What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel

Rating:
Summary: This author is NOT a Conservative. . .
Review: . . . DESPITE the name of the book club from which I purchased the book.

I was most disappointed in this book. I'd rate it "zero stars" if there was such a thing. I plodded about 1/3 of the way through and got so disgusted with it I refused to finish it.

Let me give some examples: He states on p. 41 that "virtually all biblical scholars" have abandoned the idea that Canaan was conquered by the Israelites (under Joshua), as the Bible teaches. VIRTUALLY ALL??? The author should have taken a few more math classes in his earlier years...

More examples: On pages 62 and 63, the author states that the "exodus from Egypt" and the "pan-military 'conquest of Palestine' have all now been shown to be essentially nohistorical, 'historicized fiction' at best." Sounds like liberal drivel to me.

And, in a footnote on page 98, the author says "[n]o scholar, revisionist or otherwise, thinks these materials [biblical stories] anything other than 'myth.'" Well, he certainly hasn't done much research in that area! I can name dozens of scholars who think otherwise.

I guess one reason I was so disgusted with the book was that when I bought it I expected to learn about archaeology from a Christian perspective, not a self-proclaimed agnostic who doesn't even believe in the historical truths in and of the Bible. All the liberals and the athiests/agnostics seem to rate the book highly. That, however, is not for me.

I won't even bother going deeper into the premise of the book. Readers of this review who are like me won't care about that anyway, and the liberals are going to flame me no matter what else I say.

Rating:
Summary: This author is NOT a Conservative. . .
Review: . . . DESPITE the name of the book club from which I purchased the book.

I was most disappointed in this book. I'd rate it "zero stars" if there was such a thing. I plodded about 1/3 of the way through and got so disgusted with it I refused to finish it.

Let me give some examples: He states on p. 41 that "virtually all biblical scholars" have abandoned the idea that Canaan was conquered by the Israelites (under Joshua), as the Bible teaches. VIRTUALLY ALL??? The author should have taken a few more math classes in his earlier years...

More examples: On pages 62 and 63, the author states that the "exodus from Egypt" and the "pan-military 'conquest of Palestine' have all now been shown to be essentially nohistorical, 'historicized fiction' at best." Sounds like liberal drivel to me.

And, in a footnote on page 98, the author says "[n]o scholar, revisionist or otherwise, thinks these materials [biblical stories] anything other than 'myth.'" Well, he certainly hasn't done much research in that area! I can name dozens of scholars who think otherwise.

I guess one reason I was so disgusted with the book was that when I bought it I expected to learn about archaeology from a Christian perspective, not a self-proclaimed agnostic who doesn't even believe in the historical truths in and of the Bible. All the liberals and the athiests/agnostics seem to rate the book highly. That, however, is not for me.

I won't even bother going deeper into the premise of the book. Readers of this review who are like me won't care about that anyway, and the liberals are going to flame me no matter what else I say.

Rating:
Summary: So much fluff for so little substance...
Review: Although many might find this book very helpful (just look at some of the reviews), one wonders exactly why did Dever, a self proclaimed "secularist", write such a thinly veiled attack on those scholars whom he happens to have several 'perfessional disagreements' with.
For the simple fact that he does provide a very (and I mean very) elementary introduction to archaeology in the Levant, I gave him a couple of stars. If, however, he had concentrated on "what the bible writers knew, and when they knew it" rather than making such an obviuos theological, and more revealing, his prolonged ideological attack on some of the "big" players in the field of Israelite history (i.e., Thompson, Lemche and Davies), I may have given him some more. He simply can't stand that these "scholars", and they have the PhD's and years in the University and in the field (for some) to prove that, simply disagree with him!! The days of figures such as Albright and Wright, who could command an entire generation of research, are over and Dever has been left pinning for days gone by.
I suggest, rather than taking his arguments at face value, a face that is so red with rage and annoyance at the work that this demolition crew has carried out on his beloved "proto-Israelites", one actally read the works that he simply writes off as being, ironically, ideologically motivated. One might come away with a much more nuanced perspecitve of the region than Dever permits.
All in all, while he does provide some rather interesting points about history in the region, his presentation , or better yet, his interpretation, is sorely lacking the methodological accumen he derides in those he rather harshly maligns. Simply put, he has taken off the field garb of a professional archaeologist, and has instead don the vestments of an ideologue; it is so sad when authors promises go unkept.

Rating:
Summary: Finally, an answer to the "biblical nihilists"!
Review: Although Professor Dever traces the making of this book back several decades, it has actually come as a timely response to the new genre of "biblical nihilism" or "deconstructionalism" that started in the 1990's, and especially to the highly popular book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed", also published in 2001. The main thrust of this trend, with which Dever attempts to contend, is that since the Bible, as we know it, was actually composed several centuries after the events that it purports to describe, it cannot be used as a historical source for Iron age Israel. Indeed, according to the most extreme of these writers (though not Finkelstein and Silberman themselves), the entire concept of "biblical Israel" is a Jewish fabrication, designed to eradicate the "true" history of "ancient Palestine". Dever's book is basically a polemic against these writers, a continuation of a debate which has been ongoing in scholarly circles for over a decade. In the second chapter of this book, Dever traces the development of what he has dubbed "biblical nihilism", presenting his own vision in the remaining chapters. Unfortunately, Dever's presentation suffers from his polemical style, often reminding the reader more of a town-square debate than of a serious academic discussion. A major shortcoming of Dever's book is in its failure to seriously address Finkelstein and Silberman's much more "moderate" version of the "deconstructionist theory". This would perhaps be explained by the fact that the two books were in press at about the same time - however Finkelstein's many articles on the subject were already well known to Dever. One of Dever's main arguments against Lemche, Davies, Thompson, Whitelam and the like is their lack of true knowledge or appreciation of archaeology - an argument that he cannot use against Finkelstein. Dever's work also seems incomplete - he does not present the reader with a full picture of his view, a comprehensive "counter-argument", so to speak, to those made by his opponents. And he only really addresses the title in the very last chapter, as if as an afterthought.
In concluding, Dever presents us with an important handbook in countering the "nihilists", but is sadly lacking when it comes to defining his own version of the "truth".

Rating:
Summary: Biblegate
Review: Correctly putting the history of the Old Testament in focus is like Dr. Magoo trying to read street signs. The genre proceeds from Spinoza to the present--no Zarathustra's end times--in a series of dialectical reversals now seen in the battle over the minimalists.
The beautiful enigma (for a secularist)of the Old Testament's creation lies in its skewed compression around the exile plus or minus, for reasons that are not clear from either the text or the history but which become obvious from seeing the history by comparison with the riddle's (partial) solution, the era of the Axial age.
This book neatly recounts the way in which the debate goes back and forth over the early or late composition of the text. This work tries to put the extreme versions in their place, and the author has a point. We can, without reintroducing myths, produce the significant historical account the minimalists wish to dispose of, etc... A reasonable version lies in The Bible Unearthed, by Finkelstein and Silberman, or Freedman's Who Wrote the Bible.
Noone, religious or secular,sees the remarkable nature of the tale once the myth has been taken out, and there the Axial context produces a new mystery, one that thrives as well with the corrected minimalist account found here as with the religious one.

Rating:
Summary: A prize-winner!
Review: Dever deserves a blue ribbon for the most cumbersome title in many years. He should also garner an award for his blistering assessment of "postmodern" historians. While he has contested "minimalist" academics elsewhere, this book is an excellent compendium of the issues and evidence regarding the historical validity of the Hebrew Bible. Although the arena of biblical history is small, the issues dealt with are important. His conclusions will have lasting impact not only in biblical history, but archaeology and other disciplines. Although a serious subject, Dever's piercing wit keeps this book a lively and captivating read.

For generations, Dever tells us, the history and archaeology of Palestine have been restrained by biblical texts. Instead of scholars seeking for what is "there", they spent energy trying to verify what the Hebrew Bible related. A shift in attitude brought more detachment in reporting finds. In parallel with new textual analyses, field reseachers uncovered evidence that places and people named in the Hebrew Bible likely existed, but within a different context than related in "The Book". Regrettably, the "different context" attracted the attention of yet another academic element - the "postmodernist, deconstructionist nihilists" who simply abandoned any notion of historical veracity of biblical accounts.

Dever turns his scholarly attention and biting prose to counter this group of "critics". Apart from refuting slanderous charges of fabricating and destroying evidence, Dever shows how the postmodernists have little or no foundation for their judgements. They fail to recognise archaeological data. They dismiss or ignore history, and they make pronouncements based on misconceived notions. They even manage to fabricate some historical events of their own. All these faults lead Dever to categorise them as "nihilists" - a term borrowed from Nietzschian disillusionment. More than using selected evidence, Dever charges, this group works under an ideology affecting today's international politics.

Dever's book isn't just an academic search and destroy mission, however. He presents a profusion of recent work in excavation, social structure and imperial politics in the region. As part of his analysis, he wants due regard given to the "popular religions" prevalent in the time when the present Hebrew Bible was assembled. The biblical writers, he asserts, were The Establishment - male priests and scribes with their own elite agenda. Their purpose was the extinction of widespread "cults" adhered to by the majority population, particularly the elimination of the Ashereh cult likely prevelant among women. Ashereh, considered by some scholars to be Yahweh's consort, certainly commanded more adherents than the monotheist propogandists. However, this is the closest he comes to dealing with theology.

Dever's claim that the biblical assemblers "knew a lot and knew it early" in answer to the title's query may be contested. What cannot be challenged is his assertion that the Hebrew Bible has an historical basis. The chronology may be suspect, as is the classical portrayal of personages such as Solomon and David. While likely minor figures, someone in their image most likely lived. His conclusion stresses that a realistic view of the history of ancient Palestine will be far more productive for the future than will the hollow claims of the "deconstructionist" school". A fine, stimulating work and a rewarding read. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Rating:
Summary: Highly Informative But Uneven
Review: Dever poses three positions on ancient Israelite history: (1) there is no history; no ancient Israelite ethnic group and no king-state as described in the Hebrew Bible ever really existed--the view held by the revisionists/deconstructionists; (2) the Hebrew Bible is elitist propaganda, but when handled properly, it does yield reliable snippets of a real ancient Israelite history--Dever's position; and (3) the Hebrew Bible, taken at face value, is highly reliable history of ancient Israel--the Fundamentalist stance.

Addressing the revisionists, Dever probes the methodological foundations of the "new" literary approach ("deconstruction") for handling ancient texts and finds that "readers with much common sense will regard them as too absurd to be taken seriously." By contrast, he presents his own "postmodern", "positivist", traditional assumptions for pragmatically approaching ancient texts. The result is a picture of a group of revisionist "scholars" laughably lacking in sense, common or scholarly. The similarity of these folks who deny an ancient Israel is uncomfortably akin to the kooks who deny the Holocaust. Don't confuse them with hard facts.

There is a fascinating chapter for the uninitiated on the nature of archaeology, demonstrating how, as part of the new interdisciplinary approach pioneered by the "new archaeology," it is particularly well equipped to write history, using a variety of data types and research designs. The methodology works to ferret out "convergences" between textual and artifactual evidences. Dever presents compelling case studies of such convergences in two chapters and concretely demonstrates the absurdity of the revisionists' attempts to deny the history of ancient Israel.

Turning his attention to the Fundamentalists, Dever says "Many of the 'central events' as narrated in the Hebrew Bible turn out to not to be historically verifiable (i.e., not true) at all." (Are we to take it that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?) In any case, Dever sees a highly redacted (edited) and elitist-biased Bible (containing some real history which has to be carefully sifted by archaeologists and other scientists).

If, however, you take Dever's very effective methodology of exposing insupportable underlying suppositions on the part of ancient Israel-deniers, and apply it to his own Old Testament-as-human-propaganda view, this aspect of his position seems to hold up little better than that of the revisionists he demolishes. To begin with, he throws out various portions of the Scripture on the basis that they "OBVIOUSLY constitute a sort of prehistory that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors."

He contends, based on archaeology, ancient ethnic Israel can be shown to have arisen "de novo" among the hills of Palestine and concludes that, therefore, there was no Israelite invasion. Maybe this somehow makes some sense, but if it does he better flesh it out. He contends, "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical,...'historical fiction'...tales told to validate religious beliefs." Yet he goes on to say the "among the southern groups we know to have written much of the Hebrew Bible, there is known a "house of Joseph," many of whom may have stemmed originally from Egypt."

Dever claims Joshua cannot be harmonized with Judges. The evidence he offers is that Judges 1:1 begins with the story of Joshua's death, but "then later in ch. 1 we find...cities that were not taken, some of them like Hazor the very same cities that Joshua was said to have utterly destroyed." This statement is a mystery as, after searching eight different versions, I'm unable to even find Hazor in Judges 1.

Amidst an array of questionable conclusions concerning the Biblical record's adulteration of Hebrew history, however, is a marvelous collection of information concerning the daily life of ancient Israel. Once again, the revisionists who deny an ancient Israel are left with no place to stand.

In the final chapter, Dever first vaporizes any remaining shreds of biblical deconstruction along with its broader postmodern framework. Then he returns one final time to a denying of a high degree of historical reliability for the Hebrew Bible. And again, however, he resorts to presuppositions. He claims most of the Bible is contradicted by archaeology, but his basis for this seems to be that it "contains miraculous tales, legends, folktales, sagas, myths, and the like" (page 271). His materialistic naturalism is an assumption, and informed Evangelicals should not have great difficulty dealing with it (read, for example, Phillip Johnson's Wedge of Truth).

In another section, while demolishing the revisionists picture of a Hebrew Bible written almost entirely in the Hellenistic period, Dever declares the book of Daniel was "almost certainly written in the context of the Hasmonean wars of the 2nd century." The reason for this assertion is that "Daniel clearly presupposes the Greek notion of the ''immortality of the soul', [a notion] totally foreign to ancient Israel, and therefore conspicuously absent in the rest of the Hebrew Bible." It would be easy to be misled here, getting no indication of the substantive scholarly debate over this thesis and other purported reasons for a possible late Daniel dating.

Finally, Dever ends the book with a rambling, almost incoherent, discourse on what kind of faith is still possible after it is admitted that the Bible, while containing historical material, is nevertheless not literally true.

In the end, Dever's argument for an OT with some real history lurking behind a crude veneer of propaganda and non-history is so strikingly weak on the propaganda/non-history side, that it would be easy to suspect him of actually being a closet Bible-believing theist, perhaps, even a theologically orthodox Jew, rather than the atheistic secular humanist he claims to be. What we are left with, after some judicious sorting of Dever's evidentiary material from that based on weakly supported presuppositions, is an extraordinary attestation in broad outline to the historicity of the OT by an outstanding modern archaeologist.

Rating:
Summary: Who-What-When-Where-How?
Review: Even the title of this book, 'What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?' shows some of the key controversies that modern archaeologists deal with in their reconstructions and analyses of discoveries in relation to the Biblical texts. Among many archaeologists there is a love-hate relationship with the Bible -- it is not a history text in the modern sense, and requires varying degrees of translation and interpretation, as well as understanding that the texts have undergone considerable changes and development since first being committed to print, and that not all of these developments have been in favour of historical truth as it is defined by the moderns.

Enter the fact that in many instances, the Bible is the sole witness to many ancient practices, people, places, etc., and one can understand how it becomes a problematic document with which to deal in terms of modern historical reconstruction. Dever's subtitle: 'What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel' shows the direction of this volume -- what are the discoveries, and how do they relate to the realities?

'For centuries the Hebrew Bible has been the fountainhead of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Today, however, the entire biblical tradition, including its historical veracity, is being challenged. Leading this assault is a group of scholars described as the 'minimalist' or 'revisionist' school of biblical studies, which charges that the Hebrew Bible is largely pious fiction and that its writers and editors invented 'ancient Israel' as a piece of late Jewish propaganda in the Hellenistic era.'

Dever is concerned that revisionist scholars do not so much intend to 'revise' ancient history as to abolish it altogether. They seek, Dever contends, to reduce the historical stories to nothing more than fables and legends that are incorporated at a later date into the historical core of the Hebrew Bible as fact to bolster later dynasties. These are a 'pious fiction' rather than historical fact. Figures such as Abraham, Moses and David, under this kind of reconstruction, never actually existed. They are figures with more in common with Hercules than with Rameses; they are invented to serve the purpose of building a cultural and national consciousness.

Dever deals with these issues, and the dangers associated with such revisionism, in great detail. Asking the question 'Is there any real history in the Hebrew Bible?' Dever proceeds to examine archaeological evidence and Biblical narratives to see what the core of truth may be. While fully acknowledging the differences between different kinds of history, Dever contends that there is a reliable core of actual events, people, and places that underpin the biblical narratives.

English has only one useful word for what we think of as history. The German language (in which much of modern historical method and philosophy has been formulated) has a more explicit division of types of history: Geschicte, or academic history; Historie, less formal narrative history; and Storie, which is history embellished with mythological and folkloric elements, but still with a connection to a core truth in the past.

Dever examines the revisionists (naming them by name, and analysing their methodologies and conclusions) one by one, and as such provides an interesting overview of the scholarship in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology over the past decade. After this brief summary, Dever gives a broader overview of archaeological method and intent, as well as some specific history over the past few centuries of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and its varying focus over time. From fascination with Egypt and Mesopotamia to drives and well-funded digs with specific intent to prove biblical connexions to later 'objective' efforts to look beyond (or even without) biblical reference, Dever approaches the ideas of source, epistemology, method, and intention with clarity and insight.

His final chapter addresses both practical and ideological concerns with the revisionists (part of the general fallout against 'postmodern' academia that seems to be taking place in the past decade or so). The rejection of the Bible as a valid historical source because of its theological basis (instead of dealing with the theological basis as a part of the considerations to be addressed in considering it as an historical source) is part of the failure of postmodern revisionism to adequately address the history of ancient Israel and the neighbouring lands. Dever concludes with an interesting set of topics that include Faith and History, Faith and 'Meaning', Oral Traditions, Literary Traditions, Literary Reconstructions, and other topics of interest.

From the conclusion, Dever writes a good summary of the book's intention: 'What I have attempted to do throughout this book is twofold. First, I have focused on methodology, in order to unmask the revisionists' ideology and the postmodern paradigm that lies partly hidden behind it, and in so doing to expose their faulty methodology in approaching the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Second, I have sought to counter the revisionists' minimalist conclusions by showing how archaeology uniquely provides a context for many of the narratives in the Hebrew Bible. It thus makes them not just 'stories' arising out of later Judaism's identity crisis, but part of the history of a real people of Israel in the Iron Age of ancient Palestine.'

William Dever is professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He is the author of numerous books and articles on archaeology and biblical studies, and is a frequent contributor to magazines, newspapers, and television programmes on archaeological and historical topics. Apart from this volume, his major works include a four-volume analysis of excavation projects at Gezer in Israel, and major books entitled Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research and Recent Excavations in Israel.

Rating:
Summary: Who-What-When-Where-How?
Review: Even the title of this book, `What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?' shows some of the key controversies that modern archaeologists deal with in their reconstructions and analyses of discoveries in relation to the Biblical texts. Among many archaeologists there is a love-hate relationship with the Bible -- it is not a history text in the modern sense, and requires varying degrees of translation and interpretation, as well as understanding that the texts have undergone considerable changes and development since first being committed to print, and that not all of these developments have been in favour of historical truth as it is defined by the moderns.

Enter the fact that in many instances, the Bible is the sole witness to many ancient practices, people, places, etc., and one can understand how it becomes a problematic document with which to deal in terms of modern historical reconstruction. Dever's subtitle: `What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel' shows the direction of this volume -- what are the discoveries, and how do they relate to the realities?

`For centuries the Hebrew Bible has been the fountainhead of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Today, however, the entire biblical tradition, including its historical veracity, is being challenged. Leading this assault is a group of scholars described as the 'minimalist' or 'revisionist' school of biblical studies, which charges that the Hebrew Bible is largely pious fiction and that its writers and editors invented 'ancient Israel' as a piece of late Jewish propaganda in the Hellenistic era.'

Dever is concerned that revisionist scholars do not so much intend to 'revise' ancient history as to abolish it altogether. They seek, Dever contends, to reduce the historical stories to nothing more than fables and legends that are incorporated at a later date into the historical core of the Hebrew Bible as fact to bolster later dynasties. These are a 'pious fiction' rather than historical fact. Figures such as Abraham, Moses and David, under this kind of reconstruction, never actually existed. They are figures with more in common with Hercules than with Rameses; they are invented to serve the purpose of building a cultural and national consciousness.

Dever deals with these issues, and the dangers associated with such revisionism, in great detail. Asking the question 'Is there any real history in the Hebrew Bible?' Dever proceeds to examine archaeological evidence and Biblical narratives to see what the core of truth may be. While fully acknowledging the differences between different kinds of history, Dever contends that there is a reliable core of actual events, people, and places that underpin the biblical narratives.

English has only one useful word for what we think of as history. The German language (in which much of modern historical method and philosophy has been formulated) has a more explicit division of types of history: Geschicte, or academic history; Historie, less formal narrative history; and Storie, which is history embellished with mythological and folkloric elements, but still with a connection to a core truth in the past.

Dever examines the revisionists (naming them by name, and analysing their methodologies and conclusions) one by one, and as such provides an interesting overview of the scholarship in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology over the past decade. After this brief summary, Dever gives a broader overview of archaeological method and intent, as well as some specific history over the past few centuries of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and its varying focus over time. From fascination with Egypt and Mesopotamia to drives and well-funded digs with specific intent to prove biblical connexions to later 'objective' efforts to look beyond (or even without) biblical reference, Dever approaches the ideas of source, epistemology, method, and intention with clarity and insight.

His final chapter addresses both practical and ideological concerns with the revisionists (part of the general fallout against 'postmodern' academia that seems to be taking place in the past decade or so). The rejection of the Bible as a valid historical source because of its theological basis (instead of dealing with the theological basis as a part of the considerations to be addressed in considering it as an historical source) is part of the failure of postmodern revisionism to adequately address the history of ancient Israel and the neighbouring lands. Dever concludes with an interesting set of topics that include Faith and History, Faith and 'Meaning', Oral Traditions, Literary Traditions, Literary Reconstructions, and other topics of interest.

From the conclusion, Dever writes a good summary of the book's intention: `What I have attempted to do throughout this book is twofold. First, I have focused on methodology, in order to unmask the revisionists' ideology and the postmodern paradigm that lies partly hidden behind it, and in so doing to expose their faulty methodology in approaching the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Second, I have sought to counter the revisionists' minimalist conclusions by showing how archaeology uniquely provides a context for many of the narratives in the Hebrew Bible. It thus makes them not just 'stories' arising out of later Judaism's identity crisis, but part of the history of a real people of Israel in the Iron Age of ancient Palestine.'

William Dever is professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He is the author of numerous books and articles on archaeology and biblical studies, and is a frequent contributor to magazines, newspapers, and television programmes on archaeological and historical topics. Apart from this volume, his major works include a four-volume analysis of excavation projects at Gezer in Israel, and major books entitled Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research and Recent Excavations in Israel.

Rating:
Summary: anti-minimalist?
Review: For someone who claims to be writing a book which supports historicity of the Bible, and an anti minimalist stance, Dever's work is a disappointment. According to Dever, the historicity of the Bible is basically limited to the period of kings. He thinks that no researcher takes the early Israelite history such as the Exodus seriously, a point of view which is definately not true.