So much information is in this book. And it is wonderfully sourced. As such, the arguments are convincing, even when provocative. I suppose it all still holds together, although the volume was published more than a quarter of a century ago. Undoubtedly, new discoveries, especially in Egypt during the 1990s, have altered some of the groundwork Redford relies upon. I think this might be especially true regarding early Old Kingdom discoveries. But I'm no specialist in this area. Still, as I say, an intriguing book that is well worth the time invested in it.

And the reader will need to invest some time with Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, for, alas, the book is poorly written. It is not that Redford is a quirky writer. It is not that he is an eccentric writer. It is the fact that he is a bad writer. The prose is stiff, awkward, and full of self-invented portmanteaus. And there is the matter of his often dropping German words and phrases into his text (Völkisch, Drang nach Norden [Osten]). Why? Many of them have specific application to nineteenth century German nationalism. But Redford just drops them in without explanation, when perfectly good English phrases exist to explain what he wants to get across. This is academic preening at its worst. He simply looks silly doing it.

And what about maps? There are far too few of them, especially enlarged and detailed maps. This book must have been a mountain of confusion in the pre-internet age, when the reader had to have in his own possession material and maps to find out precisely what area Redford was discussing. This is a major flaw of the book, as is the lack of accompanying timelines.

There, too, is the matter of his footnoting. I've been critical of MLA's shift to citation in the text that began some decades ago. But Redford has made me appreciate it. I don't know the expected norm in his field. But I find his use of footnotes irksome and erratic. Footnotes should cite. They should not be there to carry on lengthy rants and supplementary arguments. If a paragraph is good enough for a footnote, then put it in the main body of the damn text! Yes, I used an exclamation mark--just as to remind that Redford's splattering of exclamation marks makes him sound like an hysteric.

Finally, Redford likes to indulge in what essentially are off topic rants. Before discussing Biblical sources, for example, he writes a six and a half page introductory rant about personal attitudes. And in the midst of the rant, he even inserts a half page footnote that is a rant within the rant. This sort of stuff makes for unpleasant and distracting reading. It also means his writing lacks coherence.

One mention: perhaps the most intriguing chapter was his shortest, the one on the Sea Peoples. It contained some convincingly argued, provocative conclusions. And it was presented in a coherent and scholarly fashion. I wish the rest of the book had maintained the same high standard. ( )

Redford is quite knowledgeable about the history of Egypt and Canaan, and does well when he sticks to such things; his theological musings could be cast off, and his militant disdain for all those who accept the Biblical narratives for what they say considerably degrades the quality of the work as a whole. ( )