For someone like me without no expert knowledge but a continued interest in the history behind religious legend, this is a great book for beginning to learn the historical roots of Judaism and ancient Israel. The book is about how scholars and archeologists are interacting more to puzzle out how Israel and the Jewish identity arose. What fascinates me about this book is the strong suggestion that the Exodus was not a major historical event in the history of the Jewish people and probably not when and where their religion was principally shaped, though it became a main event in their religious mythology a number or centuries later. Maybe this kind of thing inevitably happens longterm in the literature of all religious (and nationalistic) traditions: Good story wins over literal truth. I'm eager to read the next good summary of work in this field by researchers from Israel and elsewhere. And I admire their patience in sorting things out!

With candor and analytical veracity, the author discussed the origins of the Israelites, and the social-political characteristics of the "Hebrew" monarchal state. In Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? the religious metamorphosis is depicted with accuracy and fervor. The theme is explored through the eyes of a sincere historian. The argumentation is solid and based upon archeological findings free of biases and personal assumptions; although the author insists hat the historical truth is to be found not only in archeological sites, but in the Bible texts as well. This could lead to further investigations and debates. There is plenty of data to substantiate the assertions of the author. William G. Dever is a pioneer in the field of the study of the Middle East and Israel comparative history. He enjoys high esteem in the academic community. I would recommend his book to both the student and the teacher. I give this book a rating of five stars.

A very scholarly review that both informs and raises interesting questions.

A must read for people who want to get a grasp on the background to the Mid-East history.

Larry Sazant

This is one of my favorite books on the subject. It get's into every detail yet it is easy to read. I don't have religious views so i am not offended by what this Author brings forth...unfortunetly, there are many that get upset when the facts don't meet their convictions and beliefs and that is most unfortunate because i would rather know "what really happened".

This is one of my favorite books on the subject. It get's into every detail yet it is easy to read. I don't have religious views so i am not offended by what this Author brings forth...unfortunetly, there are many that get upset when the facts don't meet their convictions and beliefs and that is most unfortunate because i would rather know "what really happened".

The book very much helps in acquiring an understanding of the attitudes within the scholarly community regarding the Israelites.

William Dever's volume is an excellent summary of research on Israelite origins, which concludes that the Israelites originated in Canaan. The congruences between Canaanite and Israelite material culture are discussed. The book is well-written, lively and entertaining, and is well-suited for the general public.

This book pretends that archeology can tell us what he Bible cannot and this is a wortwhile premise. However it faulters on the fact that it creates new myths after having discarded the Bible. Since the Bible is just 'story' it relies on archeology. But archeology only tells us that 'yes people did live here' it doesnt tell us how many there were or what they thought or how they worhsiped. For instance it cannot account for nomads or semi-nomads, an important part of the Middle East even today. Thus it cannot tell us much about the overalll picture, it can only tell us what it had found. What it has found is inconclusive and relies mostly on the theories of archeologists.

So this book weaves together theories and then turns them into a new beleif system, one equally improbable as the source it seeks to debunk, the Bible.

Less than credible. A fun theory.

Seth J. Frantzman

Read at least one other book close to this subject first--The Bible Unearthed by Silberman and Finkelstein is a good choice--since this could be subtitled "A reply to Finkelstein." After Dever's movie review (he says Yul Brynner was better than Charlton Heston) there comes a host of detail, mixed confusingly with a reviews of the literature from other archeologists, many of whom are cited at length but with little context to make it clear why any of it matters. Dever finally warms up to a complicated theory about the origins of the Israelites that may be true but doesn't have much support, and is a little hard to distinguish from Finkelstein. There are also a few divergences into, for example, possible origins of Moses the man, or natural explanations for the plagues in Egypt, and several other biblical references.

There are lots of maps, drawings, pictures and tables, but not much explanation of them; he seems to assume they are self-explanatory. As he says, "Virtually everyone is familiar with the basic outlines of the biblical story" so he doesn't bother to tell it. Dever admits to dashing off this text, and it shows. This is one of those books that desperately needs editing.

Finkelstein insists that the scientific results must hold sway over the biblical text, while Dever claims to give them equal weight; in fact the two scientists end up rather close together. Dever is responding to Finkelstein's glibness, saying "Hey! Not so fast!" and does offer some balance to the facile Silberman and Finkelstein treatment.

Very interesting dicussion of the subject but neither maps nor diagrams were satisfactory to the lay reader who has only scanty biblical knowledge. I was disappointed that the era covered did not stretch back to the origins of the Semite peoples and/or evidence of the Abraham story.

In a field where back biting is the rule and many scholars simply dismiss the writing of their opponents out of hand, William Dever stands out for his careful critiques of the theories of those with whom he disagrees. As with his other works, Prof. Dever engages in a point by point refutation of those who differ from his positions. At the same time, as in previous works, he reveals the political/ideological motivations of many other scholars.

Doubtless, many readers will wish to see this as a political work, but in fact Professor Dever's theory, that the Israelite tribes evolved from displaced Canaanites who merged with other marginal groups would please few ideologues. Perhaps that is because his primary interest remains constructing a cogent theory that fits with the available data? Of particular note, Professor Dever does an excellent job synthesizing anthropological and archeological evidence to craft his thesis.

In a few places professor Dever does fall short. While he does a good job demonstrating how Biblical and archeological data do and don't mesh, his textual analysis on issues such as the bible writers knowledge of Egyptian names seems occasionally lacking. Still, his easy writing style and crisp prose offer an enlightening and entertaining read for those interested in the subject. Those of an ideological bent may find much in this book to upset them, but those seeking knowledge will be glad they picked it up.

This book is appreciable because it tries to maintain a middle ground between secular minimalists and Biblical "true believers." It is very polemic, bashing other scholars and their theories, which in some ways detracts from the book, but the presentation of archaeological data is the primary reason it's a good read.

The best observations Devin makes in the book: 1.The Stele of Merneptah and archaeology corroborate the real existence of Proto-Israel in the late 13th century; 2.the Biblical books of Joshua and Judges have two conflicting stories of how Israel came about, and Judges is much more likely to be true.

But the thesis, ie - that the Israelites were Canaanites, seems only plausible. The possibility of Shasu and/or Ephraimite Yahweh worshipers living as nomads in the hill country of Canaan before the archaeological record becomes apparent in the late 13th century - this possibility alone makes Devin's thesis only one of many very plausible theories.

In this cleverly titled book by veteran archaeologist William Dever, we are presented with a novel theory for Israelite origins. Dever spends the first two thirds of his work on building up the introduction. This isn't necessarily bad, if the payoff is big at the end. Indeed, he surveys many of the most important sites around Canaan, introducing us to the history and culture of this region and different schools of thought regarding Israelite origins before progressing to a solid and sustained critique of Finkelstein's nomad-sedentarization model. The problem with the book, however, begins with the final third, where Dever enthusiastically describes his theory, which basically holds that the "proto-Israelites" were in fact sedentarized Canaanites who fled to the hill-country in the wake of the general late-Bronze Age collapse. Although the first part of the book, which served as the build-up, consisted of discussions of archaeological sites and critiques based on lack of evidence, Dever introduces his theory (which takes up a measly eleven pages) with an up-front admission that it also lacks evidence! "My theory, is speculative, of course; and like Medelhall's and Gottwald's peasant revolt it has little direct archaeological evidence to support it." (179) "Nevetheless," Dever assures us, "this scenario is quite realistic". (ibid) Thanks! Now one has to wade through the rest of his discussion knowing in advance that it lacks evidence. But wait a minute, didn't Dever just spend a hundred pages attacking other archaeologists because their theories lacked evidence? One can buy into his theory or not, that's not the point. It's more about how little we really know about the origins of Israel outside the biblical record, which when rejected, creates a vacuum that can be filled with any "realistic" and "scholarly" sounding theory. If you buy this book, use it for the archaeological survey and critique of Finkelstein. Just remember to continue Dever's critique onto himself!