“The Age of Solomon: Fact or Fiction?” was the title of Dr. William G. Dever’s public lecture in Simrall auditorium on Wednesday evening. Dever is Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and is one of the world’s foremost authorities on Early Israel.
I do not wish to take up Dever’s debate of whether the Bible is historically accurate in its portrayal of Israel, but rather to acknowledge that the approach Dever takes in his studies is one that all scientists and scholars could learn from.
Dever’s lecture set out to disprove recent theories regarding Early Israel, namely the those stating that Israel during the time of Kings David and Solomon (10th century B.C.) never existed. Dever exposed the myth that Israel was merely an invention of “confused Jews living in the Hellenistic Period.”
Dever does not argue against this position based on any religious beliefs about the Bible. Nor does he argue for the historicity of an existing Early Israel based on any present political tension between Israel and Palestine. Dever’s argument is based on the historical and archaeological records that are available to us.
“Nonsense passes for scholarship in some circles,” Dever says. The nonsense he refers to is the unwillingness of some scholars to examine any evidence that might contradict what they already believe to be true.
When faced with historical and archaeological evidence, such as a ninth century inscription that references the “House of David,” the skeptics simply write off the artifact as a forgery.
This attitude is dangerous for two reasons.
First, it hurts the non-experts in a field. Those who might take an interest in a certain field are subject to the biased publications of such “scholars.”
Instead of furthering education about a subject, these scholars only further propaganda and ignorance which, in turn, might create a new group of biased propagandists. The non-experts in many cases will swallow what is before them on the assumption of good faith in the so-called “experts.”
Second, dishonest research and reporting take time away from honest scholars. Instead of spending their time furthering research in an area or exploring new topics, honest scholars must spend their time debunking the falsities promulgated by those who only wish to advance their theories despite the evidence.
“Intellectual terrorists” is the name Dever used for those who refuse to recognize the veracity of undeniable facts.
Unlike such shameful scholars, Dever posits dates for his findings based not on religious or political convictions, but rather from other points of verification such as known pottery styles of the period.
“It happens they fit the biblical story,” Dever says of the dates he finds at sites thought to be in the Solomonic Age. “It would be fine with me if they didn’t fit,” he said.
While Dever does not dismiss the historical accuracy of biblical texts, he chooses to operate on a level free of presuppositions. “The Bible has suffered more at the hands of its well-intentioned friends than at the hands of all of its enemies combined,” he says.
This type of willingness to examine the facts withholding any prejudices one might have is necessary for those in the scientific community. Dever’s admirable treatment of data allows one to read and study his work with the confidence of knowing that what one receives is a trustworthy report.
If education is the goal, honesty and an unbiased approach in research and reporting is a must for the scholar.
Michael Stewart is a senior philosophy and religion major. He can be reached at [email protected].