshua 7 contrasts this chapter with Joshua 6; particularly verse 27. In the past, Joshua had experienced ecstasy victory entails. At this point, however, he knows the agony accompanying defeat. According to J. Hampton Keathley, III, (2009), Dallas Theological Seminary, in the article, "The Commissioning of Joshua (Joshua 1:1-18)," the "but" in the historical account of Joshua's experience relates a contemporary truth that defeat or at a minimum, its menacing threat constitutes a reality to contrast the victory one experiences in life. Keathley, III explains that in Joshua 7:2, Joshua sent men from Jericho to spy in Ai, a city reportedly smaller than Jericho.

In Joshua 7:2, Joshua seems eager to barge forward for the Lord; to capture more territory; however, he simultaneously appears somewhat self-confident. Resting heavily on the victory accomplished at Jericho, Joshua does not appear to invest time with God; to seek His guidance and strength (Keathley, III 2009). God did not authorize the spies Joshua sent out at this time, J. Gordon Harris, Cheryl Anne Brown and Michael S. Moore (2000) explain in the book, Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Volume 5 of New International biblical commentary. Joshua planned to rely on the reports of the spies; disregarded careful critical planning of the battle; neglected to seek God's support and guidance.

Keathley, III (2009) stresses the following four mistaks resulted from the actions, Joshua initiated verse 7:2:

1. They [The Israelites] remained ignorant of the sin of Achan.

2. They underestimated the strength of the enemy.

3. They over-estimated the strength of their own army.

4. They presumed on the Lord -- they took Him for granted. (Keathley, III 2009, ¶ 10)

Joshua's Response to God's Directives

The second Biblical account the researcher references in this paper, Joshua 8:9 (NKJV) purports: "Joshua (?

Y-howshuwa') therefore sent them out (? shalach); and they went (? yalak) to lie in ambush (?

ma'arab), and stayed (? yashab) between Bethel (? --?

Beyth-'El) and Ai (?

'Ay), on the west side (?

yam) of Ai (?

'Ay); but Joshua (?

Y-howshuwa') lodged (? luwn) that night (? layil) among (? tavek) the people (?

'am)" (Blue Letter Bible 2010).

Harris, Brown and Moore (2000) explain that in the instance depicted in Joshua 8:9, where Joshua again sent out his army, Joshua's attitude has changed. He has realized that he needed to take the threat of the enemy seriously; that to win he had to plan in accordance to and had to adhere to God's directives "on the west side of Ai" (Joshua 8:9 (NKJV) (Blue Letter Bible 2010).

Joshua's neglect of prayer, according to Rick Grieve (2009) in the book, On the Way, proved to be the beginning of his downfall, noted in Joshua 7. "In this second battle plan, Joshua did not hear from God…. At Jericho[,] Israel won because their leader listened to the directives of the Lord and followed through. Absolute obedience brought absolute victory. Yet before the skirmish against Ai no such meeting occurred" (Grieve, p. 86). With Joshua's prayerlessness, he basically told God, that he thought he could handle Ai; that he did not need God's help in this battle. The failure to prayer, Joshua later learned, led to failure.

Mack (2010) explains:

As a consequence of the sin of Achan…, the Israelites were routed in the attack upon the town; but after confession and expiation, a second assault was successful, the city was taken and burned, and left a heap of ruins, the inhabitants, in number twelve thousand, were put to death, the king captured, hanged and buried under a heap of stones at the gate of the ruined city, only the cattle being kept as spoil by the people (Joshua 7; Joshua 8). The town had not been rebuilt when Joshua was written (Joshua 8:28). The fall of Ai gave the Israelites entrance to the heart of Canaan…. (Mack 2010, ¶ 1).