What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
This book addresses one of the most timely and urgent topics in archaeology and biblical studies -- the origins of early Israel. For centuries the Western tradition has traced its beginnings back to ancient Israel, but recently some historians and archaeologists have questioned the reality of Israel as it is described in biblical literature. In Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? William Dever explores the continuing controversies regarding the true nature of ancient Israel and presents the archaeological evidence for assessing the accuracy of the well-known Bible stories.
Confronting the range of current scholarly interpretations seriously and dispassionately, Dever rejects both the revisionists who characterize biblical literature as "pious propaganda" and the conservatives who are afraid to even question its factuality. Attempting to break through this impasse, Dever draws on thirty years of archaeological fieldwork in the Near East, amassing a wide range of hard evidence for his own compelling view of the development of Israelite history.
In his search for the actual circumstances of Israel's emergence in Canaan, Dever reevaluates the Exodus-Conquest traditions in the books of Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, and 1 & 2 Samuel in the light of well-documented archaeological evidence from the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. Among this important evidence are some 300 small agricultural villages recently discovered in the heartland of what would later become the biblical nation of Israel. According to Dever, the authentic ancestors of the "Israelite peoples" were most likely Canaanites -- together with some pastoral nomads and small groups of Semitic slaves escaping from Egypt -- who, through the long cultural and socioeconomic struggles recounted in the book of Judges, managed to forge a new agrarian, communitarian, and monotheistic society.
Written in an engaging, accessible style and featuring fifty photographs that help bring the archaeological record to life, this book provides an authoritative statement on the origins of ancient Israel and promises to reinvigorate discussion about the historicity of the biblical tradition.
Confronting the range of current scholarly interpretations seriously and dispassionately, Dever rejects both the revisionists who characterize biblical literature as "pious propaganda" and the conservatives who are afraid to even question its factuality. Attempting to break through this impasse, Dever draws on thirty years of archaeological fieldwork in the Near East, amassing a wide range of hard evidence for his own compelling view of the development of Israelite history.
In his search for the actual circumstances of Israel's emergence in Canaan, Dever reevaluates the Exodus-Conquest traditions in the books of Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, and 1 & 2 Samuel in the light of well-documented archaeological evidence from the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. Among this important evidence are some 300 small agricultural villages recently discovered in the heartland of what would later become the biblical nation of Israel. According to Dever, the authentic ancestors of the "Israelite peoples" were most likely Canaanites -- together with some pastoral nomads and small groups of Semitic slaves escaping from Egypt -- who, through the long cultural and socioeconomic struggles recounted in the book of Judges, managed to forge a new agrarian, communitarian, and monotheistic society.
Written in an engaging, accessible style and featuring fifty photographs that help bring the archaeological record to life, this book provides an authoritative statement on the origins of ancient Israel and promises to reinvigorate discussion about the historicity of the biblical tradition.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
8 people are currently reading
374 people want to read
About the author
William G. Dever
36 books34 followersWilliam Gwinn Dever is an American archaeologist, scholar, historian, semiticist, and theologian. He is an active scholar of the Old Testament, and historian, specialized in the history of the Ancient Near East and the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah in biblical times. He was Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson from 1975 to 2002. He is a Distinguished Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at Lycoming College in Pennsylvania.
abridged from Wikipedia
abridged from Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
October 13, 2020
Warning: spoilers ahead.
Dever takes a middle of the road approach to the history of the early Israelites. On one extreme are the fundamentalists that say that everything in the Bible is 100% historical (something easily disprovable, all you have to do is actually read the Bible), while on the other extreme are the scholars who teach that there never were any Israelites whatsoever.
Dever looks at the archaeological evidence and shows in this book where the Biblical text converges with the evidence in the ground. There are places where the archaeological evidence and the text meet. The Amarna letters demonstrate that the Canaanite cities were having trouble with the Apiru or the Habiru. Could the Proto-Israelites be this group of Habiru? Perhaps.
Dever mentions the Merneptah Stele (1201 BCE), and says, "this is the earliest reference to Israel outside the Hebrew Bible - indeed the earliest anywhere." (p. 202)
He discusses the idea that the Israelites were land reformers, that they sought social justice, a place where everyone could work the land, where they would be free from oppression. He used the texts as well as the evidence from archaeology to make his points (see chapter 10: Another attempt at synthesis: Early Israel as a Frontier Agrarian Reform Movement).
Dever agrees with much of the scholarship that Israel came out of Canaanite culture. This is a difficult assertion for literalists. But Dever uses the evidence that he has to show that much of the archaeology of the land of Canaan demonstrates not a violent takeover from outsiders, but a gradual population growth in the hill country of Israel, with evidence that these people have a Canaanite background. We see this even with the names of their deities in the text of the Bible itself, so it is a point of contact to see this reflected in the artifacts found in the ground.
Dever leaves the door open for the Exodus, or something like it, to have occurred. In this regard, he reads much like Richard Friedman - the Exodus may have happened, but it certainly did not happen the way it is described in Exodus. The numbers just don't add up, and the evidence is just not there. But the idea of liberation, of slaves exercising their faith in Yahweh to deliver them, is something that I choose to believe, and something that both Friedman and Dever seem to suggest may have still been possible.
One thing is certain: archaeology will never "prove" the Bible to be true. Much of what we read we must choose to take on faith. Dever engages both the mind and the heart in the last chapter entitled "Salvaging the Biblical Tradition." He writes, "Most of us came to our Promised Land from the ghettoes of Eastern Europe, as slave from Africa, as refugees from Asia, or over the fence from Mexico. My ancestors, for instance, came over from Ireland during the potato famine in the 1840's. Yet we can all resonate with the Exodus story because we instinctively recognize that it is a metaphor for liberation, one of universal and timeless appeal. Originally told thousands of years ago by and about a small and obscure immigrant group within the society of early Israelite peoples, and based in all likelihood on some actual historical experience of some of them in Egypt (perhaps the House of Joseph characterized above) the Exodus story eventually came to be told as though it had been true for all Israel. And this accounts for its enduring place in the literary traditions that found their final expression in the Hebrew Bible." (p. 234)
Dever takes a middle of the road approach to the history of the early Israelites. On one extreme are the fundamentalists that say that everything in the Bible is 100% historical (something easily disprovable, all you have to do is actually read the Bible), while on the other extreme are the scholars who teach that there never were any Israelites whatsoever.
Dever looks at the archaeological evidence and shows in this book where the Biblical text converges with the evidence in the ground. There are places where the archaeological evidence and the text meet. The Amarna letters demonstrate that the Canaanite cities were having trouble with the Apiru or the Habiru. Could the Proto-Israelites be this group of Habiru? Perhaps.
Dever mentions the Merneptah Stele (1201 BCE), and says, "this is the earliest reference to Israel outside the Hebrew Bible - indeed the earliest anywhere." (p. 202)
He discusses the idea that the Israelites were land reformers, that they sought social justice, a place where everyone could work the land, where they would be free from oppression. He used the texts as well as the evidence from archaeology to make his points (see chapter 10: Another attempt at synthesis: Early Israel as a Frontier Agrarian Reform Movement).
Dever agrees with much of the scholarship that Israel came out of Canaanite culture. This is a difficult assertion for literalists. But Dever uses the evidence that he has to show that much of the archaeology of the land of Canaan demonstrates not a violent takeover from outsiders, but a gradual population growth in the hill country of Israel, with evidence that these people have a Canaanite background. We see this even with the names of their deities in the text of the Bible itself, so it is a point of contact to see this reflected in the artifacts found in the ground.
Dever leaves the door open for the Exodus, or something like it, to have occurred. In this regard, he reads much like Richard Friedman - the Exodus may have happened, but it certainly did not happen the way it is described in Exodus. The numbers just don't add up, and the evidence is just not there. But the idea of liberation, of slaves exercising their faith in Yahweh to deliver them, is something that I choose to believe, and something that both Friedman and Dever seem to suggest may have still been possible.
One thing is certain: archaeology will never "prove" the Bible to be true. Much of what we read we must choose to take on faith. Dever engages both the mind and the heart in the last chapter entitled "Salvaging the Biblical Tradition." He writes, "Most of us came to our Promised Land from the ghettoes of Eastern Europe, as slave from Africa, as refugees from Asia, or over the fence from Mexico. My ancestors, for instance, came over from Ireland during the potato famine in the 1840's. Yet we can all resonate with the Exodus story because we instinctively recognize that it is a metaphor for liberation, one of universal and timeless appeal. Originally told thousands of years ago by and about a small and obscure immigrant group within the society of early Israelite peoples, and based in all likelihood on some actual historical experience of some of them in Egypt (perhaps the House of Joseph characterized above) the Exodus story eventually came to be told as though it had been true for all Israel. And this accounts for its enduring place in the literary traditions that found their final expression in the Hebrew Bible." (p. 234)
January 11, 2017
If there was an award for cumbersome book titles, this and Dever's earlier What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel would be strong contenders.
This book is an adequate survey of the archaeological finds in Israel and the various attempts to reconcile the data with the Biblical Exodus and Conquest narratives, ranging from those who see the Bible as very true and those who see it as very false. Dever's own view is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. A chapter is devoted to the various out-of-date theories from the early days of biblical archaeology; a few chapters go through the archaeological evidence in somewhat tiring detail; a whole chapter is spent refuting the views of Israel Finkelstein, who has popularized his theory in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. The final few chapters cover Dever's own synthesis of the data, and are most interesting in the book. Undoubtedly, his analysis has flaws, but I don't have the background knowledge to point them out in detail.
There are probably better books on biblical archaeology, and there are probably worse. Or perhaps the discipline is not yet ripe enough to produce excellent books intended for a popular audience - there are more artifacts to be unearthed first.
This book is an adequate survey of the archaeological finds in Israel and the various attempts to reconcile the data with the Biblical Exodus and Conquest narratives, ranging from those who see the Bible as very true and those who see it as very false. Dever's own view is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. A chapter is devoted to the various out-of-date theories from the early days of biblical archaeology; a few chapters go through the archaeological evidence in somewhat tiring detail; a whole chapter is spent refuting the views of Israel Finkelstein, who has popularized his theory in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. The final few chapters cover Dever's own synthesis of the data, and are most interesting in the book. Undoubtedly, his analysis has flaws, but I don't have the background knowledge to point them out in detail.
There are probably better books on biblical archaeology, and there are probably worse. Or perhaps the discipline is not yet ripe enough to produce excellent books intended for a popular audience - there are more artifacts to be unearthed first.
July 23, 2024
When the author started his book with a tirade against the revisionists/minimalists (people who think the OT contains little, if any, factual historical information) I was concerned that I had stumbled upon the work of a maximalist (person who thinks the historical information in the OT is largely, if not completely, accurate). I shouldn’t have worried. The author takes a middle-of-the-road approach, saying the biblical writers had some genuine sources, but they did not hesitate to manipulate them. Thus he largely endorses the views put forth in Norman K Gottwald's classic in the field The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B. C. E.. I was surprised that he excoriated the work of Niels Peter Lemche because I read Lemche's book on Early Israel with relish. As it turns out, Dever was criticizing Lemche's later views, when Lemche had turned full-on revisionist. Of Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society Before the Monarchy, Denver’s said he was "disturbed and excited" by it.
According to Dever, archaeology confirms Gottwald's contention that early Israel emerged as an indigenous social movement of sorts somewhere at the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. He demurs a bit on the revolutionary hypothesis, but says that social movements are a revolution of sorts. One thing I wish Dever had explored more was his assertion that the book of Judges fits the archaeological facts "astonishingly well." That is really interesting, so why didn’t he include a chapter or two on it?
According to Dever, archaeology confirms Gottwald's contention that early Israel emerged as an indigenous social movement of sorts somewhere at the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. He demurs a bit on the revolutionary hypothesis, but says that social movements are a revolution of sorts. One thing I wish Dever had explored more was his assertion that the book of Judges fits the archaeological facts "astonishingly well." That is really interesting, so why didn’t he include a chapter or two on it?
July 28, 2017
Using the lack of historical or archaeological evidence of the Exodus, along with the archaeological evidence that over forty of the towns that were supposedly destroyed by the invading Israelites didn’t exist at the end of the Bronze Age, Dever gives an objective and plausible response to that question.
The book is clearly and succinctly written. Starting with the story of the Exodus, to the conquest of Transjordan, to the final takeover of Canaan, the reader is given all the theories and facts available. While there’s no way to say with absolute surety that the author’s hypothesis is correct, it comes the closest to being a reasonable and logical explanation of the colonization, or re-colonization, of Canaan.
Recent archaeological evidence for the indigenous origins of the Israelites is overwhelming. So much so, that many Biblical scholars now believe the Exodus story to be an origin myth. The only remaining question is where within Canaan did the Israelites originate.
The book is clearly and succinctly written. Starting with the story of the Exodus, to the conquest of Transjordan, to the final takeover of Canaan, the reader is given all the theories and facts available. While there’s no way to say with absolute surety that the author’s hypothesis is correct, it comes the closest to being a reasonable and logical explanation of the colonization, or re-colonization, of Canaan.
Recent archaeological evidence for the indigenous origins of the Israelites is overwhelming. So much so, that many Biblical scholars now believe the Exodus story to be an origin myth. The only remaining question is where within Canaan did the Israelites originate.
Read
November 12, 2024I should say I read this book for an archaeology class before anyone tries assuming anything.
January 11, 2019
I had to read this book for an online course I took for the Fall Semester of 2018. I found it to be an interesting book, as the author takes a 'middle-of-the-road' approach to the Hebrew Bible and using it as an historical source. He does not believe the Hebrew Bible should be used as a primary source when it comes to history because he feels there are too many discrepancies in it that disqualify it from being a 'primary source' (especially in reference to the origins of the Israelites). It moves at a good pace; it held my interest throughout the course. I did use the book as a source for a couple of papers, too, which helped.
The author does not believe the Hebrew Bible should be completely 'thrown out' and ignored as a potential source of information and knowledge. He freely acknowledges that the writers of the various books clearly had access to other historical sources during their time that have been lost in the sands of time and are no longer accessible today. In addition, the Hebrew Bible also references other sources of knowledge and history, indirectly, and these other books, these other sources of information, have also been lost to the sands of time. Furthermore, he believes that the ancient authors knew far more about their history than modern man wishes to believe is possible, which makes perfect sense to me. It is pretty normal for modern man, for modern scientists to claim they know more about the time in which people lived than the people who actually lived during that time. In some regards, that is true. In other respects, modern man is merely making educated guesses and assumptions based on what we know now and what we assume happened during that time period to make our claims of "this is what happened then!" when looking at the Israeli historical past.
It seems that the first seven books of the Hebrew Bible are particular troublesome as various claims are made which cannot be substantiated in the historical and archaeological record. That being the case, the author feels that the Book of Judges is a more historically accurate explanation of how the Israelites came to power in the region as opposed to the history traced in Genesis through Joshua. A big part of the 'issue' with Joshua has to do with the number of cities and towns destroyed by the Israelites and the lack of evidence in the historical (archaeological) record. Not only that, but some Canaanite towns that have levels of destruction that would have occurred around the time the author believes the Israelites were making their move towards becoming a nation are not mentioned at all in the Hebrew Bible.
At the same time, there are extra-biblical sources that do acknowledge the existence of the Israelites and that they did progress from being an 'insignificant' people to a powerful (albeit small) kingdom situated along some major trading routes that passed through the region. The author seems to believe that the Israelites already lived in the region and eventually formed their own 'people group' (my words, not his) and identity which contrasted in various ways with the surrounding nations (especially the Philistines). There are various indicators that show the Israelites were their own race, set apart from the surrounding nations. Some of these indicators include the 'four-room house,' specific types and forms of pottery, the social structure, how the Israelites were 'arranged' in terms of political thinking, and religion.
The author also talks about fellow archaeologists throughout history who have made various contributions to furthering our understanding of the history of the region (and those who inhibit our understanding by making outlandish, unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims).
Overall, I thought the author was fairly balanced in how he presented the information in the book. It does seem there are serious causes for concern over using the Hebrew Bible as a primary source for the history of the region, but it has also been true that time-and-time-again history and archaeology has supported various claims of the Hebrew Bible; the 'support' has not been uncovered yet. Be that as it may, I did find the book an interesting read over the course of the semester. The author does state that he is not comfortable completely dismissing the Hebrew Bible for various reasons, some of them being religious in nature and some of them actually being academic in nature.
Overall, it as an interesting book to read, and I am glad that I had to read it for my class. Otherwise, I might not have finished it at a later time (having used it for some papers in a prior online course).
The author does not believe the Hebrew Bible should be completely 'thrown out' and ignored as a potential source of information and knowledge. He freely acknowledges that the writers of the various books clearly had access to other historical sources during their time that have been lost in the sands of time and are no longer accessible today. In addition, the Hebrew Bible also references other sources of knowledge and history, indirectly, and these other books, these other sources of information, have also been lost to the sands of time. Furthermore, he believes that the ancient authors knew far more about their history than modern man wishes to believe is possible, which makes perfect sense to me. It is pretty normal for modern man, for modern scientists to claim they know more about the time in which people lived than the people who actually lived during that time. In some regards, that is true. In other respects, modern man is merely making educated guesses and assumptions based on what we know now and what we assume happened during that time period to make our claims of "this is what happened then!" when looking at the Israeli historical past.
It seems that the first seven books of the Hebrew Bible are particular troublesome as various claims are made which cannot be substantiated in the historical and archaeological record. That being the case, the author feels that the Book of Judges is a more historically accurate explanation of how the Israelites came to power in the region as opposed to the history traced in Genesis through Joshua. A big part of the 'issue' with Joshua has to do with the number of cities and towns destroyed by the Israelites and the lack of evidence in the historical (archaeological) record. Not only that, but some Canaanite towns that have levels of destruction that would have occurred around the time the author believes the Israelites were making their move towards becoming a nation are not mentioned at all in the Hebrew Bible.
At the same time, there are extra-biblical sources that do acknowledge the existence of the Israelites and that they did progress from being an 'insignificant' people to a powerful (albeit small) kingdom situated along some major trading routes that passed through the region. The author seems to believe that the Israelites already lived in the region and eventually formed their own 'people group' (my words, not his) and identity which contrasted in various ways with the surrounding nations (especially the Philistines). There are various indicators that show the Israelites were their own race, set apart from the surrounding nations. Some of these indicators include the 'four-room house,' specific types and forms of pottery, the social structure, how the Israelites were 'arranged' in terms of political thinking, and religion.
The author also talks about fellow archaeologists throughout history who have made various contributions to furthering our understanding of the history of the region (and those who inhibit our understanding by making outlandish, unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims).
Overall, I thought the author was fairly balanced in how he presented the information in the book. It does seem there are serious causes for concern over using the Hebrew Bible as a primary source for the history of the region, but it has also been true that time-and-time-again history and archaeology has supported various claims of the Hebrew Bible; the 'support' has not been uncovered yet. Be that as it may, I did find the book an interesting read over the course of the semester. The author does state that he is not comfortable completely dismissing the Hebrew Bible for various reasons, some of them being religious in nature and some of them actually being academic in nature.
Overall, it as an interesting book to read, and I am glad that I had to read it for my class. Otherwise, I might not have finished it at a later time (having used it for some papers in a prior online course).
June 7, 2020
An excellent book. Provides a great overview of the archaeological evidence for early Israel, and connects it to the Biblical record. Most books in this genre are apologia--trying to prove the Bible--or skeptics, trying to prove the Bible as false. Dever comes at it more neutrally, as a true scholar. He finds evidence for some parts of the Biblical tradition, but argues that much can't be supported. At the same time, he doesn't think we need to reject it, and believes there is truth about the earl Israelite experience and humanity itself in the Bible.
As a believer, I enjoyed this book. I've struggled with the sketchy historical evidence for the Old Testament, as well as some of the morally problematic parts (such as the genocide of the Canaanites). This book made me feel more comfortable continuing to believe, and actually enriched my beliefs with archaeological fact.
As a believer, I enjoyed this book. I've struggled with the sketchy historical evidence for the Old Testament, as well as some of the morally problematic parts (such as the genocide of the Canaanites). This book made me feel more comfortable continuing to believe, and actually enriched my beliefs with archaeological fact.
Read
August 6, 2011Mainly an updated take on archaeological finding and interpretations concerning the origins of Israel. If you're looking for something which confirms the full biblical narrative of the exodus, this wouldn't be the book for you. A good read, though i think the final verdict is still out and we are looking at an incomplete picture.
December 1, 2025
THE FAMED ARCHAEOLOGIST SUMMARIZES HIS IDEAS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
William G. Dever is an American archaeologist, specializing in the history of Israel and the Near East in Biblical times.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2003 book, "For nearly two thousand years the so-called 'Western cultural tradition' has traced its origins back to ancient Israel... But what if ancient Israel was 'invented' by Jews living much later, and the biblical literature is nothing but pious propaganda? If that is the case, as some revisionist historians now loudly proclaim, then there... was no actual historical experience of any real people in a real time and place from whom we could hope to learn anything historically true, much less anything morally or ethically enduring. The story of Israel in the Hebrew Bible would have to be considered a monstrous literary hoax... But are these dramatic, memorable stories 'historical' at all in the modern sense? Where might we turn for external, corroborative (or corrective) evidence?...
"It is to these questions that this book is addressed… my task here---that of using archaeological evidence as a ‘control (not ‘proof’) in rereading the biblical texts… One can… Approach the text, as well as the external data, with no preconceptions. Single out the ‘convergences’ of the two lines of evidence, and remain skeptical about the rest… I shall resolutely hold to the middle ground… because I think that truth is most likely to be found there.”
He states of the Exodus, “both the Pentateuch/Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic history were set down in writing at least 500 years after the Exodus and Conquest they purport to describe. That alone should raise the question of their historical trustworthiness. Most scholars, however, will also argue as I do that the biblical tradition rests not only on contemporary and earlier documentary sources now lost to us, but ... may have their roots in pre-Israelite times in the Bronze Age, when the Exodus would have had to occur. The specific time frame for the Exodus is now confirmed as the middle to late 13th century B.C., not the 15th century B.C. as formerly thought. The old ‘high’ date, based on imprecise and contradictory biblical schemes of chronology… does not accord at all with the archaeological record in Palestine; today only a handful of diehard fundamentalists would argue in its favor.” (Pg. 8)
He argues, “Impressive though various attempts at rational explanations of the ten plagues of the Exodus may be, they all miss the point of the biblical narrative, which is that such events cannot be explained. They are miracles, supernatural events… Attempting to ‘explain away’ the biblical miracle is profoundly against the spirit and intent of the biblical writers. You either accept them… or you do not. It is a matter of faith, not of reason---nor archaeology. Archaeological data can illuminate the historical context of the biblical narratives; to think it can (or should) prove or disprove miracles is, again, to miss the point.” (Pg. 16)
He adds, “the mysterious ‘manna’ [Ex 16:14-21] … has been connected to the secretion of a sweet sticky substance by tamarisk shrubs in the desert… but it is seasonal, and in any case would hardly have been enough to feed several million people for even a short time. Once again, such ‘naturalistic’ explanations beg the question of miracles and their religious significance in the Hebrew Bible. The events are … the ‘mighty acts of God,’ or they are nothing.” (Pg. 21)
Of the Conquest under Joshua, he observes, “[William F.] Albright and others were once fond of citing the massive Late Bronze Age destruction at Lachish, after which it was abandoned for as long as two centuries. Albright dated the relevant destruction to c.a. 1225 B.C. But large-scale excavations carried out by Israeli archaeologists in 1973-87 have proven that the destruction in question took place perhaps as late as 1170 B.C…. that is some fifty years too late for our commander-in-chief Joshua---unless he was leading troops into battle well into his eighties.” (Pg. 49-50)
He explains, “My working assumption in the following is obviously that the information from archaeological or ‘material culture’ sources is now our PRIMARY source for history writing---not the biblical texts. Nevertheless, I shall give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, unlike the revisionists who hold it guilty until proven innocent.” (Pg. 71)
He states, “Thus our only material evidence of early Israelite beliefs and cultic practices provides additional, corroborative evidence for continuity with Canaanite religion… Of course, traditionalists may protest that the biblical tradition envisions an old Yahwistic belief and a pre-Israelite Mosaic covenant that were unique, as well as continuative. But the biblical texts are centuries later… Today few biblical scholars and no archaeologists would dare to characterize early Israelite religion as rigidly monotheistic, much less unique.” (Pg. 128)
He summarizes, “the basic traditions about ancient Israel now enshrined in the books of Exodus-Numbers and Joshua through Kings cannot be read uncritically as a satisfactory history, but neither can they be discarded as lacking any credible historical information. The challenge for both critical scholars and the enlightened public is to sort out fact from fiction; and it is only modern archaeology, as an independent witness to the events of the past, that may enable us to do that.” (Pg. 226) He continues, “the accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence. That may make many uncomfortable, but it is a fact, one from which no open-minded person can escape. There is little real history in these books, although there may be some vague memories of actual events…
"For example, we may suppose that a historical figure like the biblical Moses did exist and was recognized as a leader among a group of Semitic slaves in Egypt, someone who indeed seemed to be a miracle-worker, and perhaps the mediator of knowledge about the new deity Yahweh… there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. It is conceivable that there was a military chieftain and folk hero names Joshua, who won a few skirmishes here and there. But there simply was no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan.” (Pg. 227-228)
He concludes, “The miraculous, larger-than-life story of the Exodus as it now stands in the Bible cannot be corroborated as factual history. Nor do we even need to presume such a series of events in a far off foreign land, given archaeology’s recent documentation of the rise of early Israel within Canaan. To put it simply, there is no longer a place or a need for the Exodus as a HISTORICAL explanation for the origins of Israel. The story… is best regarded as myth. In this case, it is just the sort of origin myth that has characterized many other peoples past and present.” (Pg. 232)
He adds, “There is absolutely no … extrabiblical… witness to Moses, either textual or archaeological… The notion of a revolutionary new religion that emerged complete overnight and never required or underwent revolutionary development is similarly unconvincing.” (Pg. 235)
As with most books in biblical archaeology, many/most readers will disagree with Dever at many points. But this is a fascinating summation of his ideas, and will be fascinating reading for most persons studying biblical archaeology and the early history of Israel.
William G. Dever is an American archaeologist, specializing in the history of Israel and the Near East in Biblical times.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2003 book, "For nearly two thousand years the so-called 'Western cultural tradition' has traced its origins back to ancient Israel... But what if ancient Israel was 'invented' by Jews living much later, and the biblical literature is nothing but pious propaganda? If that is the case, as some revisionist historians now loudly proclaim, then there... was no actual historical experience of any real people in a real time and place from whom we could hope to learn anything historically true, much less anything morally or ethically enduring. The story of Israel in the Hebrew Bible would have to be considered a monstrous literary hoax... But are these dramatic, memorable stories 'historical' at all in the modern sense? Where might we turn for external, corroborative (or corrective) evidence?...
"It is to these questions that this book is addressed… my task here---that of using archaeological evidence as a ‘control (not ‘proof’) in rereading the biblical texts… One can… Approach the text, as well as the external data, with no preconceptions. Single out the ‘convergences’ of the two lines of evidence, and remain skeptical about the rest… I shall resolutely hold to the middle ground… because I think that truth is most likely to be found there.”
He states of the Exodus, “both the Pentateuch/Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic history were set down in writing at least 500 years after the Exodus and Conquest they purport to describe. That alone should raise the question of their historical trustworthiness. Most scholars, however, will also argue as I do that the biblical tradition rests not only on contemporary and earlier documentary sources now lost to us, but ... may have their roots in pre-Israelite times in the Bronze Age, when the Exodus would have had to occur. The specific time frame for the Exodus is now confirmed as the middle to late 13th century B.C., not the 15th century B.C. as formerly thought. The old ‘high’ date, based on imprecise and contradictory biblical schemes of chronology… does not accord at all with the archaeological record in Palestine; today only a handful of diehard fundamentalists would argue in its favor.” (Pg. 8)
He argues, “Impressive though various attempts at rational explanations of the ten plagues of the Exodus may be, they all miss the point of the biblical narrative, which is that such events cannot be explained. They are miracles, supernatural events… Attempting to ‘explain away’ the biblical miracle is profoundly against the spirit and intent of the biblical writers. You either accept them… or you do not. It is a matter of faith, not of reason---nor archaeology. Archaeological data can illuminate the historical context of the biblical narratives; to think it can (or should) prove or disprove miracles is, again, to miss the point.” (Pg. 16)
He adds, “the mysterious ‘manna’ [Ex 16:14-21] … has been connected to the secretion of a sweet sticky substance by tamarisk shrubs in the desert… but it is seasonal, and in any case would hardly have been enough to feed several million people for even a short time. Once again, such ‘naturalistic’ explanations beg the question of miracles and their religious significance in the Hebrew Bible. The events are … the ‘mighty acts of God,’ or they are nothing.” (Pg. 21)
Of the Conquest under Joshua, he observes, “[William F.] Albright and others were once fond of citing the massive Late Bronze Age destruction at Lachish, after which it was abandoned for as long as two centuries. Albright dated the relevant destruction to c.a. 1225 B.C. But large-scale excavations carried out by Israeli archaeologists in 1973-87 have proven that the destruction in question took place perhaps as late as 1170 B.C…. that is some fifty years too late for our commander-in-chief Joshua---unless he was leading troops into battle well into his eighties.” (Pg. 49-50)
He explains, “My working assumption in the following is obviously that the information from archaeological or ‘material culture’ sources is now our PRIMARY source for history writing---not the biblical texts. Nevertheless, I shall give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, unlike the revisionists who hold it guilty until proven innocent.” (Pg. 71)
He states, “Thus our only material evidence of early Israelite beliefs and cultic practices provides additional, corroborative evidence for continuity with Canaanite religion… Of course, traditionalists may protest that the biblical tradition envisions an old Yahwistic belief and a pre-Israelite Mosaic covenant that were unique, as well as continuative. But the biblical texts are centuries later… Today few biblical scholars and no archaeologists would dare to characterize early Israelite religion as rigidly monotheistic, much less unique.” (Pg. 128)
He summarizes, “the basic traditions about ancient Israel now enshrined in the books of Exodus-Numbers and Joshua through Kings cannot be read uncritically as a satisfactory history, but neither can they be discarded as lacking any credible historical information. The challenge for both critical scholars and the enlightened public is to sort out fact from fiction; and it is only modern archaeology, as an independent witness to the events of the past, that may enable us to do that.” (Pg. 226) He continues, “the accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence. That may make many uncomfortable, but it is a fact, one from which no open-minded person can escape. There is little real history in these books, although there may be some vague memories of actual events…
"For example, we may suppose that a historical figure like the biblical Moses did exist and was recognized as a leader among a group of Semitic slaves in Egypt, someone who indeed seemed to be a miracle-worker, and perhaps the mediator of knowledge about the new deity Yahweh… there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. It is conceivable that there was a military chieftain and folk hero names Joshua, who won a few skirmishes here and there. But there simply was no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan.” (Pg. 227-228)
He concludes, “The miraculous, larger-than-life story of the Exodus as it now stands in the Bible cannot be corroborated as factual history. Nor do we even need to presume such a series of events in a far off foreign land, given archaeology’s recent documentation of the rise of early Israel within Canaan. To put it simply, there is no longer a place or a need for the Exodus as a HISTORICAL explanation for the origins of Israel. The story… is best regarded as myth. In this case, it is just the sort of origin myth that has characterized many other peoples past and present.” (Pg. 232)
He adds, “There is absolutely no … extrabiblical… witness to Moses, either textual or archaeological… The notion of a revolutionary new religion that emerged complete overnight and never required or underwent revolutionary development is similarly unconvincing.” (Pg. 235)
As with most books in biblical archaeology, many/most readers will disagree with Dever at many points. But this is a fascinating summation of his ideas, and will be fascinating reading for most persons studying biblical archaeology and the early history of Israel.
May 10, 2018
Este libro se basa en investigaciones arqueológicas realizadas durante el siglo XX, en diversas etapas que comenzaron en la década de los 20 y las últimas en la década del 90, para probar o descartar lo que la Biblia afirma en el libro de "El Éxodo". Qué declara la Biblia?, pues que el Patriarca Abraham, nacido en Ur de los Caldeos, llevó a su pueblo rumbo a Egipto para escapar de la esclavitud, pero los judíos volverán a ser dominados por los Faraones. Después de muchos años, Moisés es el encargado de sacarlos de aquella horrible experiencia para rodar por el desierto durante 40 años. Cuando la Tierra Prometida se encuentra a la vista Moisés muere, traspasando antes la dirección del pueblo a Josué.
Es curioso, pero ¿cómo puede un pueblo que durante 40 años ha vagado por el desierto, pueda a la vista de la Tierra Prometida, convertirse en poderoso ejército conquistador? No obstante lo que yo piense, dice la Biblia que Josué fue de población en población sometiendo y masacrando a sus habitantes. El caso más simpático fue la conquista de Jericó, derrumbando sus murallas a punta de trompetazos y acabando con aquel pueblo. Y digo simpático, porque llegaron unos cientos de años tarde, cuando la población había abandonado el lugar. Así, se puede apreciar que, las "Victorias" de Josué, nunca se produjeron, pues no se ha encontrado evidencia arqueológica de ellas.
Como el caso de Josué es el de Moisés, que se piensa jamás existió.
Se cree que el escritor de "El Éxodo", incluyó estas historias inventadas y otras ciertas, para conjuntar a todas las tribus que eran de diferentes etnias, con el objeto de crear una identidad nacional y religiosa para del pueblo judío.
Es curioso, pero ¿cómo puede un pueblo que durante 40 años ha vagado por el desierto, pueda a la vista de la Tierra Prometida, convertirse en poderoso ejército conquistador? No obstante lo que yo piense, dice la Biblia que Josué fue de población en población sometiendo y masacrando a sus habitantes. El caso más simpático fue la conquista de Jericó, derrumbando sus murallas a punta de trompetazos y acabando con aquel pueblo. Y digo simpático, porque llegaron unos cientos de años tarde, cuando la población había abandonado el lugar. Así, se puede apreciar que, las "Victorias" de Josué, nunca se produjeron, pues no se ha encontrado evidencia arqueológica de ellas.
Como el caso de Josué es el de Moisés, que se piensa jamás existió.
Se cree que el escritor de "El Éxodo", incluyó estas historias inventadas y otras ciertas, para conjuntar a todas las tribus que eran de diferentes etnias, con el objeto de crear una identidad nacional y religiosa para del pueblo judío.
February 11, 2023
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From is a book designed to answer these questions. William Dever is one of the premier archeologists of our time and while this is less cool than Indiana Jones, he does provide a great deal of information.
Unlike this other book, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when did they know it this book is much more interested in archeology. There is some polemical writing here, but it appears to be at a minimum.
Having said that there is a great deal of information about archeology in the book that went over my comprehension and it does get technical at times. However, he book ends the book with explanation chapters about all of this means for the reader.
Dever is concerned with the question of the reliability of the Old Testament. Ultimately his conclusion is that it can be used to provide some historical information, but most of the history needs to come from archeology. He doesn’t believe in events as described in the Bible like the Exodus and he basis this on the archeological evidence. However, he does not believe that the Bible is just made up fiction either.
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in archeology and/or the Bible.
Grade: A
Unlike this other book, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when did they know it this book is much more interested in archeology. There is some polemical writing here, but it appears to be at a minimum.
Having said that there is a great deal of information about archeology in the book that went over my comprehension and it does get technical at times. However, he book ends the book with explanation chapters about all of this means for the reader.
Dever is concerned with the question of the reliability of the Old Testament. Ultimately his conclusion is that it can be used to provide some historical information, but most of the history needs to come from archeology. He doesn’t believe in events as described in the Bible like the Exodus and he basis this on the archeological evidence. However, he does not believe that the Bible is just made up fiction either.
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in archeology and/or the Bible.
Grade: A
November 10, 2023
This book by Professor Dever is a critical examination of what we know and what we do not know about the origins of the Israelites using archeological discoveries and the Old Testament. Dr. Dever discusses various views of scholars and addresses evidence for and against historical claims. It is easy to read for those without a strong background in either archeology or Biblical scholarship. My initial interest in reading this book was to try to figure out where Yahweh came from in Israeli history and when Judaism began as an organized, monotheistic religion. Understanding Israeli history is essential to understanding the evolution of monotheism.
July 6, 2019
Excellent exploration of the stories of early Israel, its exodus and its conquest of Canaan. Using the most up-to-date archaeology [at the time of writing 2002-03] Dever shows that both the exodus and the conquest are mythology. Many scholars agree that the ancestors of Israel were always present in the land of Canaan/Palestine. They did not migrate there from Egypt or some other location. Dever cites many of his colleagues and shows where they agree and disagree. But almost everyone is on board with the early bible stories being myths.
April 23, 2018
The history in this book was pretty interesting, although it largely confirmed things I'd already read: essentially, that the ancient Israelites likely developed as a Canaanite peasant rebellion against kings who were Egyptian vassals.
It would get four stars, but for a purportedly popular book, I felt like too much of it consisted of arguments with other scholars in the field that were hard to entirely make sense of as a complete outsider.
It would get four stars, but for a purportedly popular book, I felt like too much of it consisted of arguments with other scholars in the field that were hard to entirely make sense of as a complete outsider.
August 20, 2018
This book was probably a little over my head, but I found it fascinating nonetheless. It's about the archaeology of the area that comprised ancient Israel and how it doesn't match up at all with the history of the Conquest given in the Old Testament. The author is an archaeologist, not a Bible scholar, so he only gives a small amount of space to how we can faithfully read Scripture and still deal with what science finds. But, it was worth reading.
July 21, 2020
An important piece of scholarship for developing an appreciation of the Old Testament in light of the archeological evidence. The author takes the evidence and the role of Scripture respectfully and seriously.
November 11, 2022
This is a great historical analysis of the Bronze and Iron Age and how that led to the establishment of the Israelite people from the Canaanites. The archaeological description of the pottery and tools is historically fascinating.
November 26, 2021
william dever is I think mostly right but also unfortunately an asshole
Read
September 14, 2023not rated, was for my biblical archaeology class but interesting nonetheless!
June 6, 2025
A very lucid and balanced analysis of what is often a very controversial and heated subject. If you're interested in the truth underlying the subject matter it's worth a read.
November 17, 2020
William G. Dever, es un arqueólogo estadounidense especializado en cercano oriente con vasta experiencia por sus numerosas excavaciones en territorio Israelí y Palestino. En este libro analiza la evidencia arqueológica hallada por él y otros arquéologos, y discute las hipótesis de varios arquéologos y acádemicos sobre los orígenes del Israel antiguo o proto-Israel, como él le llama. Como otros en su área, concluye que el antiguo Israel no se originó con una conquista sangrienta, como muestra la Biblia en el libro de Josué, sino que los antepasados del Israel monárquico ya estaban ahí desde siglos atrás. Como conclusión propia presenta argumentos muy sólidos para demostrar que aquellos eran nativos Cananeos y personas con orígenes diversos que se mudaron a la zona rural en las montañas, y donde eventualmente forjaron las bases de su identidad cultural.
William G. Dever, is an American archaeologist specializing in the Near East with vast experience from his numerous excavations in Israeli and Palestinian territory. In this book he analyzes the archaeological evidence found by him and other archeologists, and discusses the hypotheses of various archaeologists and academics about the origins of ancient Israel or proto-Israel, as he calls it. Like others in his area, he concludes that ancient Israel did not originate with a bloody conquest, as the Bible shows in the book of Joshua, but that the ancestors of monarchical Israel were already there centuries ago. As his own conclusion, he presents very solid arguments to show that those were Canaanite natives and people with diverse origins who moved to the hill country, and where they eventually forged the basis of their cultural identity.
William G. Dever, is an American archaeologist specializing in the Near East with vast experience from his numerous excavations in Israeli and Palestinian territory. In this book he analyzes the archaeological evidence found by him and other archeologists, and discusses the hypotheses of various archaeologists and academics about the origins of ancient Israel or proto-Israel, as he calls it. Like others in his area, he concludes that ancient Israel did not originate with a bloody conquest, as the Bible shows in the book of Joshua, but that the ancestors of monarchical Israel were already there centuries ago. As his own conclusion, he presents very solid arguments to show that those were Canaanite natives and people with diverse origins who moved to the hill country, and where they eventually forged the basis of their cultural identity.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 24, 2010
A number of books on the Hebrew Bible have been published in the 1990s and the 2000s that claim that the early history of the Israelites is a fabrication; The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman is one, but others are much more extreme in their claims. The claims were eagerly picked up by assorted anti-Zionists and Palestinian nationalists; some of the latter claim that Bronze Age Canaanites are their direct ancestors; in 1996 some West Bank Palestinians reenacted a ceremony of worshiping the Canaanite god Ba'al. Dever tries to steer a middle course between them and Biblical literalists, but the end result is not substantially different from Finkelstein and Silberman. The Book of Joshua lists 30-some cities destroyed by the Israelite invasion of Canaan; some are unidentified, and of the rest some are unexcavated, but of the 20-some excavated cities, only 2 or 3 could possibly have been destroyed by the Israelites, and could have been destroyed by the Philistines or someone else. The original Israelites seem to have been pastoralists who lived in the hills of modern-day West Bank; an egalitarian peasant society can hold heterodox religious views: look at the Amish of Pennsylvania. However, it is possible that they also assimilated descendants of Semitic slaves who escaped from Egypt, whose tribal epic was the story of Joseph, and whose legendary ancestors were Manasseh and Ephraim.
August 4, 2017
I enjoy reading historical, archaeological and anthropological treatises and Mr. Dever did a nice job of explaining the background of each assertions he makes, he's very explicit about his reasoning and why he does or does not agree with another author's theories. I also enjoyed getting a look at some of the bickering that seems to go on between disagreeing peers, each profession seems to have their own divas.
March 10, 2014
William Dever seeks to analyze archaeology of the "Holy Land" from an objective basis. More than other authors on the topic, he seems to succeed in doing so. His analysis of the evidence suggests that the Biblical narrative was written by people who believed what they were writing but embellished certain aspects. However, just because people believed what they were writing doesn't make it true. The Judeo-Christian narrative is encompassed by documents that contain some truths, some probable fabrications, some embellishments, and many things that archaeology cannot possibly answer (such as miracles). What archaeology can answer is the probability of whether described historical events actually happened. In some cases the answer is probably so, in many others the answer is almost certainly not. Dever shows in this very well written book that the Bible should be taken at face value: a collection of many written works by superstitious people in the time they were written. Whether or not Judaism and/or Christianity are valid belief systems is not addressed and is not a question of archaeology. The reader can draw their own conclusions on that issue.
April 8, 2017
William Dever also tends towards the indigenous solution as to who the early Israelites (he calls them 'proto-Israelites) were, but he thinks it more likely that they were Canaanite peasants fleeing the chaos and oppression that marked the end of the Bronze Age to find a new birth of freedom in the highlands, unlike Finkelstein, who believes that they were upland nomads who needed to start growing their own wheat and vegetables because the agricultural system in the coastal plain and valleys collapsed during that same chaos. Dever is pretty sure that the numbers for Finkelstein's solution don't add up, and that they wouldn't have been able to adapt quickly enough. This makes sense to me but, on the other hand, Dever's scenario would seem to eliminate the tribal aspects of Iron Age I highland society. Oh well. The debate rages on, but Dever writes with verve and panache on this contentious topic.
September 7, 2010
The title doesn't leave much room for doubt when it comes to the content of the book. An archaeological survey of what we know about the early Israelites and proposes an interpretation for the data that is highly compelling. Dever also does a good job in providing an overview of competing interpretations and why he disagrees with them. I found this book as it was highly referenced by Karen Armstrong in the Great Transformation (which I loved) and so I was already predisposed to Dever's interpretation.
November 19, 2014
Good overview of the disparities between current archaeological perspectives about the early Israelites and the biblical text. While Dever doesn't seem overtly hostile to the biblical narratives, he does not find them supported by archaeology. There's some good review here of the (then) current state of archaeological research in Palestine, though a little too much academic "inside baseball" about various disputes and personalities. It's generally very readable for the non-specialist (like me). I didn't quite finish it, but I'd recommend it.
October 5, 2010
The "science" behind determining where the Bible and the "Jews" really came from is only emerging within the last 20 years or so. The results have ramifications that, if understood, would drastically alter the world-view of billions of people. The findings of this body of knowledge are too challenging and too hard to understand, however, and I think it will take a generation or two or three for people to catch up.
April 2, 2013
This takes a rather academic scholarly historical-critical approach to the of the Biblical narrative upon which the current historiography of the State of Israel is based. One will have to come face to face with the facts and with the fiction in the naked presentation and examination of the empirical evidences and the facts on the ground. One will have to decide whether the truth is better than the fiction.
July 7, 2014
A very well-balanced and thought-provoking book on the origins of the Israelites. It raises a lot of serious questions to the general way I, and many others, have read the certain parts of the OT, while still being balanced. Dever uses the archaeological data as a primary source to see where it and the Old Testament literature "converge" in order to determine Israelite origins.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews