What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? [Paperback]

William G. Dever (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 2001

)In contrast with the revisionists who discredit even the most reliable archaeological evidence, Dever provides a judicious analysis of data and shows how it squares with what much of the biblical text tells us. A sound critical examination of Israels origins,

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, has excavated in the Near East for the past 35 years. In this book, he gives readers a cross-section of the world of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. As in an archaeological dig, there are some items here that nonexperts will find fascinating, but much of little interest. The book's title and subtitle are misleading: while the text does contain a helpful survey of the ways in which archaeology can (and cannot) illuminate the historicity of the Bible, this amounts to less than half of the total content. Most of the book is a lengthy argument with a group of scholars Dever calls "the Revisionists," who dismiss the idea that archaeological investigation of the Near East can provide any objectively useful data for reconstructing a history of the region. Dever is understandably opposed to such a view. This book therefore contains two different works: one is a helpful introduction to the world of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and its possible interaction with biblical studies, while the other is a diatribe against a certain cadre of scholars and the philosophical background they represent. It will be rare to find a nonspecialist reader who has interest in the former but is also willing to dig through the latter.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Library Journal

Dever (archaeology and anthropology, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson) rigorously challenges revisionists who deny any historical basis for an "ancient Israel" as portrayed in the Old Testament. This minimalist school of thought, which Dever sees as an outgrowth of various postmodern social agendas, has swelled over the past decade, and Dever here compares its pseudo "quest for the historical Israel" to similar reductionist approaches found in the search for the historical Jesus. In contrast to such revisionists, who discredit even the most reliable archaeological evidence such as the ninth-century inscription from northern Israel mentioning the "house of David" and a "king of Israel" Dever provides a judicious analysis of archaeological data and shows how it squares with what much of the biblical text tells us. For instance, a comparison of texts from Judges and Samuel with archaeological remains from highland villages in the Iron Age are found to coincide remarkably. Highly polemical (and for good reason), this book attempts to correct various recent assertions based more on feelings for the modern Israeli-Palestinian question than on any concern for honest history. Alongside the magisterial collection of essays edited by Hershel Shanks, Ancient Israel (Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999), Dever's accessible book offers a sound critical examination of Israel's origins. An advisable purchase for all academic and most public libraries. Loren Rosson III, Nashua P.L., NH
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Product Details

• Paperback
• Publisher: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (May 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 080282126X
• ISBN-13: 978-0802821263
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 5.8 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (32 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #699,171 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

156 of 167 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars trenchant, informative, and remarkably broad in scope, June 20, 2001

By 

ploni_almoni (Chicago) - See all my reviews

This review is from: What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Hardcover)

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.

43 of 45 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A philosophy of archaeology, August 17, 2002

By 

Atheen M. Wilson "Atheen" (Mpls, MN United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Hardcover)

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.

25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A prize-winner!, August 17, 2004

By 

Stephen A. Haines (Ottawa, Ontario Canada) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Hardcover)

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]