Historicity and Half Truths: the Abuse of Willam Dever (priest, ritual)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by iris89

Some scholars, Muslim and pseudo Christians infidels of the past to whom truth was of no importance, hence unbelievers, used to argue that the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the book of I First Samuel, dated to the Hellenistic-Roman era, even as late as from the second to the first century B.C.E. They falsely claimed, therefore, that "they are. . . 'unhistorical,' of little or no value for reconstructing a 'biblical' or an 'ancient Israel,' both of which are simply modern Jewish and Christian literary constructs."

Referring to the pim measure mentioned at 1 Samuel 13:21, however, William G. Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology, says: "[It] cannot possibly have been 'invented' by writers living in the Hellenistic-Roman period several centuries after these weights had disappeared and had been forgotten. In fact, this bit of biblical text. . . would not be understood until the early 20th century A.D., when the first actual archaeological examples turned up, reading pim in Hebrew." The professor continues: "If the biblical stories are all 'literary inventions' of the Hellenistic-Roman era, how did this particular story come to be in the Hebrew Bible? One may object, of course, that the pim incident is 'only a detail.' To be sure; but as is well known, 'history is in the details.'".

- THE BIBLE'S HISTORICITY

We'll see a similar appeal to Dever's authority immediately below. Here, however, three points are worthy of note:

1. The appeal is prefaced by the ugliest of ad hominems, where the apoligist's world is composed of like-minded souls on one side and "scholars, Muslim and pseudo Christians infidels of the past to whom truth was of no importance" on the other.
2. No specific references are offered, so it is near impossible to determine either context or accuracy.
3. The absurd implication is that the historical accuracy of one Biblical reference confirms Biblical historicity in general.

Now, to continue ...

Appeals to Dever are all too common. Some time ago, in a failed and none too honest effort to prop up the Exodus as history, Rabbi Dovid Lichtman wrote:

Herzog, along with other archaeologists, are considered biblical minimalists (or revisionists as Dever calls them) who see very little historical value in the Bible. Revisionists, like Herzog and Prof. Israel Finkelstein have attempted to speak in a bombastic fashion on behalf of the entire school of biblical archaeology. They are so convinced of their position that they ignore any other approach that does not concur with their own.

If anything gets Dever's blood boiling it is when revisionists distort archaeology, thus cheapening and mocking the integrity of his entire academic field.

Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere "propaganda" to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, "the archaeological record is silent."

"In fact," asserts Dever, "the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."

- aish.com

While the ad hominem is somewhat more tempered, the strategy is identical. Dever, a man of unchallenged credentials, finds an historical thread in the tapestry of the Tanach, therefore the Bible is historical truth. But truth in the hands of these apologists proves to be rather malleable, and the good Rabbi, in his tirade against the "stubborn revisionists", does an excellent job revising Dever's position by offering half truths to the reader.

So, let's see what Dever actually says about the Bible and historicity ...

Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.

- What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It? (page 97)

After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.

- ibid (page 99)

Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...

- ibid (page 121)

I have some issues with Dever, but his credentials are significant and his works, though oft-times highly polemical, are well worth study. He deserves far better than the treatment he receives at the hands of those who sermonize against 'scholars, Muslim and pseudo Christian infidels' and 'stubborn revisionists'. Clearly. they either (a) never read the man, or (b) read him and chose to quote him selectively. Whether this reflects a deficiency in scholarship, integrity, or both is for each of us to determine determine.

What is clear, however, is that the unabridged scholarship is available to anyone interested in acquiring it.