On the Reliability of the Old Testament

Rating:
Summary: Incredible! Destroys minimalism.
Review: After reading this text no open minded person can question the general historical reliability of the Old Testament. The facts simply speak for themselves and in the final analysis they are undeniable. The book clearly shows how the minimalist contentions about the lack of Old Testament historical veracity are nothing but unfounded dogma. I HIGHLY recommend this book for any who are seeking the facts about the reliability of the Old Testament.

Rating:
Summary: A useful and careful collection of evidence
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: A Massive Maximalist Counterattack
Review: K.A. Kitchen is one of the most learned and well-read orientalists in the world today, and his effort in this book shows it. This is the kind of broadside against minimalizing tendencies that many have been waiting for. OROT is thorough and detailed, but covers so much that it leaves you wanting more. Upon finishing it the reader will likely come to the realization that the subjects for nearly every chapter require whole volumes in and of themselves. Sometimes I wish Kitchen had divided the book into separate parts so that he could make space for fleshing out his arguments more. Nonetheless this is an enjoyable and useful read that will bring students of Old Testament/Ancient Near Eastern studies to understand why maximalists can't be dismissed with the wave of a hand as merely ignorant fundamentalists or "red state" evangelicals.

Rating:
Summary: Towards a more literal view...
Review: 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 biases are very clear here. After discussing the problems with various scholars' approaches, he puts together brief answers to his initial questions, deciding that there is far more reliability than many think.

Kitchen stops far short of proclaiming a word-for-fact inerrant correlation between the text we have today and actual history, but does go to great links to minimise the minimalists, showing that there is far more respect for the reliability of the text due to the Old Testament. Biblical literalists may still find the text difficult to accept because of this, but it does include much information for them to consider in a manner probably less problematic than most mainstream biblical scholarship.

This is primarily a book for scholars, evidenced by the wide range of material gathered, the assumptions of knowledge of history, archaeology, language, culture and biblical studies, and the extensive notes made in the text (the endnotes comprise more than 100 of the 660 pages of the text). There is a generous supply of plates, tables, charts and maps, and reasonable indexes for subject and scripture references. However, it is generally accessible to those with at least an undergraduate or equivalent education.

For those who are looking for an answer to the question, 'Can we trust the reliability of the Bible?', this gives some interesting information. Worth reading by those from the liberal and the orthodox camps.

Rating:
Summary: Detailed, Comprehensive, Clear and Modern
Review: Kitchen assesses the reliability of the Hebrew Bible in the light of archaeological evidence, and argues that the Hebrew Bible is very reliable.
Through eight chapters he explores the material on the patriarchs, Exodus, Joshua and judges, the united monarchy, the divided monarchy, the prophets and the exiles and their return. Finally, he concludes with an analysis of minimalist work of various periods on the Hebrew Bible.
Kitchen's method is to carefully outline the text as it stands (noting minimalist distortions of the text where necessary). He then turns to the relevant archaeological data. Kitchen's analysis here is extensive and detailed. The presentation of the material is very systematic, and Kitchen is often witty. Kitchen maintains his clarity throughout, and the book reads mellifluously.
I was astonished at the quantity of archaeological data available for this study. I expected that through the passage of time, especially in the region in which the Bible is set, a lot of relevant material would've been destroyed (naturally or otherwise), and Kitchen is very careful in explaining that absence of evidence doesn't always count as evidence of absence. Nevertheless there is so much clear archaeological evidence - of many different forms - for the accuracy of the Biblical record! The relevant archaeological material stretches over a period of more than two-thousand years and over a vast region including many cultures, whose literature is in ten Near Eastern languages. This breadth is only matched by Kitchen's extensive knowledge.
Kitchen's book also has devastating relevance for the so-called "higher criticism" of the Hebrew Bible, its documentary hypothesis of a multiplicity of sources and late authorship of the Pentateuch. Kitchen's careful analysis and comparisons of the style of external literary sources and archaeological artefacts from various periods of the ancient Near East shows how the style and content of the Biblical books fit perfectly into the times at which they are set - and no other times.
A couple of times, however, I wasn't impressed with Kitchen's interpretation of Biblical verses. I wasn't impressed with his treatment of the numbers of the Exodus. I suspect that some won't like his naturalistic explanation of some miracles such as the ten plagues. Note that Kitchen isn't trying to prove the theology of the Hebrew Bible or establish the correctness of the religious interpretations of events. He is simply trying to establish whether the Biblical record of events is accurate insofar as the archaeological record goes, but religious Jews and Christians will, of-course, be interested in this as well. I also would've preferred the relevant maps and sketches to have been included within the text rather than at the end of the book.
A previous reviewer comments that Kitchen's book ignores inconvenient evidence and is outdated. I strongly disagree. Throughout the book Kitchen contends with his opponents. Much of the final chapter is devoted to carefully responding to the most recent works of biblical minimalism.
In order to get a balanced view of the debate I also purchased Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts". This is a recent (2001) rejection of the Biblical record in the light of archaeological evidence. It seems that Kitchen destroys this book; a response to virtually every significant claim made in "The Bible Unearthed" can be found in Kitchen's book.
Kitchen's book is monumental, stretching over five hundred pages with an additional hundred pages of endnotes, about forty pages of maps, charts and sketches, an extensive index of scriptural references and a subject index. Kitchen's book is essential for anyone interested in whether the Hebrew Bible is reliable. The book is also wonderful for less critical readers who are interested in the context of the Hebrew bible, the nations and places it mentions, the history of its times and its geography. For the critic this work is a stunning rebuttal of minimalist claims; for everyone it makes the Hebrew Bible come alive.

Rating:
Summary: Close your eyes, and BELIEVE
Review: Of course, if you choose which evidence to present, you can make a straw man of each contesting view and proceed to demolish them. Just ignore the inconvenient evidence. Don't bother to site the more recent archeological studies. Omit to mention that certain conclusions have been revised or abandoned, even by their original proponents.

I guess that there is a market for this sort of book, but it's not amongst persons hoping to achieve a better understanding of the history of the era as revealed by archeology. Even those who looked for Troy based on Homer's epic did not go further and postulate that Apollo therefore existed since there was a ruined city of Troy, or that this indicated proof of the voyage of Aenias.

Put this book in the religious section of your bookshelf, not in the history section, and rest confident that there are those who would rather close their eyes and believe in a sun than open their eyes and see its reality.


Rating:
Summary: Great book, but with anti-revisionistic flaws...
Review: Professor Kitchen's book,is a must read, just like Israel Finkelstein's 'The Bible Unearthed''. They are inseperable Siamese twins, you cannot read one without the other!

Kitchen's book is very detailed, it is clear he strongly opposes revisionist tendencies. His definite weakness therefore is that, like the revisionists themselves, his theories are based more on principle than on fact. Though he backs up every claim with information, this information not seldomly overlooks obvious facts and is therefore not always convincing.

I would love to see guys like Kitchen, Finkelstein, Thomas Thomson and others together instead of in their respective studies, it would make hell of a fight and would bring all of us closer to a balanced 21st century point of view regarding biblical text and content.

I tend to side with Finkelstein, biblical text is not literally true, is not meant to be. Research on the ground backs Finkelstein up. That does not necessarily make him a nihilist, revisionist or otherwise anti-Biblist. Even if the outcome of his analysis seems critical, his method is purely scientific, unlike Kitchen (and unlike Thomson).

Problem with many writers, priests, rabbis, imams and even scientists is that they have their own ideological agenda. Every individual reader thus has to take statements with a grain of salt. Which statement needs how much salt, that remains the question.

Kitchen makes a very valuable contribution to the ongoing debate, is a must read, a link in a chain that connects us with hundreds of generations, though he is slightly outdated when his beliefs get in the way of simple fact. He is trying to prove that the Bible is right, whatever fact gets in his way he gets around with good old fashioned churchly admiration.

But once again, his (beautifully printed) book and his angle contributes to the overall debate and is therefore strongly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Well done.
Review: The author is one of the most knowledgable individuals in the world on the subject of the Ancient Near East, and the book contains a wealth of scholarly information and support for the general historical veracity of the Old Testament from a non-fundamentalist standpoint. Well worth reading for those interested in the subject.

Rating:
Summary: A useful and careful collection of evidence
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: A Classic!!!
Review: 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!