The issues of Jericho and Hazor were the main reasons for my resistance against the late date exodus. Thank you for clearing this up, you’ve been a huge help.
Hey, Dr Falk. I appreciate your update on this so much. As a Christian I am at times skeptical of finds like this since some Christians in the past have made sensational claims only to have them be wrong. So I wanted to ask whether the paper you posted was published in an accredited scholarly journal and some details on the author. I only ask just to verify as something like this would be exciting. Thanks again
Hey, I completely understand your caution. I've heard things too only to find out later that they weren't what they seemed. So I would definitely encourage you to remain cautious and ask questions--Christians really don't ask enough questions and Christian leaders really don't have enough answers. You are being a Berean--I fully approve of that. Ok, let's get to brass tacks starting with the full citation. Lorenzo Nigro, "The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997-2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage" in 'Digging Up Jericho: Past, Present, and Future,' pages 175-214. eds. Rachael Thyrza Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers, and Josef Mario Briffa. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2020. Archaeopress is a peer-reviewed, high-quality publisher with an excellent reputation. This publisher specializes in academic archaeological publishing including the publication of field reports. No government antiquities authority would doubt a field report published by Archaeopress. It is a solid publisher and the subject matter in firmly within its wheel-house. Lorenzo Nigro is an Associate Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology with the Sapienza University of Rome. He holds an MA (1992) and PhD (1997) in the Near Eastern Archaeology and has held academic positions since 1998. He was co-director of the excavation at Tell es-Sultan from 1997-2000. His article is a field report, at a site where he actually directed and dug (so he has all the data), by an author who is actually qualified. The quality of this publication is about as good as it gets. I hope this helps. :)
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thank you Dr.Falk is it possible to provide a link to the paper so I can see it (I won't understand a word but it would be nice to see)? Or is it too recent for it to be available to the lay person like me? Thanks
@Dago Adelaidiano He has taken the early exodus date as the "biblical" date for the exodus and has alluded to holding the majority opinion for the Torah's authorship. I can't say that I agree with him on either matter.
Thank you for being a true scholar! I really appreciated your line about not mind reading someone's intentions. I've seen several Christian "scholars" go out of their way to bring up Kenyan's sexuality when talking about Jericho. Using character assassination and culture war nonsense in a so called "scholarly" lecture only weakens the argument and makes the speaker seem insecure in the case they are building.
This is important information that helps change the current narrative. Finkelstein and others assert that Palestine was essentially deserted during the period when Joshua was active, so everything he did was essentially a myth. It shows that some shouldn't be hasty in coming to conclusions. Thanks for sharing.
Dr. Falk, what do you make of Nigro's comment in the same report that "The ruins at Tell es-Sultan are far older than the alleged date of Joshua’s conquest" (p. 204)? Do you think he ignores the destruction layer reported by Kenyon?
So, as I understand it: Kenyon discovered a Late Bronze Age destruction layer but not direct proof of Late Bronze Age occupation, Gaston discovered a Late Bronze Age cemetery, and now Nigro has discovered Late Bronze Age occupation and a Late Bronze Age wall. And everyone agrees that the site was leveled in the Iron Age, which would account for why details have been difficult to come by. So putting it all together, the Late Bronze Age occupation and wall that Nigro discovered (and Gaston's cemetery implied) must have been destroyed prior to the site being leveled, and the natural conclusion is that the Late Bronze Age destruction layer Kenyon found is what accounts for that happening. And that implies that the city was destroyed around the same time as Hazor, which fits nicely with the account of Joshua, just as the later site leveling fits with Solomon's building of the temple. But the ideological state of the field is such that Nigro cannot even report such findings without engaging in a ritualistic denunciation of the historicity of Joshua and a profession of faith in Wellhausen.
Does this contradict the bible description since Rehab's house was built within the wall. Late Bronze-age according to Nigro had just a single mud-brick wall unless I misread Nigro this does not match the narrative.
@@jaskitstepkit7153 Not really. In order to have a casemate wall, you need two walls. The outer mud-brick wall for LBA I is all that survived. We don't exactly know what the wall was like for LBAII other than it existed. However, the existence of an outer mud-brick wall doesn't exclude the possibility of an inner wall. On the other hand, the cyclopean wall cannot accommodate an inner wall.
Hey, I hope you saw my last comment I left on a previous video. I know this seems small, but someone was rude to you and I told them as much, but you thought I directed it at you. Just letting you know it was a misunderstanding, you were quite cordial with the guy. Thanks for yet another great video!
Yes, I did see your last comment (left it a heart), and I appreciate that you clarified what you said in your previous comment. I can take a little bit of rude. Hey, sometimes I can be rude too. I try not to be rude, but it does escape me sometimes. In doing these videos, I understand that I might be killing someone's sacred cow (and then slow BBQing it southern style until it's well done). For many people, the sacred cow was born in their Sunday school or taught to them as a tradition. Most people don't understand where their traditions come from or when they began. I am doing an informal study of traditions. So far, I have discovered the youngest belief that was claimed to be a theological tradition was only 15 years old. But I have found many unquestioned "traditions" are less than 100 years old. So a tradition can be surprisingly young, and yet people will make it a core belief that they are willing to die for--even more than the Bible itself. For other people, the sacred cow was born because they came to faith (or had their faith restored) through the teachings of a charlatan. In this case, they only believe because of the sacred cow. In either case, killing a sacred cow is going to elicit a strong emotional response. They may not even know who they are being angry at. I think this is why junk archaeology is more damaging to the Christian community than it is to other communities. People are basing their faith on this stuff. And I think it is better if we can point out the error and show them the true evidence, instead of letting those who want to hurt others point out the error then leaving people lost without any alternatives at all. Moreover, if we don't stand up to the lies in our own ranks, how can anyone trust us with telling the truth? People want a reason to believe, and unfortunately those who promote the junk have all the best press. They have more money, better production values, and a surplus of willing volunteers. And many academics just don't want to deal with the grief that goes with setting the record straight. I can't say it wouldn't be easier to just say nothing. But as I am cursed with pesky high ideals; rude comments, low-content attacks, and people just not liking me are going to be occupational hazards. Paul Newman said "A man with no enemies is a man with no character."
@@ancientegyptandthebible So well said and summed up. I already thought you seemed trustworthy having come across you very recently but reading that comment is very confirmational. :)
I am curious what your thoughts might be about the implications of the article: "A Decorated Jewelry Box from Hazor" by Amnon Ben-Tor? He describes an almost complete box decorated with engraved bone plaques found in the destruction debris of the Canaanite ceremonial palace at Hazor. Twenty-two additional, similarly engraved bone plaques were found scattered in the building and its immediate surroundings. I think he says these other scattered plaques likely belonging to other boxes - yet all dated to similar (earlier) time period. Among the box plaques and scattered plaques alike, the head of the Egyptian goddess Hathor is the most common motif. It seems the general timeframe for the popularity of Hathor was earlier, before Isis began to take on Hathor-like traits (but I really don't know much in that regard). A study of the iconography shows that similar artistic portrayals are present on comparable boxes found in Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Cyprus - mostly much earlier similarities. Even though the Hazor box was discovered in what Ben-Tor assumes is a 13th century BCE context, a comparative study of similar boxes from Egypt and Cyprus clearly shows that this type of box was produced sometime in the 16th-early 15th centuries BCE. His theory to explain this is the boxes were cherished by their owners and passed on from one generation to the next. Now, am I the only person that finds this explanation rather unlikely? Shouldn't his readers be skeptical and wonder if the 13th century assumptions on dating might instead be in error? That the boxes are very likely tell-tale evidence for a 16th-early 15th centuries BCE destruction (and thus two to three centuries earlier than the assumed date)?
Hi Todd, > I am curious what your thoughts might be about the implications of the article: "A Decorated Jewelry Box from Hazor" by Amnon Ben-Tor? … the head of the Egyptian goddess Hathor is the most common motif. I am fascinated by all things box-like. And this was a great example of Egyptian artwork influencing Canaanite culture. The Hathor faces are absolutely wonderful. > It seems the general timeframe for the popularity of Hathor was earlier, before Isis began to take on Hathor-like traits (but I really don't know much in that regard). Hathor is a very old goddess in Egypt going all the way back to pre-dynastic times and continues into Roman times. Hathor has been a popular goddess in all periods of Egyptian history. But Isis also goes back to pre-dynastic times. However, the iconography on the box is distinctly of Hathor. > Even though the Hazor box was discovered in what Ben-Tor assumes is a 13th century BCE context, a comparative study of similar boxes from Egypt and Cyprus clearly shows that this type of box was produced sometime in the 16th-early 15th centuries BCE. His theory to explain this is the boxes were cherished by their owners and passed on from one generation to the next. Now, am I the only person that finds this explanation rather unlikely? Boxes were precious!!! Furniture was among the most valuable luxury goods that could be owned in the ancient Near East. And boxes made with ivory and exotic woods even more so. Having studied the attitude towards boxes and furniture in the Levant and ancient Egypt, I find Ben-Tor’s explanation to be exceptionally plausible. > Shouldn't his readers be skeptical and wonder if the 13th century assumptions on dating might instead be in error? If it was only a 13th century BC assumption, you might be right. But if Ben-Tor based his dating upon evidence, then it's not an assumption but a conclusion. Other datable evidence (LH IIB, IIIA2, and IIIB ware) from the archaeological context confirms an unbroken occupation from before the first quarter of the 15th century all the way to as late as the beginning of the 12th century. Moreover, El-Amarna Letter 148 characterized Hazor as an expanding Canaanite kingdom in the mid-14th cent BC. This would preclude an Israelite conquest of Hazor prior to that point, which would cause inconsistencies with an early Joshua narrative. Furthermore, dating the LB destruction layer to the 16th-early 15th cent BC would create serious problems with the other evidence from Hazor. > That the boxes are very likely tell-tale evidence for a 16th-early 15th centuries BCE destruction (and thus two to three centuries earlier than the assumed date)? Actually that’s an assertion, not a question. Nevertheless, if we conduct an archaeological dig of a burial and find two coins, one dated to AD 1920 and another dated to AD 1956, what is the date after which the burial must have occurred? We wouldn’t pick the older of the two coins because this kind of evidence tells us that the burial must date to after the latest coin. This is only common sense when establishing a _terminus post quem_ date. So if, within a single stratum, we have a box that can be dated to the 16-15th centuries BC and LH IIIB ceramics dating to the late 13th century and a literary source text tells us the destruction was after the mid-14th century, does it make sense to date the stratum according to the oldest evidence? An archaeologist who did that would be accused of poor methodology, cherry-picking the data, and confirmation bias. Fortunately, competent archaeologists don’t treat the evidence this way, picking and choosing only the evidence they like.
Has there been any updates on this and does it say anything as to the walls falling down or would that evidence simply not be there at this point? Thanks
Also Dr. Falk I wanted to know whether you think a good idea for a video is to discuss the supposed evidence for plagues in Egypt. I don't know how legit they are but I've seen some scholars mention it. It would be great to go over them as well as the naturalistic hypothesis some scholars propose for them thanks again!
There are a lot of issues with doing a video on the plagues, but I am thinking about doing something on them. There are many issues to deal with here. Some of these issues involve the potential overlap between naturalism vs naturalistic hypotheses, the status of evidence, and the degree to which plaques would have scope. I have found some good evidence for the plagues, but I haven't decided the approach I'm going to take in releasing it. Unfortunately, I also know that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the plagues and the evidence that used to support that misinformation. Just dealing with the misinformation is a bit like walking through treacle--there's just so much of it and the issues that go with it are complex. And unfortunately, this doesn't just apply to the PoE crowd. Many well-meaning and qualified Bible scholars get the plagues wrong also because they aren't adept at handling the Egyptological evidence.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Very Interesting well I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, when I heard of supposed plagues in Egypt I knew it had to be a hoax but I'd be interested to see a Scholarly approach to it. Thanks again Dr. Falk
@@blacktuesdayfilms8636 Well, there are so many people making claims about the plaques in Egypt that it is really difficult to keep track of who is saying what. But I very much appreciate your patience. :)
@@ancientegyptandthebible I heard there was a papyrus speaking about a river of blood that most people dated to a non-exodus period but that this source argued was from then. Not sure what to make of it.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 The Ipuwer papyrus does mention the Nile river turning to blood, but it was written 700 years before the exodus. Titus Kennedy argued that it was from the time of the early exodus date (ca. 1446 BC). Unfortunately, Kennedy's analysis is rubbish. There is a connection between Ipuwer and the exodus, but it is very nuanced and not contemporary to either date of the exodus .
Completely disagree with how Nigro includes the biblical account in Joshua though supporting Liverani's claim that the writer of Joshua exploited an older destruction from the 2nd and 3rd millennia to validate the Conquest.
The scarab of Amenhotep iii would show Jericho was destroyed at an early date. The Bible mentions someone during the reign of King Ahab rebuilding Jericho.
To be honest my mind is slightly boggled by the idea that people somehow almost missed an entire rebuild of a city over two excavations. . Is this common? . Are there any other famous archaeological sites that might be hiding something this big without anyone noticing? . I mean, I've seen this kind of thing happen all the time in Time Team (even when re-excavating sites dug up by previous archaeologists) but I was kind of expecting that more famous excavations would be more thorough.
Do you think that reinterpreting the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 is selective and arbitrary? Doesn't this create a significant problem for every other instance were we are given a date in the text?
Not at all. It is simply reading the text according to its context. It also fixes a lot of other interpretive problems. But also the selectivity objection also works the other way and more so. Doesn't saying that reinterpreting Ramesses, Pithom, Migdol, and other details that point to a Late Bronze context, e.g., the walls of Jericho, according to a literalistic reading of 1 Kings 6:1 create a significant problem for the entire Biblical text? And the fact is that early date advocates often takes numbers in the text in a selective and arbitrary manner. For example, they take the census numbers in the book of Numbers as figurative. 2 Sam 5:4 and 2 Sam 15:7 cannot be read as a literal 40 years at the same time. You are forced in this situation to read at least one of these verses as figurative. Which verse in this case do you choose to read literally and is that still arbitrary? At least in the case of 1 Kings 6:1, the other examples of temple dedication inscriptions that we possess all have non-literal dates. So on that basis alone, we know that this sort of reading for a temple dedication is normal based upon historical context. So we actually have good grounds to state that that a non-literal interpretation of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 is neither a reinterpretation, nor selective, nor arbitrary, and that it is a literal reading as an exact count of 480 years which is the anachronistic, arbitrary, and selective reinterpretation. Besides, a literal reading the 480th year has much more dire consequences for any prospect to Biblical inerrancy as well as the general integrity of the Biblical text.
Does this still align with the old findings of grain in jars that had been burned? Over a decade ago when I took biblical archeology, that was the detail that always jumped put at me... the middle bronze age city was too old, but the grain being burned and left in jars is too dead on biblical to be ignored. And ts a practical factoid that tells is so much but isn't itself miraculous so it doesn't feel accidental or coincidental.
Sure, that still aligns with the burnt grain in jars. Just because the city destroyed with fire during the Middle Bronze Age, doesn't preclude it from being burnt with fire a second time during the Late Bronze Age. People sometimes take details in the Bible as being special or exclusive claims when they really are not. For example, Joseph was said to have a multicolor tunic. And I find that many people today believe that only Joseph had such a tunic because it was recorded in the Bible, when in fact many Asiatic Semites had such multicolored tunics. We have to be careful when reading the Bible that just because something is mentioned that it only applies to one particular event.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I wasn't under the impression that intact jars full of burnt grain was common in a destruction layer of a sacked city. Are you saying we should expect to find intact burnt jars of grain in all major, well preserved ANE tels in Canaan?
Jericho was considered by some archaeologist as being one of the oldest cities known to man concerning his stratos go back to early hunters and gatherers and settlements? Is this true and could it be somewhat connected to The Neolithic early settlement of Göbekli Tepe? And could this correlation scattered some of the early settlements due to the early driest anomaly?
What do you think of the view that LB Jericho was merely a small scale military fort, small and prone to erosion. Thus the Joshua story was a small scale take over written in ANE conquest rhetoric of exaggeration. Agree that Wood's attempt is futile. Thanks for debunking Wood's apologetic scheme. I enjoy your videos. Very concise and to the point. Love your writings too!!! Please keep it up!!
Hi 聖經考古, I think that Nigro discovering the remnants of the mudbrick walls over the extremities of the MBA fortifications would seem to preclude the possibility of LB Jericho being merely a small scale military fort, but how big would the LB city be is anyone's guess. And I'm starting to think that what we have seen with early Iron Age site-leveling at Jericho may not be unique. This might be a common regional phenomenon, as there are other tells in the Jordanian area that also leap from MBA to IA without a LB transition. When I look at other sites near to Jericho, the archaeological reports are showing a similar pattern as what is found at Jericho, i.e., traces of an LB destruction layer but no city to go with it. Regarding my writing, few people who view my channel have actually read anything I've written, so thank you for the great encouragement. I am praying that the work will continue.
but kathleen came to the conclusion of this Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262: "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C." do you agree?
@@ancientegyptandthebible btw when i search on google "jericho late 13th century destruction"why didn't it show your materials i doubt that the information in this video even exist, so can you make another video for this topic and include the sources thanks!
@@yoelestebansulistiono5664 My source for this video is in the description. It is not my responsibility to make the Google algorithm give my videos more traction. And I am not inclined at this time to make another video on the topic.
Hey Dr. Falk enjoyed the video, what I find fascinating is that the destruction fits the Bible account they found burnt grains full too shocking Israelite didn't take those but looking back at Joshua the text says to leave everything and burnt any type of value ball stuff and they did grain was quite value, also how the Mudbrick walls fell too that they fell outwards the city making a ramp for the Israelites to climb and go up Jericho similar how it's told in the Bible, anyways has their been any new update of this site of jericho?
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262: "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C." You seem not to consider this quote of the most important archeologist that studied the Jericho site. Basically, she is limiting a destruction of Jericho walls to 1350-1325.
Sure, Nigro says there was a Late Bronze city rebuilt on the site, the remains of which was removed during the Early Iron Age level. And we have a tomb with a person buried with a scarab of Amenhotep III. This gives us some bookends for estimating the timing of Jericho's destruction. Plus, we have the Amarna Letters that pushes the Israelite conquest until after the Amarna Period. So our window for the destruction of Jericho is going to be after 1325 and before 1200, and 66 of those years during the reign of Ramesses II. So while Nigro is not explicitly stating the timing, his results have strong implications.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Actually, if you take a closer look at the paper, Nigro's paper makes clear that the window of time is smaller than 1325-1200. Nigro writes; "In the following stage of LB IIB, the site was still occupied, in spite of the claimed lack of Mycenaean pottery, which led Garstang to conclude that the city had been abandoned (Garstang 1934, 116-117; Kenyon 1951, 113). The absence of Mycenaean pottery in an inland centre may not be chronologically meaningful." (pg. 202) Here, Nigro clearly specifies that occupation continued into the LB IIB. On the scheme where you divide the LB into the IA/IB/IIA/IIB periods, the LB IIB corresponds to 1300-1200 BC (Dever, Beyond the Texts, pg. 74). In addition, on pg. 204, Nigro explicitly refers to why there is not "13th century" materials (i.e. later levelling). So clearly, Nigro is saying that there was an occupation phase that continued into the 13th century BC. The reign of Ramses II was 1279-1213 BC, i.e. pretty much the whole thing. It's almost impossible to avoid the fact, then, that it was destroyed during the reign of Ramses II. P.S. Any thoughts on Ai?
Hi @@everyzylrian, I completely agree. But as an academic, it is always safer for me to understate my conclusions. Otherwise, any public overstatement could haunt me at a later date. Others, of course, don't have that particular concern. :) As for Ai, I am noticing that the possibility of Iron Age site-leveling may not be restricted to Jericho alone. It could even be a regional phenomenon. This calls into question the theory that the Jordan River Basin had been abandoned to a dark age during the LB. As such, I think sites that may have been previously dismissed as being Ai for lack of a LB settlement may need to be re-evaluated especially if they meet the conditions of having traces of a LB destruction layer, a nearby LB cemetery, or mud brick architecture. But then again, the value of any re-evaluation will depend upon excavators who were willing to put their reputations on the line by including outlier data points in their field reports. It is important to remember that Kenyon was accused of lacking objectivity when she published the LB destruction layer even though it was archaeologically the right thing to do. Unfortunately, publishing "anomalous" results is still seen as a defect in a site report, so one may have to resort to doing archival work into the field journals--gah, what a pain that is!
@@ancientegyptandthebible That's a very interesting thought about Ai. I guess the first thing to do would be to start floating around the idea in emails and among colleagues, perhaps shoot it out at a conference or something. But yes, at one point someone is going to have to put their name on it in a paper or a book. Is there evidence from any of these other sites, as far as you are concerned, of these LB cemeteries, destruction layers, and so forth? P.S. I enjoyed reading your BAR paper on the storage cities.
Hi @@everyzylrian, We don't know if there is evidence or not. No one has really been looking for LB outlier data because the LB dark age theory has been the explanation for the missing LB settlements in the Jordan River Basin. Many excavation reports are not even full-book volumes. Some reports are just short summary articles of 5 to 10 pages. We got very lucky that both Kenyon and Garstang were fixated upon publishing every detail. I think that it is going to take some considerable work to uncover what is outlier data. I suspect that doing this would likely take a bit of money since most archival work involves travel and hotel stays, etc. This is why I think that outlier data should also be published because you never know what it going to be important for future researchers.
Direct quote from Nigro's chapter on the Jericho dig: " In any case, the ruins of Tell es-Sultan include massive collapsed and burnt mudbrick structures. One may imagine that the terrible destructions suffered by the Canaanite city both in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC had surely become part of the local shared memory, and possibly were narrated as the Jerichoans had been able to overcome them almost every time. There is no way, however, to link them directly to the Bible, except for the fact that the biblical author may have reused one of these stories to validate the historicity of his narration (Liverani 2003, 316-317). The ruins at Tell es-Sultan are far older than the alleged date of Joshua’s conquest. Moreover, if we consider the time when the biblical text was written (the 6th century BC), or that when it was orally transmitted (12-7th centuries BC), as well as the long story of its written transposition, it is clear how hazardous is any attempt to seriously identify something on the ground with biblical personages and their acts (Liverani 2003, 313-321). Nonetheless, the already famous ruins of Jericho were exploited by the biblical author giving them an everlasting fame." (Nigro, 2020, p.204).
Also, you say in your video that, "We now have a Late Bronze destruction layer at Jericho that matches the Late Bronze destruction at Hazor." I have read Nigro's report and couldn't find any mention whatsoever of a Late Bronze destruction layer. Dr Falk, can you please point me to the source for this claim?
Hi Craig, one does not have to be in the field long before discovering the hazards are tying anything you find to a biblical personage. While my scholarship has not suffered from it, my career certainly has. And yet, the documentary/redaction hypotheses, which are circular in their approach and for which have even less evidence, are seen as unimpeachable truth. This is amply demonstrated by your quote of Nigro. But Nigro is no fool. He knows what will happen if he ties his finds directly to a late 13th century or to Joshua. So, he has to be circumspect. It's self-preservation. I can't say that I fault him for this.
Hi @@craigcowled3190 No, I’m saying something quite different. If one reads enough excavation reports and have befriended enough archaeologists, one starts to realize that sometimes excavators have to report results they really don’t want to report. And you realize that there is sometimes communicated a kind of double-speak encoded in such a way that only those in the know understand it. And when someone like Nigro is giving his results, he is presenting it to two different audiences: those that matter (the well-read peers) and those that don’t (lesser colleagues, dilettantes, everyone else). Nigro knows that his peers have already read all 5000 pages of Kenyon’s excavation report, and it is Kenyon that reported the LBA destruction layer. Nigro also knows that his results are going to cause a firestorm of controversy. Something no academic really wants. So, what does a savvy academic who wants to maintain his credibility do? First, he reports his results in the most bland and neutral manner possible. After all, who wants to scrap five years of hard work? He mentions the LBA II walls. So far so good. He then mentions that the walls coincided with evidence of occupation and no destruction layer in LBA IIA, which also excludes a LBA I destruction. Then, he states that there are traces of occupation during LBA IIB but that the stratum has been removed by site levelling. Finally, he affirms the academic orthodoxy (late authorship, documentary hypothesis, redaction criticism, Joshua as myth) in the most effusive and sympathetic manner possible so he has deniability--NB: I know academics do this because sometimes I've had to do this. If asked whether the LBA walls were destroyed in LBA IIB, Nigro replies “further research needs to be done for that question.” His well-read peers understand exactly what he is saying (i.e., Nigro has eliminated any possibility except a destruction in LBA IIB since Nigro has essentially embraced Kenyon's report) and the peers will understand his plea for further research as an attempt to steer clear of controversy. The audience that doesn’t matter will understand this as a denial of any connection between Joshua and his excavations, which Nigro is fine with since they don’t matter to scholarly discourse anyway. It’s kind of tough for the layman to understand but the academy does work this way.
@@ancientegyptandthebible So people in academia couldn't express freely what they discover? If that's the case then can we really trust anything from them?
