Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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]

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.

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".

While the polemic against the minimalists gets a little excessive at times, I have to say that it is necessary, as they are very vocal these days. There is no need to debate fundamentalists because they've made up their mind already (as Michael Freeman's review shows).

The book gives a fascinating overview of the archaeological evidence. Dever pretty much represents "the mainstream" in his assessment of the historical background of the Bible; that the Patriarchs, Exodus, and Conquest are basically unhistorical or only quasi-historical is the most parsimonious explanation given the evidence, and has become the mainstream view. Likewise, the native Canaanite origins of the Israelites is the theory that most adequately explains the ceramic and cultural similarities of the two peoples. His assessment of the monarchic period from 1025-587 BC is the focal point of the book and does an excellent job of reviewing the archaeology. There were many fascinating artifacts I was unaware of.

One of the best serious books about biblical archaeology out there, and reads very well to the uninitiated.

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.

On page x (in the foreword), Dever says that the book is "...certainly polemical." So a reader ought to expect polemic, not everybody holding hands around the campfire and singing "Kum Bah Yah."

Also, when you consider the fact that he has been personally accused of falsifying evidence, it is understandable that he would want to expose not only the absurdity of the claims of his adversaries, but to also try to put their motives into their larger context. Put yourself in his place. Would you like it if others accused you of falsifying archaeological finds? Would you want the truth to come out? Would you keep your cool?

On a final note, this book is worth it's price if only for the numerous palaeo-Hebrew inscriptions which are wonderfully reproduced in the middle chapters of the book. Those (seems to me) are not too easy to find. Many books refer to inscriptions, but this one shows the actual inscriptions. That is awesome. Not only does it lend gravitas to his argument, it is wonderful for those who know Hebrew and would like to translate them. It really adds so much when they include the reproductions of the inscriptions.

The erudite Ploni Almoni [Hebrew for "John Doe" in Talmudic discourse] has already said most of what needs to be said about Dever's book so I'll keep this short. Dever's title is misleading, but the subtitle is accurate: the book is about what archeology can and can't tell us about the world that made the bible. And Dever is about the best writer on the archaeology of the South Levant in the business.

But his polemic against archeological "minimalists" and critical "nihilists" is nasty, self-indulgent, and swings wild. For example, he accuses narrative theorist Mieke Bal of not reading Hebrew but the book on Judges he cites--Death and Dissymmetry--shows abundant evidence that Bal reads Hebrew with more sensitivity than most literary scholars. Dever sees "deconstructionists" everywhere--he uses the word as a synonym for "literary scholars I don't like." Most of the literary critics Dever attacks are as committed to authorial intention as the conservatives he praises--they are just more sensitive to the way texts harbor assumptions and pursue intentions their authors aren't aware of.

So buy this book--but start reading on p. 53!

Dever has written a polemic and a magisterial scholarly review of archeological evidence to show that the book of Kings does have reliable historical information and can be relied upon for developing a political historical outline for early Israel and Judah. The polemic is aimed against the revisionists or minimalists who dismiss the Bible as fable or "pious fraud." Dever takes them on by looking at the works of the four leading revisionists, whom he calls nihilists and representatives of postmodernism. More interesting to me was his review of the convergences between archaeological evidence and biblical text which lead him to find historical value in the Hebrew Bible.

Dever denies that he is a biblical archaeologist in the mold of William Albright, as the revisionists would portray him, for he places primary emphasis on the archaeological record rather than trying to defend the authority of the Bible. In fact he is a convert to Judaism and a theistic secular humanist rather than a conservative Christian. Even so, his discovery of convergences and his "reading between the lines" of scripture lead to insights into the Bible as well as to valuable historical information.

A number of interesting historical conclusions emerge. Dever concludes that there was no patriachcal period, so that the patriarchs cannot be seen as historical personages. He also points to lack of evidence for the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. But he does maintain that the Bible was accurate in describing a United Monarchy under David and Solomon. He also points to parallels of other temples in Canaan to show that what the Bible says about the construction of Solomon's temple was nothing unusual in that time and therefore likely to be historically reliable. His survey of popular religion during the Divided Monarchy brings to light the key role of a female consort for YHWH that was prevalent in popular religion but hardly acknowledged by the Bible writers and editors because of their dominant message in favor of the Deuternomistic reform agenda. He reminds us that the Bible was a `minority report.' "Largely written by priests, prophets, and scribes who were intellectuals, above all religious reformers, the Bible is highly idealistic. It presents us not so much with a picture of what Israelite religion really was, but of what it should have been - and would have been, had the biblical writers only been in charge." (p. 173)

This book can be recommended for those who want to see what archaeology has to say about accounts in the Hebrew Bible. Those seeking new insights into the Bible will also find this book rewarding but will have to wade through a lot of polemics and archaeological evidence to get to those insights.