Toto

I don't know what that unpleasant remark is supposed to mean.

Solitary Man

Exactly what it says. Are you familiar with Dever?

spin

So?

spin

And what has Devious Bill done over the last fifteen years other than bleat about minimalism and write lightweight stuff?

Big names on book covers don't mean nothin'. They're just bait for people who like big names. They're no substitute for knowing something about the subject.

Toto

Of course I am familiar with Dever, who does not support the idea that there is any evidence for the Exodus. There's a big name for you, and a seemingly positive review, which I would not take at face value.

spin

Are you -- besides what you've already cribbed off the net??

Solitary Man

Quite so, actually. I'm still wondering where Toto ever got "positive" out of anything I said. All I said was that it got great reviews. Dever is quite a balanced person, even though I disagree with his assessments. I think he's too conservative, as I state so here.

Dever gives it props. Again as I state in the very beginning, "[It] got great reviews. Might be worth it to pick it up."

Diogenes the Cynic

Dever is well known and has been much discussed on this forum. Most everyone who posts on this subject is conversant with Dever. He's hardly an obscure name. He also doesn't believe in the historicity of the Biblical Exodus, nor does he believe that the Israelites were ever in Egypt. His review appears to be more of a faintly patronizing pat on the back than an endorsement of any conclusions. Calling it "spirited defense" of the conservative/literalist position is not the same as saying it proves anything (which it doesn't).

Even Hoffmeier admits there isn't any archaeological evidence for the Israelites in Egypt (ok, then, game over) but only tries to make arguments for "plausibility," based largely upon (from what I can divine from reading online reviews), a willingness to equate semites with Israelites and some standard boilerplate about naturalistic explanations for the Biblical plagues (sure they might have been based on natural local phenomena. So what?).

He may not make any blatantly false claims but my impression from reading the reviews is that he's putting the most Bible-friendly spin he possible can on some of the data which could have the broadest range of interpretation and essentially making a plea that some kind of vague historical basis for the Biblical Exodus can't be absolutely ruled out. What I've seen strikes me as straw clutching and as special pleading but not necessarily bad scholarship since his speculation is actually pretty modest.

Toto

That's a great review? The best case that can be made for a position that Dever thinks is false? It sounds more like his published told him to say something positive.

Solitary Man

Which is why I said "big names" in post 8.

Yes, which is why I said that, coming from him, it might be worth it to pick it up.

This is a judgment call. Would Dever himself agree that he's patronizing the author?

Nor did anyone say that it proved anything. So far, I don't think anyone here has argued that the positions contained within the book are true, so I'm not sure where you're arguing to.

Not sure who the rest of your post is directed towards, so I'm ignoring it.