Most Helpful Customer Reviews
163 of 173 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Towards a more literal view..., January 6, 2004
This review is from: On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Hardcover)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
118 of 124 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Detailed, Comprehensive, Clear and Modern, August 1, 2004
This review is from: On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Hardcover)
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 matched only 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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
34 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Maximalist Overdrive!, April 29, 2007
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 Dome of the Rock! Nor can we expect hard evidence for the Exodus. Slave-huts made of mud doesn't show up in the archeological record, Egyptian pharaos never commemorated defeat on their monuments, and 99% of all papyrus documents from the Eastern Delta have been destroyed by bad climate (including any secret intelligence report about rebellious Israelite slaves). Besides, Kitchen believes that only 20,000 people participated in the Exodus, not millions.
Other arguments I found interesting include the observation that Jerusalem might have been the capital of a mini-empire although small, since Thebes was even smaller when it became the capital of an Egyptian mega-empire, that Solomon was a quite poor chap by Iron Age standards, and that the Queen of Sheba fits a period when some women played a prominent role in Arab politics (they didn't after Solomon's time). Less convincing is the treatment of Jericho and Ai. I'm not sure if Kitchen have solved the problem of these towns being destroyed at the "wrong" time. However, he does make the funny observation that women in-keepers á la Rahab were typical of the period!
Most of Kitchen's arguments for the reliability of the Old Testament are necessarily indirect. He searches the Biblical texts for information about covenants, business transactions, slave-prices, personal names or special kinds of architecture (and yes, in-keepers), and asks himself whether these were typical of the period during which Biblical text is supposed to have been written. If so, one can conclude that the Israelites either had very long (and very good) memory spans....or the Biblical texts actually *were* written long before the Dead Sea Scrolls! To take just one example, Kitchen believes that the mix of Semitic and Hurrian names in Joshua is typical of the so-called Conquest period, but not later. And yes, poor Joseph was sold for 20 shekels, supposedly a typical price for a hapless slaveboy during the time of the Patriarchs.
As a layman, I cannot possible judge these arguments, and others have taken issue with Kitchen's interpretation, in the pages of "Biblical Archeology Review" (where else?). Still, Kitchen's book makes interesting reading, and apart from a few rather tedious sections about the rethorical style of ancient documents (yawn), it's surprisingly easy to read, and even humorous (unless you are a competing archeologist, at whose expense the jokes are made). I therefore warmly recommend this book to friend and foe alike. Five stars!!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
