This volume began with the meeting of the European Seminar in Historical Methodology in Tartu, Estonia, in July 2010. Although there was an interesting discussion, there were not sufficient original papers tabled at the conference to form a volume. There were also gaps in the coverage of the papers offered for the conference discussion. A number of further contributions were invited, and it has taken time to assemble sufficient papers to make up this volume–too long, for which I apologize. However, in my view the contents of the volume now give a fairly complete coverage of the major historical problems of the period. Not every single topic one might associate with the Late Bronze Age or of the Bible in relation to this period has an independent paper devoted to it, but most of the issues are covered somewhere within the various chapters.

I introduce the discussion (in the Introduction) with a background chapter surveying the main areas of history and current scholarship relating to Late Bronze Age Palestine and to the Egyptian New Kingdom (Dynasties 18-20) domination of the region, as well as the question of the biblical account of the same geographical area and historical period. The history of Egypt’s dealing with Canaan is surveyed in chapter 3 by Grabbe and, especially, by the study of Dijkstra. The Amarna texts are also dealt with by Lemche, Mayes, Grabbe (especially chapter 3) and Dijkstra to some extent. The archaeology is surveyed by van der Steen. There is no separate chapter on the question of the exodus, but the topic is addressed within the main essay by Grabbe (chapter 1; also Grabbe 2014). The Merenptah Stela mentioning Israel is of considerable interest and is discussed especially by Dijkstra but also by Grabbe. This leads on to the burning question of the origins of Israel. This was not a topic that this volume intended to address in comprehensive fashion, but several writers discuss the question in one form or another: Dijkstra, Knauf, Grabbe and, to some extent, van der Steen. Another issue is whether the first Israelite communities practised egalitarianism, an issue taken up by Guillaume, with a response by Kletter. On the central question, they are in agreement: early Israel was not an egalitarian society because of a particular ideology.