Customer Reviews

Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If one must rely on a single source relating to the historicity of the Old Testament Professor William Dever's latest book is the one. "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?" effectively makes use of his concept of "convergences between artifacts and texts." He brings to bear archaeology, history, mythology, scripture and tradition on the people he calls the proto-Israelites, the forebears of the nation in ancient Canaan we have come to know as Israel of the Iron Age through Roman times.

Notably much of what he writes is based upon his enormous experience in archaeology and more importantly his own fieldwork. His incredible breadth and depth of knowledge and insight pour forth onto the pages of this book.

Revisionists and minimalists who allege the Old Testament contains no history of Israel and say it was not composed until the Persian or Greek periods will not like this book. Likewise conservatives and fundamentalists who interpret the scriptures literally will gain no encouragement here.

Doctor Dever's scholarly account of the stated positions of all the participants in the debate is of enormous help in sorting out the real issues and putting in perspective the biases and spin being inflicted upon us. Further by explaining how the entire mass of scientific, scriptural and other inquiries illuminates the origins of the Israelites he gives the definitive elucidation. His authoritative conclusions are astute, well thought-out, broadminded and evenhanded.

Future discoveries may yield additional knowledge about this important era and exciting subject. However it is unlikely that any results will alter drastically what Professor Dever has written in this excellent, eminently informative and readable tour de force.

Dedication of this book to Sean William Dever is especially poignant. It was the loss of the son that prompted the father to focus on a "journey" as the means for dealing with sorrow. I feel that the spirit of the son was in large measure the driving force in the achievement of a superb outcome, "the destination."

Louis C. Sheppard, Ph.D., D.I.C.

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 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.

The Introduction and Chapter I - "The Current Crisis in Understanding the Origins of Early Israel" contain some very important statements about the purpose of this book. Professor Dever addresses the question of the historical basis of Israel's origin in Egypt and Canaan:- that is the Exodus and the Conquest. He defines his methodology as using archaeological evidence as a control (not proof) in rereading biblical texts, and argues that there are at least 5 basic approaches for doing so, ranging from
a) Assume the biblical text is literally true, and ignore all external evidence as irrelevant
b) Hold that the biblical text is probably true, but seek external corroboration
c) Approach the text and external data with no preconceptions, single out the convergences, but remain sceptical about the rest
d) Contend that nothing in the biblical text is true unless proven by external data
e) Reject the text and any other data because the Bible cannot be true
He holds to the middle ground because he thinks that truth is most likely to be found there.

This is an absorbing book, and one which seems to use "The Systems Approach" for describing his position - i.e. What is the problem and its significance, what are the facts, what are the alternatives, and what is the most appropriate solution. Having clearly stated the problem, Professor Dever reviews the account of the Exodus, the Conquest of Transjordan, and Conquest of the land west of the Jordan, identifying the problems with these accounts, and the inconsistencies with the archaeological evidence. This is followed by a thorough review of the current state of archaeological facts, and a summary of the material culture of Iron Age I.

From there he proceeds to review the various attempts at a synthesis of textual and archaeological data over the past 40 years, which includes a review of the work and position of scholars from the Older Israeli Biblical Scholarship, the German School, the American School Biblicists, Histories of Israel, The Biblical Revisionists, and the Israeli and American Archaeologists. He devotes a separate chapter to the works and views of Israel Finkelstein

His closing chapters on the Ethnicity and Archaeological record of the early Israelites, and Salvaging the Biblical Tradition are masterworks of analysis in arriving at a balanced conclusion on the origins of the Ancient Israelites

This is a very thorough and well reasoned book, and one that should be read by anyone who is interested in the subject of Israel, past or present. Whatever category you place yourself in the five approaches above, it is worth it. What category am I in? Probably somewhere between (b) and (c) and I definitely need to read it again before I read another book about Israel!

Although the book is mostly a review of the last 100 to 150 years of scholarship on the subject of origins, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From offers a fine critique for the student or interested reader. The author, William Dever, is a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, an institution noted for its on going work in the Middle East in collaboration with other institutions of higher learning, (including site work in Egypt under the directorship of Otto Schaden, with whom I studied Egyptian hieroglyphics years ago). With some thirty years of experience in the field, he is able to interlace his discussion of current theories with insights of his own taken from this perspective.

One of the points that I admire most about the book is the author's lack of rancor. Knowing as I do that the field of Biblical studies can present a minefield of controversy to anyone who professes any point of view, and that the journals can fairly smoke with comments and counter-comments to the editor, I find his openness laudable. The author does have his disagreements with the proponents of other theories, but he seems able to give them a fair and balanced airing and credit where credit is due. This isn't always easy in a field where contention rules, reputation is made by going against the current, and tenure may be given to those who successfully unseat their elders.

Part of the contention also arises from a peculiar need to justify the biblical narrative, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it all "really happened" and is therefore "true." Like proving the existence of God, this is essentially a non-question. The religious reality of the Bible and its stories is a matter of faith; one either accepts it or doesn't according to ones own light. To the devout, proof is unnecessary as the author himself notes in his introductory chapters.

The modern political ramifications of Israelite origins is another embarrassing stone for the scholar to trip over, one of which Dever also makes note. The charge that Israelite origins or even the reality of its monarchal state was a fiction created to serve the political interests of their creators, and even more inflammatory, the possible suppression of "Palestinian history" by the modern state of Israel have made the issue of "historic reality" a major political problem that is not likely to go away anytime soon. With so much at stake both personally and nationally, any definitive statements in whatever direction are likely to be seen as an attack by someone.

With the above caveats, I tend to agree with Professor Dever's assessment of the situation. It seems highly probable that the later state of Israel arose from an indigenous source with small exogenous groups providing origin stories that were useful to later redactors to whose efforts we owe the modern version of the Biblical narrative. Whatever the motivation of these latter individuals, those of the earliest population or of the early monarchy were effected by conditions current during their own time. It is thus to these conditions and to this historical setting one must look to make sense of the record. Dever makes it quite clear from his discussion of the local infighting presented in the Armarna texts that conditions for the average citizen were deteriorating in the area during the Late Bronze/Early Iron age. Climate may or may not have been a factor in the Levant itself, but it most certainly had an effect on more northernly populations, since massive population movements occurred from there into the Near East. Change was almost unavoidable. With incursions of outsiders putting pressure on available land, increase in the number of lawless dissidents harassing the cities, quarrels between monarchs over control of their mutual boundaries, an unfair division of resources, the peasant population might well decide to cut its losses and run for it. It might also assume to develop an identity of its own irrespective of the ultimate origins of its constituent members.

In assessing the soundness of such a proposal, one might well benefit from the less emotionally charged example of the Anasazi origins and from research on the effects of climate on population movement and cultural change. To begin with, David Stuart's excellent account of the effects of climate change on the rise of the corn growing cultures of the four corners region of Arizona and surrounding states, makes a good parallel. In Anasazi America, the Professor suggests that the earliest inhabitants changed from a condition of transhumanescence to one of settled existence when climatic conditions made it necessary. With decline in resources, cultivation of multiple areas by people who considered themselves "kin" was a good way to spread risk widely. A need for organizing labor for water and land management probably led to a centralized authority, a class system of sorts, large scale architecture, in-group religious institutions, and an inequity in resource allocation. When climate changed again and the privileged elite were unable to manipulate conditions by their connections with nature or their management abilities, the sparsity of resources and inequity between classes became too pronounced for the culture to endure. The rural population disbursed. It had nothing to lose by doing so. Heading to the empty upland frontiers, they established architectural and technical hall marks suggestive of small family freeholds linked by obligations of shared risk, but the buildings and cultural menagerie did not arise from nothing; it arose as a derivative of what had been used in the area before.

The topics of climate and culture and climate and the rise and fall of polities are dealt with in very clear terms by Brian Fagan in The Long Summer, Harry Thurston in Secrets of the Sands and Richardson Gill in The Great Maya Draughts. In all four of the above books, there is ample data to support Professor Dever's thesis of an indigenous origin for the early Israelites.

The Bible originated with the Torah and the Torah originated with the Israelites. Therefore, where the Israelites came from is a foundation upon which all that follows rests.

It's a fascinating topic and Dever makes all the answers available in this short and easy to read book. In early chapters, Dever talks about the history of the archeology relating to this issue and the range of opinions which have developed. He also frankly discusses the modern fad of minimalism wherein some academics and non academics have advocated that Bible/Torah stories are just myth.

A veteran of field research in Israel, Dever shares the pertinent information from various digs to develop a picture of what was a mass population explosion in 12th/13th century BCE Canaan. In quantifying the findings from these digs, Dever introduces us to the people who lived in the Judean foothills at roughly the same time Pharaoh Merneptah was touting a victory stele which claimed: "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."

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.

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!

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!

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.

This was a historical and cultural mystery story, well-investigated, well-told. It could make an exciting TV thriller. Dever compares the latest archaeological and historical knowledge with the biblical information about the origin and history of ancient Israel. He assaults the "revisionists" and "nihilists" who say we cannot know details about ancient Israel or there was not an ancient Israel and provides archaeological evidence indicating clarification of Israel or proto-Israel from the 13th century BCE, from an extra-biblical Egyptian textual source and archaeological sources.