William Dever is one of the premier American archaeologists of his generation, and in the case of his impact on biblical studies, he has sought to clarify the relationship between these two disciplines. Publishing scholarly articles, popular articles, and contributions to larger works, his more prominent footprints upon the landscape of biblical studies appear in a series of monographs published by Eerdmans between 2001 and 2012 (What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It; Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?; Did God Have a Wife?; The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel). In every case, Dever candidly discusses the archaeological data and, at times, forces evangelicals to have the awkward, but necessary, conversation about how reconsiderations of historical and cultural assumptions may be warranted. His work recently has culminated in Behind the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah (SBL, 2017). The volume reviewed here represents an attempt to provide a more accessible discussion of all the material covered in Behind the Texts (p. vii). In this work, complex discussions are simplified, which is understandable. However, it creates an impression that things are more simplistic than what they actually are. Nevertheless, Has Archaeology Buried the Bible is extremely useful, particularly for anyone who wants to have an up-to-date rubric for framing popular conceptions, a foundation for technical discussions about how archaeology relates to biblical studies, and/or just to have insight into the gist of Dever’s positions.This work is modest in its scope. There are only seven, relatively short, chapters in addition to a conclusion. Yet the topics addressed—the Patriarchal period, the exodus, the conquest, the settlement, the monarchy, and the nature of Israelite religion—ensure that the work is engaging from start to finish. For instance, chapter one sets up the subsequent chapters in a very surprising way. Summarizing the methodological developments of archaeology in Syria-Palestine with a particular focus on how it has been understood to interact with biblical studies, Dever eventually discusses the infamous Minimalist versus Maximalist debates. This then catapults him into the assertion that archaeology is the key to responsibly navigating the gauntlet constructed by these two radical positions. For Dever, archaeology must be the “primary source” in reconstructing the historical and cultural issues relevant to illuminating the biblical message. Why? Because Dever believes that archaeology alone can offer unbiased, varied, and dynamic data contemporary to the events recounted (p. 6).These considerations ultimately lead Dever into a hermeneutical corner in which most historians do not congregate. According to Dever, because the biblical text exists somewhere between completely historically accurate and fabricated, one will eventually “fall back on another traditional way of reading and comprehending Scripture, namely as allegory” (p. 7). Thus, one seeks to transcend “simplistic interpretations in order to reach a higher, and hence more authentic, Truth” (p. 7). In other words, Dever argues that while archaeology has not buried the Bible, it has shown its enduring value to be linked with a heremeneutic that is traditionally understood as ahistorical. Of course, Dever is aware of the inevitable problem. What constrains these allegorical interpretations? Archaeology. The results of archaeology, at least in part, constrain the extent of the allegory.Essentially, the rest of the book provides examples for how archaeological data can push one to see the deeper, more enduring, message of the Bible. For example, when it comes to the Patriarchs, the exodus, and the conquest, the enduring value exists with the national myths they create, which speak to Yahweh’s ability in guiding his people to their “promised land.” The settlement becomes a commentary on what can potentially hold a community together or rip it apart. However, all this raises a question: Did any of it happen? If these early historical accounts are better understood for what they symbolize, then is the historical value of the Bible diminished, or even suffocated? Dever answers somewhat positively, admitting that there are “genuine historical details that emerge” in various places (p. 50). Yet Dever makes it clear that the archaeological data forces a rather nuanced answer to questions of historicity.Dever’s tone changes in chapters five through seven, and the reason is almost certainly linked to the dynamics of the archaeological data. Because the data germane to the monarchal era (both unified and divided) and the nature of Israelite religion is less elusive and ambiguous, Dever’s conversations are more natural and insightful. By noting important data points and bringing them into direct contact with the biblical text, he begins to pull the curtain back on what a convergence between archaeology and biblical studies looks like. But perhaps most importantly, the importance of understanding the dynamics of history writing comes into view. When the convergences between the archaeological data and the text are allowed to play out naturally, the reader must inevitably ponder why the biblical writer chose to say what they did in the manner that they did. For example, if the religious tendencies among the Judean and Israelite populaces were closer to what the prophets criticized than what they advocated, then what does this say about the intentions of the writer? If the Omrides were such a positive socioeconomic and political force in the region, what does this say about the conventions of ancient history writing and the message that is derived from them? These questions, as well as others, strike at the heart of what it means to write history in the ancient world.Nevertheless, despite the welcome trajectory established by Dever’s discussions of the convergences between archaeology and the biblical text, his conclusions at times are frustratingly ordinary. In considering Tel Dan converging with 2 Kgs 9–10, Dever merely states about the historical question of who killed the Omride Dynasty, “Here we have a conflict that we cannot resolve. Both accounts seem believable and in the nature of the case archaeology can’t decide” (p. 107). Then, with respect to who sacked Samaria (Shalmaneser IV or Sargon II), “As it turns out, both versions are correct” (p. 108). In both cases, if Dever would step back from his devotion to archaeology as the primary voice and instead adopt a more mutually beneficial posture between archaeology and the Bible, the historiographic beauty of the text would be appreciated all the more. The reality is that both Tel Dan and 2 Kgs 9–10 are necessary, for only through a consultation of both witnesses can the multiple machinations that brought down the Omrides come into view. Only through both the Assyrian and biblical records can one observe the conventions of ancient Near Eastern historiography, which often exploit traditional motifs, forms, and even establish uniformity between reigns by echoing the feats of their predecessors.The reality is that the relationship between archaeology and the OT is incredibly nuanced. No cookie-cutter model will suffice, and virtually no “either/or” scenario that pits the Bible against archaeology will be able to explain the truth of the matter. Indeed, if anyone is familiar with Dever’s scholarship they realize that he understands this. However, his rhetoric in this work cuts against him. This is most clear in his conversations about the conquest and settlement periods. According to Dever, “The biblical writers and editors gave us two, diametrically opposed accounts of their origins . . . the account of Judges as ‘the ring of truth’ about it and may be earlier. . . . In contrast, Joshua is almost certainly a work of fiction, celebrating in an exaggerated fashion the exploits of a legendary military figure” (p. 139). There is no denying that Joshua and Judges speak to the same period of Israel’s history and that Joshua’s account schematically progresses in accordance with known literary conventions (namely, as conquest literature; cf. K. Lawson Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts, LHBOTS [Sheffield Academic, 2009]). But Dever’s conversation frustrates in a few ways. First, his conversation implies that a preference for Judges is linked to its witness to the “facts on the ground.” Second, his conversation doesn’t speak to how narrative poetics complement a concern for accuracy amid the endeavor of writing of history. Historiography does not stake its claim on a robotic presentation of the “facts on the ground.” Rather, historiography presents those facts in the context of communicating a point. Therefore, both Judges and Joshua have something to say for reconstructing the period of the Israelite settlement. The scholar, therefore, must engage the text critically, with a full awareness of the genre and its canons. The dynamics of genre, which Dever maintains is the key to unlocking the enduring value of the text, do not seem to be fully appreciated in places.Nevertheless, Dever remains an influential voice in the conversation of how archaeology converges with the biblical text. Evangelicals should continue to listen to him as he is bold, firm, and blunt from time to time. Most importantly, he wields the archaeological data well. However, we must also be willing to challenge any position that archaeology must be “primary.” Rather, a more fruitful way forward is to realize that the relationship between archaeology and the Bible is more mutual. Namely, the convergences don’t have to be dictated or controlled by an archaeological perspective. Rather, the dynamics should be more balanced and proceed from a respect for the conclusions of both disciplines, which is something that I have tried to argue (Pondering the Spade [Wipf & Stock, 2019]).For those who cannot accept that nuance is necessary in conversations about historical sources, particularly with respect to the biblical source, this book will likely be frustrating. For those who deemphasize the issues of ancient history and culture in their interpretive endeavors, the importance of this book will likely not register. But for those who specialize in the issues of ancient history, culture, the historical books, or anything related, this work is important. I suspect that Dever’s shadow will continue to affect the contours of biblical scholarship well into the next generation as it continues to learn that archaeology has not buried the Bible but rather brings the intricacies of its message into sharper view.