On the Reliability of the Old Testament

First, a personal observation. When I grew up, Sweden was already the most secularized nation in the world. Naturally, the public schools were secular. Yet, the Lutheran Church of Sweden was still the officially established religion! What to do? The problem was solved by a typical Swedish compromise: all public school students had to learn the Bible, but only as history. So I grew up thinking that Moses was a real historical person, that the Exodus actually happened, that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea (not the Red one), etc. Years later, when I started reading "Biblical Archeology Review", I was surprised to learn, almost shocked, that archeologists regard the Pentateuch and Joshua as purely mythological! Except a certain Kenneth Kitchen, who wrote interminable articles trying to prove everything from Abraham to Moses with esoteric arguments about ancient slave-prices and bussines transactions. Naturally, I was intrigued. Later, I learned that Kitchen isn't just an Oberprofessor of Egyptology, but also an evangelical Christian. Which may or may not explain his "maximalist" view of the Bible. Still, I tend to symphatize with the "maximalists" in the heated debates about Biblical archeology. After all, the credibility of our secular education system is at stake! Naturally, I just had to give Kenneth Kitchen's tour de force "On the reliability of the Old Testament" five stars. Kitchen may represent a minorityite position within archeology, but his arguments are nevertheless interesting. In a review this size, only my own personal favorite arguments can be high-lighted. Kitchen starts by pointing out the obvious: the Bible is confirmed by Assyrian and Babylonian sources from king Ahab (853 BC) foreward. If the Bible can be trusted, as a purely historical chronicle (sans miracle) from the divided monarchy forward, why can't it also be trusted when it talks about, say, David and Solomon? Those parts of the Bible are also written in the form of a historical chronicle. There is no obvious break between the "unproven" parts of the Bible and the proven parts. As for miracles and theologizing, even king Ahab is pretty theologized, not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem. In a book like this, that old saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" must of necessity play a prominent part. Why aren't David and Solomon mentioned in Assyrian or Egyptian chronicles? Because Assyria didn't expand westward into Canaan during their reign, and so wasn't interested in the local rulers. And Egypt was weakened during this period, no longer considering Canaan its sphere of influence or dominion. Thus, there are logical reasons for the "absence of evidence" for the United Monarchy. As for Jerusalem, that city have been destroyed and rebuilt so many times, that it would be a miracle in itself if substantial remains of, say the First Temple, would be found by excavators - in the unlikely case that the Muslims would permit an excavation inside the D

The well respected English scholar--Kenneth Kitchen--has penned another masterpiece in this book on the inherent reliability of the Old Testament. This study is characterised by his renowned attention to detail and well supported arguments which caters primarily to the scholar/academician rather than the average lay book reader. The book covers 500 pages on the Old Testament before one reaches his volumnious bibliography which includes the author's incisive commentary. Kitchen demonstrates that the Biblical Joseph could only have been sold into slavery for 20 shekels in Mesopotamia, as the Bible states, in the 18th or 17th Century BC when the price of slaves averaged this price. (pp.344-345) Hence, his career as Pharaoh's chief Vizier can only be dated to this time--deep within Egypt's Second Intermediate Period during either the Asiatic 14th Dynasty which controlled Egypt's Delta region or the Hyksos era. (c.1648-1540 BC) A later date for Joseph's existence in 15th or 14th Century BC New Kingdom Egypt is ruled out by the fact that the average price of slaves had risen to 30 shekels by 15th and 14th Century BC Mesopotamia. (p.345) Since Joseph was young and healthy at the time his brothers sold him into slavery, he can be expected to have commanded the standard average price of 20 shekels. Kitchen counters the familiar refrain of Biblical skeptics: "Why [are there] no inscriptions of David's and Solomon's time?" by noting that these problems encompass both the survival of artifacts and official state policy. (p.90) He aptly notes that one must expect any 10th century Jewish texts in Jerusalem and Samaria to have suffered from "repeated changes, destructions and rebuildings" throughout antiquity. The Babylonians "thoroughly destroyed the temple and palace of the 'City of David' in 586 BC" while the massive building projects of King Herod would have removed most remaining traces of Solomonic era stelas or monuments, if any had survived to this time, in Jerusalem.(p.90) At Samaria, archeological excavations have produced "no series of official stone inscriptions either" with the possible exception of one small fragment which "bears the single anodyne word 'asher, [meaning] 'who, which'!" (p.91) However, like Jerusalem, Samaria--the capital of post-Solomon Israel--suffered much damage in 722/720 BC while in Herodian and Roman times, it was completely redeveloped. Furthermore, scholars have not established if Israel's early kings created formal inscriptions on stone during king David or Solomon's reign compared to the unofficial Siloam tunnel inscription which dates to Hezekiah's rule. Kitchen contends that apart from Jerusalem or Samaria, no other Jewish towns merited any major official inscriptions. He plausibly concludes that the lack of attestations for contemporary monuments of David or Solomon's reign is not convincing evidence for denying Israel's existence in the early 10th Century BC by noting that there are similiarly minimal surviving

Because Scripture is such a battle ground, both theologically and historically, many teachers (and, so, many students) treat it as if it were a thing completely apart from other aspects of Judaism and Christianity and other survivals from the ancient world. This is surely a mistake, sometimes inadvertent, sometimes deliberate.As a specialist in early Christianity who has sometimes taught courses in Scripture, I am very glad to see this careful work offered to the non-specialist reader.Archaeological work continues and new discoveries are made and those examining Scripture remain ignorant of them from a lack of willingness to test their convictions, whether those are that the Bible is completely true or almost never dependable. The study of the Bible has long been notorious for the poor level of much of its scholarship, and rightly so, since scholars of all stripes have allowed their passions to run away with them. All students of the Scriptures should examine this work, which gathers information from across the various fields that work on the ancient Near East and Egypt and applies what has been discovered to see how the Scriptures look when placed beside what we know. As the author shows convincingly (to me), there is usually enough information from outside the Bible to give us good reason to take what it says seriously as coming from the ancient world and reflecting that world's time and culture. Those who are searching for the impossible: either proof positive of the truth of Scripture or proof positive of its falsity, will not be satisfied, but those who wish to study the Holy Scriptures in the light of what we can know about their background will be enlightened and encouraged.I believe that the Bible is the whole word of God, entire and trustworthy, and I would have no qulams about using this book with my students, both undergraduates and seminarians. Those of other stripes should have no qualms either, since Kitchen provides information and there is ample room left for teacher and students to do their own thinking. Those of us who want our students to think should welcome this book's arrival!

The title speaks for the subject of the book. Dr. Kitchen has once again produced an incredible work. Regardless of whether you are a Biblical Maximalist, Minimalist, or something in between, this book sets the bar for future scholarship on the subject. Kitchen takes a conservative approach to the material using a vast array of primary texts and originial sources. He is a paragon in the fields of Egyptology and the Ancient Near East--the material shows it. I'm slightly dissappointed with his section on 'Judges'. He believes in a later date for the exodus (which is fine) except for the fact that he contradicts his own methodoly in handling the data found in the text(1kings 6:1; Judges 11:26; Ex. 2:23, and 12:40) . . . all to fit the latter date for the exodus. He chides his opponents for doing the very same thing. Despite this, the work is monumental. So well written, his opponets will probably meet the material with silence . . . unable to answer Kitchen's convincing arguments on equal terms. Well done!

Kenneth Kitchen is an emeritus professor of Egyptology and Archaeology from the University of Liverpool; his interests and writings span many millennia of the ancient world across Egypt and the ancient Near East, including the area of biblical history. In this volume (which he amusingly describes as reducing to the acronym OROT, or O! ROT! as some of his critics may proclaim) Kitchen puts forth an interesting argument here against the dominant tide of biblical studies in Old Testament studies, eschewing modern or postmodern ideas of interpretation and preferring a more traditional approach. Having been inspired by his friend I. Howard Marshall and the text by F.F. Bruce 'Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?', he set out on the massive task of producing a similar volume for the Old Testament.The job presents many difficulties, of course, not the least of which is the ever changing atmosphere, culture, literacy ability, and more of the people of the ancient lands over the millennia. Kitchen does have a care for facts - he doesn't engage in arguments of philosophical import (he doesn't care to address the nature of absolute truth, for instance, seeing that as an often-used diversionary sideline getting away from the basic understanding of reasonably certain objective facts in history). Kitchen supports his arguments with a wide-ranging knowledge of history and the languages of the areas and times. Kitchen makes it clear in the introduction there are three elements he means to address (history, literature and culture) and three he does not (theology, doctrine and dogma). Obviously the nature of the documents require discussion of the latter three, but these are not the focus points. Two primary questions Kitchen also addresses are these: Is there genuine information of the Israelite/Jewish culture from 2000-400 BCE contained in the biblical texts? Secondly, he asks did these documents originate entirely after this period, namely, the period 400-200 BCE? Kitchen's approach is neither chronological nor canonical, but circles back through the text in a manner looking at culture and exile first primarily through kingdom and exile periods, going then back around to the patriarchs and the progress of history through to the prophets back to the exilic period again. Regardless of one's interpretative framework, much of this information is valuable and interesting, and makes one revisit some of the text from a new perspective. Perhaps the most interesting chapter is the final chapter, where Kitchen does a survey of the history of the interpretation of biblical history and texts. As perhaps only someone who has spent a lifetime devoted to the subject can do (and no longer has to worry about academic promotions, etc.), Kitchen candidly presents his analysis of key ideas and figures in the development of our understanding of the biblical text over the past 200 years of study. His particular thrust here is against the minimalists, and his biase