Dig This: William Dever

UCSD Professor Tom Levy hosts a lively discussion with noted archaeologist and anthropologist William Dever, about the difficulties and rewards of Middle Eastern archaeology. Series: "Dig This!" [3/2000] [Humanities] [Show ID: 4851]

[@alfrede.neuman8898]

Wm. Dever was my Anthropology professor at University of Arizona in 1975. Entertaining in his lectures. He is a fallen away Evangelical pastor and Reformed Jew and now is a “secular humanist.”

[@drich991122]

I have several of Devers' books. Devers never lets one down. Whether reading his books or hearing him on shows like this one,he is always articulate and thoroughly knowledgeable.

[@paulschreiber3433]

Dever is the kind of practitioner/spokesman archaeology always needs: articulate, well-versed, mindful of the peripheral issues that shape digs, sensitive to the field's constant funding issues, and quick with an elevator pitch, too. :)

[@ytcarol]

I'm just reading Prof. Dever's intelligent and thorough book. This is such an interesting field. If one can read about the Bible authors objectively, there is much to learn. I'm delighted to read his books as well as Richard Elliott Friedman.

[@10solidrocks]

I enjoyed this interview very much. I have read some things about William Dever and now have had a chance to hear him speak. I will buy his latest book for sure.

[@jeradclark8533]

What an admirable figure.

[@zekewheel]

The humanities were the big things during the 1970s which really shows that we learn as much or more from the past. What government ever survives from not learning these lessons so we can develop into a more caring society?? Discovering the ancient landmarks helps us to view into the heart and soul of the Creators male/female and also our own consciousness as people. Not religion but life as a progression of ideologies. Why should the military industrial complex steal away our heritage of learning to grow & work together?

[@subculturistic]

Dever is actually considered quite moderate in the field of NE archaeology. For a liberal view check out Whitelam and Lemche.

[@mensajero0072]

Le recomiendo al Sr Willian Dever que haga un recorrido desde el golfo de Aqaba hasta arabia Saudita y la zona de jebel al Lawz

[@JapanJohnny2012]

Sounds interesting. Where did you check them out?

[@mmarley]

Certainly of more liberal persuasion, but even handed

[@dorasmith7875]

I'm definitely going to get Dever's book. But not today. He's charging too much for it.

[@iampauleybaby]

Dever is wonderful, but he talks himself into corners (Solomon being the most clamorous case in point). He can only resolve his inconsistencies by coming over to the Low Chronology and by letting go of "Ancient Israel", which he wants in his heart and soul to admit never existed as such. Come on, Bill. Come over to the dark side. You know it's right and you know it's for you. You'll be welcomed with open arms, all the choirs will sing and it will truly be a great day for science and archaeology.

[@23igna]

If you are talking about Denver denying the truth from the Bible, them im with you, my brother. There is some truth that archaelogy can't grasp. What we are seeing today, the creation of the modern State of Israel, are proves of biblical prophecy.

[@iampauleybaby]

William Dever’s method is banal and opportunistic. It goes like this: sure, the OT account of the origins of ancient Israel is made up of unreliable tales, but there’s at least some history there. However, with Dever it’s this latter clause that suddenly prevails. Having brilliantly shown in his books how the stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus etc. are demonstrably false, he then supports a wholly unscientific account of a united monarchy. He has an agenda, and he should let it drop.

[@Achill101]

You have the right to criticize Dever, but why do you smear him as "banal and opportunistic"? Hasn't he done a lot for the archeology of ancient Israel? . . . There is certainly some history to the story of David who founded the ruling dynasty of Judah. How much? Dever thinks A Lot, others think Less, and the scientific debate is on-going. Dever's position might be wrong, but it is not unscientific, because he argues with evidence (and not with prejudice or with power).