According to William Dever, an eminent American specialist in Syro-Palestinian archaeology, “A worldwide crisis in biblical studies has been brewing for a generation.” So he says in an article published in the May/June 2017 issue of the superb magazine Biblical Archaeology Review, titled “Whom Do You Believe — The Bible or Archaeology?”
What is the crisis? It’s not merely that, as he observes, no mainstream history of Israel has been written in English over the past three decades. (He allows the possible exception of one or two evangelical Protestant works.)
Perhaps the more serious problem is that “a majority of biblical scholars has lost confidence in the reliability of its principal source — the biblical text. These texts, it was asserted, were too late (dating from the Persian or Hellenistic periods); too obviously ‘constructs’ about self-identity; or too preposterous to provide authentic information about any real historical past.”
Dever cites the University of Copenhagen’s Thomas Thompson, a prominent advocate of what has been called “biblical minimalism”: “There is no more ‘ancient Israel,’” Thompson declares. “History no longer has room for it.”
Dever, however, has long been a fierce critic of “biblical minimalism” notwithstanding his own personal atheism. “This is simply extreme skepticism,” he says, “another example of the pervasive influence of postmodernism, a theory of knowledge according to which there is no knowledge; there are no facts, only interpretations — and one interpretation is as good as any other. Such nihilism cannot produce a history of anything.”
In contrast, Dever says, “new and better histories of Israel can now be and must be written.” In fact, his own history will be published later this year.
“Now in my mid-80s,” he comments, “I have nothing to lose — and nothing to gain. So I have plunged ahead.” In the meantime, in his new article for Biblical Archaeology Review, he selects one case — that of King David — to show how, in his judgment, archaeological evidence supports the biblical text.
There was an actual David who ruled over an actual state. He founded a dynasty that was known to his neighbors. His capital was in Jerusalem. (His citadel and palace may have actually been found.) Under his reign, the population expanded and cities grew. He fortified his kingdom’s borders. He prosecuted successful wars against the Philistines. And his dynasty, as well as Israelite’s awareness of its identity, survived from the 10th century to the early sixth century before Christ.
Those facts, which Dever regards as solidly established, run directly counter to the claims of the biblical minimalists. They are based on firm archaeological evidence, including such items as the Tel Dan Stela and the Stela of Mesha (a Moabite king), both of which date from the ninth century B.C. and both of which mention the “House of David.”
There are other facts that Dever views as possible, perhaps even probable, but not proven. These include the Bible’s portrayals of David’s charismatic character (1 Samuel 16:18; 18:16), the dynastic rivalries and murders that marred his reign (1 Samuel 18-31; 2 Samuel 1-5; 13-19; 1 Kings 1-2), attempts to use forced labor for the construction of a temple and the pursuit of foreign wars (2 Samuel 20:24), and Israel’s military and political domination of its other, non-Philistine neighbors.
On archaeological grounds, Dever finds some biblical claims about David dubious. For example, he regards the annexation of large tracts of land beyond the Jordan and claims of military campaigns against the Arameans of Syria (as recounted in 1 Chronicles 18-20) as “unlikely.” However, a Bible-believer might respond, these are relatively trivial issues when viewed alongside the more important ones that he judges to be solidly grounded in the archaeological data.
But what about the most important claims? Was David really God’s anointed king, “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14; 16:1-13)? Did he rule and found a lasting dynasty by divine decree, as the Bible claims (2 Samuel 7)? Did he really have all of the particular adventures described by the Bible (as at 1 Samuel 17)?
These claims are beyond the reach of archaeology. Just as the discovery of Homer’s Troy can’t prove the existence of the gods of Olympus, dirt archaeology cannot demonstrate the truth of biblical religion. But it can, very plainly, refute the arguments of those who say that the Bible isn’t historical.
For background on this debate, see these columns: “Bible wars among scholarly tribes” (published Jan. 23, 2015) and “Biblical 'minimalists' and the historical record,” (published Feb. 16, 2017).
Daniel Peterson teaches Arabic studies, founded BYU’s Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, directs MormonScholarsTestify.org, chairs mormoninterpreter.com, blogs daily at patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson, and speaks only for himself.