Rating: 
Summary: A philosophy of archaeology
Review: This is not a book about religion or one about the authors of the bible specifically. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? is a critique of traditional biblical, which he finds biased and slipshod, and "new" archaeology, which he feels is almost nihilist-you can't know anything so everything means whatever you want it to and so nothing about it even matters--with neither of which the author is in accord. It is also the author's attempt to write a philosophical treatise, a mission statement of sorts, for field archaeology. He outlines-he seems very fond of outlines-various issues that can be resolved by research into the material remains of humans living in the Levant and points out the limitations that are inherent to field. The work is so clearly written and well organized that it would make a good text on archaeological theory. His discussion of "meaning (p. 70)" and "proof (p. 71)" in archaeological interpretation are especially good, since I don't think that these points are all that apparent to the average person. He writes of the former, "Facts may be assumed to `speak,' but until meaning-a uniquely human quality-is supplied, there is no message....These inherent limitations of the facts brought to light by archaeology must always be kept in mind (p. 70)." And again, "I suggest that archaeologists ought rarely to use the word `proof,' because the kind of verification that is possible in sciences that investigate the physical world is simply not obtainable for material-culture remains, even though they are also physical objects....Ultimately... [archaeologists] are dealing with human behavior, and behavior cannot be replicated in the laboratory, nor is it predictable (p. 71)."I found the book somewhat hostile at times. The author William Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona Tucson, is pretty specific about the individuals with whom he disagrees, and although he helpfully points out the weaknesses in their arguments and is occasionally complimentary to those with whom he is in some agreement, his irritation with his detractors is a little more apparent than I'd have expected in a professional work. This seems fairly typical of works written in anthropology of late, and archaeology has become more and more aligned with that department as opposed to classics or history with which it had historically been classified. Having studied a little archaeology during the mid 60s and again in the late 90s, however, I did find his elucidation of the changes of interest. I also found his frustration with some of the tenets of the "new" archaeology validating, since I find some of it positively alienating. The book is a little dry where it deals with the philosophy of archaeology; one has to be something more than just a little interested in the field to get through chapters 1-3. By chapter 4-5, however, the author begins to illustrate his main thesis by applying his methods to specific problems in the biblical narrative. While it does not "bring the bible to life" as a religious person might wish, it definitely brings clarity to the narrative, and a sense of reality to the life of the time period. Nothing and no one can "prove" the bible or the existence of God. That's a matter of personal faith. But I agree with the author, much can be learned about the life and character of the biblical period through a careful use of the biblical narrative as it exists and through a wary use of material data from the field. An excellent text on archaeology.
Rating:
Summary: A future for biblical archaeology
Review: This is one of the best books on Bible & archaeology you can buy (the other two are by I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) and by Baruch Halpern (David's Secret Demons)). Together, they represent first-hand information (and very readable, too) on what we know about the biblical world and biblical history (quite a lot - including, of course, the cases where the Bible is wrong). Together they also represent the spectrum of interpretation of the data by the leading experts (Dever and Halpern are on the more conservative side which is, compared to the conservatism of yesteryear, not very conservative).
Dever's speciality is theory and the discussion of archaeological theory (for some readers, there might be too much of this). There are two reasons why I refrain from the highest rating (still maintaining that this is a very good book): in his polemics against archaeological dilletants among biblical scholars, he overrates his opponents at Copenhagen (not taken seriously by anyone anymore, as far as I can tell), and underrates those at Sheffield (you might not like wgat they say, but it is still within the framework of scholarship). In his polemics against postmodernism (mostly quite welcome), he includes feminism and gender studies - not really fair, because these studies opened a whole historical world - women's world - previously overlooked, even to men.
Rating: 
Summary: trenchant, informative, and remarkably broad in scope
Review: Two books in one, this awkwardly titled volume contains (i) the best introduction to the archaeology of Iron Age Palestine (biblical Israel) yet written, and (ii) a devastatingly trenchant critique of the scholarship and methodology of the "biblical minimalist" school. William Dever is perhaps the preeminent American Syro-Palestinian archaeologist of his generation. He has extensive field experience (Shechem, Khirbet el-Qom, Tell el-Hayyat, Beth Shean, and especially Gezer), has served on the editorial board of several major journals, has received several prestigious awards and grants, has a remarkable publication record, and is an accomplished teacher. He also has written many articles for nonspecialists in journals such as "Biblical Archaeology Review". He writes with great force and clarity. In "What did the Biblical Writers know and When did they know it?", Dever skewers biblical minimalists who insist that the Hebrew Bible is essentially a postexilic fabrication devoid of historical validity. At times Dever's polemic is so bitter it is difficult to reconcile with his reputation as a first magnitude scholar. To those who are unfamiliar with the challenges posed by the minimalist camp (e.g. Thompson, Lemche, Davies, Whitelam, Vikander-Edelman, et al.), Dever's acidity may seem bewildering and even off-putting. The cognoscenti who are familiar with the current debate no doubt will expect a wild ride, and those who are not embarrassed by Dever's diatribe will likely be delighted by his pyrotechnics. Ensconced in the central chapters of this book, however, is an outstanding introduction to the archaeology of the "land of the Bible" during the Iron Age (1200 - 586 BCE). The Late Bronze (ca. 1550 BCE - 1200 BCE) and Iron I (1200 BCE - 1000 BCE) periods in particular were formative ones for early Israel. Dever's general thesis is that the so-called "Deuteronomistic History" - Joshua, Judges, I-II Samuel, and I-II Kings - has its "sitz im leben" rooted in the Iron Age, even if much of the DH ultimately was redacted during the postexilic period. Dever argues this point most persuasively, and brings to bear an overwhelming array of archaeological data. The book contains many fine pictures and illustrations of important artifacts which vivify Dever's analyses. Dever is a self-identified "neopragmatist". Theologically, he is atheist/agnostic. He would vigorously agree that Genesis 1-11 is aetiological myth, that the patriarchal tales are of dubious historicity, that there is hardly a shred of evidence for the exodus, that Moses is as historical a figure as Odysseus, etc. Yet, equally vigorously, he asserts that the Deuteronomistic History (DH) contains many real historical data which are clearly supported by elements of the material record. Thus, he has as much contempt for the naive, theologically tendentious methodology of fundamentalist "scholars" as he does for their politically tendentious polar opposites, the minimalists. Indeed, in the introductory chapter of his earlier book, "Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research" (1990), Dever provides an articulate history of the field of "biblical archaeology", which largely was influenced by the American scholar William Foxwell Albright, who envisioned that archaeology would ultimately "prove the Bible". It was only through dispassionate adherence to sound scientific methodology, coupled with the advent of modern analytical techniques, that the field of biblical archaeology matured, replacing biblical credulity with guileless objectivity. Correspondingly, Dever re-Christened his field "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology". However, just as the dragon of scholarly biblical credulity was being slain, a new beast was arising - that of biblical minimalism. At best, minimalism is hyperskepticism of a variety which, if applied to other areas of historical and anthropological research, would erase much of what is commonly accepted as fact by a large majority of scholars. At worst, it is transparently political, seeking, for example, to redress perceived modern sins of Zionism (or the Christian right) by attacking the historicity of the Hebrew Bible - a ludicrous agenda which is unforgivably appalling from a scholarly point of view. Dever's mastery of the archaeological record and his breadth of scope are remarkable. His discussion touches many areas of relevance - economics, historical geography, literacy, popular religion, social movements, government and politics, military affairs, etc. While the anti-minimalist rant is a bit submerged in these middle chapters devoted to archaeology, Dever often trenchantly points out how many details of the biblical account, while likely exaggerated, are clearly rooted in an Iron Age setting, and how the DH would likely read very differently had it truly been of Persian and Hellenistic provenance, as the minimalists contend. For example, in one particularly compelling section Dever identifies about a dozen architectural attributes of the Solomonic Temple described in I Kings and then, point by point, discusses how the specific description fits extremely within an Iron I/early Iron II framework. In the final chapters of the book, Dever returns to the sociology of biblical minimalism, and aptly contextualizes it within a broader postmodernist framework. Again, Dever is as unrestrained in his attacks as he is insightful. I am conflicted in giving this book a five star rating. On a first reading, I was disappointed by the extreme polemic in the opening chapters. This is really two books in one, and I'd have preferred Dever to begin with his discussion of what archaeology can tell us and then proceed on to the meaty core of the book, leaving the anti-minimalist diatribe for the second half. So acrid is the discussion in the first 100 or so pages that one might doubt Dever's objectivity as a scholar. However, I found Dever's arguments to be persuasive and well-founded on all issues discussed, and having read a fair amount from the minimalists, I think Dever's laser-guided criticisms overwhelmingly are justified. Finally, I would also recommend highly the recent book by another leading archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, entitled "The Bible Unearthed" (written in collaboration with Neil Asher Silbermann). While Finkelstein is no minimalist (e.g. he accepts the legitimacy of the Tel Dan stele and concurs that King David was an historical figure, though his Biblical exploits are greatly exaggerated), he often is invoked by the minimalists, and he himself apparently finds much merit in their arguments, judging from his recent tendency to refer to their work in his own scholarly articles. Finkelstein's book also is a good read, and it provides a valuable additional perspective by another first-magnitude scholar.
Rating: 
Summary: More of the Same
Review: Who would want to read this book? It is certainly not for someone who wants to know what the title suggests. It is not about what the biblical writers knew and when did they know it. Rather Dever writes *yet again* about what he calls the attack upon the attack upon the "biblical tradition" by "a small but vocal group of scholars" whom he calls Revisionists. Dever mentions several scholars by name as being Revisionists and discusses them at some length in his second chapter. They are Philip Davies, Thomas L Thompson, Keith Whitelam, Niels Peter Lemche, and Israel Finkelstein. I mention them by name because anyone who has read much of William Dever's recent writings might agree with me that he spends too much time writing *against* the Revisionists/ Minimalists/ Copenhagen School and too little time *on the topic* suggested by his titles. In this book, Dever describes the Revisionists as "menacing" because they do not intend to merely rewrite the history of ancient Israel, they intend to abolish it alto-gether. This is an ironic description by Dever as his own point of view is that the history of ancient Israel can begin only with the monarchy. For Dever not all of the Deuteronomistic History is historical. There was no Conquest, for example. So is not Dever himself revising or even abolishing Israel's history? The focal point of this ongoing debate is the historicity of the Davidic monarchy. Dever's opponents say that there is no evidence for the Davidic monarchy. Dever says there is and accuses his opponents of too much skepticism and of not being archaeologists. Yet it is Dever himself who makes explanations for the lack of Assyrian references to Judah. Moreover one of the five mentioned above is an archaeologist. Who would want to read this book? Perhaps only those who have the notion that Dever is arguing for them.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good, Title Needs Some Work....
Review: William G. Dever is one of the most under appreciated scholars in America right now. He is an especially ingenious and knowledgeable person who is relatively unknown outside of his comparably exclusive field. However, to experts and amateurs alike, there are few better writers and scholars in the field of ancient Israel and Palestine on par with Dever, an American. This book has a wealth of information and some real cutting edge archeological and Biblical scholarship, but I still feel it fell a little short of its promise. Dever himself proposes that this book will be of help to those who wish to have some education on the subject, while avoiding often excessive detail and minutiae. Although his book does deliver somewhat on that promise, I felt the title is a bit misleading. The reality and structure of ancient Israel is by far one of the hottest historical topics going at the present time. Whole careers and millions of dollars are spent trying to determine precise dates and origins of various tribes. This is because the argument combines several regional and religious factors, which give an injection of intensity to the debate. One side suggests that the writers of the Old Testament were very genuine and honest in their depictions of historical events, which would be a major boon to other more controversial messages in the Bible. Another group, made up of younger and more recent scholars, suggest the Old Testament has almost no basis in fact, that it should never be considered a historical work. They argue that there was no real monarchy, no united Israel, and that anything you read in the Old Testament is an invention of writers who redacted and edited the entire work in the 5th century B.C, or even in the 2nd century. Of course, recently, their views have caught on with secular and anti-religious groups who grab at every chance to degrade religious history with their own "scholarly" reality. The debate is almost hopelessly deadlocked, with each side firmly entrenched. Dever is a bit more moderate, but his contempt for the minimalists, or "neo-nihilists" as he paints them is evident early on in the book. The first half of the book is an intellectual broadside against his opponents, who he accuses, justifiably, of getting caught up in their own political views. Dever is not too harsh, as his polemic is carefully buttressed with his decades of research and study. While Dever does not accept the Old Testament as a totally historically accurate document (few still do), he does feel that the writers did have some basic history intact, and that many of their stories and words can be identified in the ruins of the holy land. His most compelling line of reasoning, in my opinion, was his chapter on daily life in the divided monarchy of Israel, suggesting that the sophistication derided by the minimalists did in fact exist. Many other historical arguments are made, and Dever does not shy away from disagreeing with other scholarly heavyweights such as Finkelstein. While I thoroughly enjoyed most of Dever's book, I found the first half of it very tedious. Most of it is a structural and heavily detailed attack on the minimalists, something that is not really promised by the title or purpose of the book. To the basic reader, I think this part of the book could turn them off. I understand Dever seeks to give a little basis to the rest of his book, but I felt it dragged on a bit. Dever still comes out on top however, as his book in very enlightening to anyone and also makes his point very well.
|
