On the Reliability of the Old Testament

This book is incredibly thorough and well written. I may not agree with Kitchen on everything, but he does an incredible job of shedding light on historical evidences throughout the Old Testament.

This is an excellent reference book that I would recommend to all those interested in the History and Archaeology of the Old Testament. Whilst there are plenty of books around that help us get a better feel for First Century Judaism and Greco-Roman Culture and thus better understand the background of the New Testament, there are not as many such tools for the Old Testament - which is not surprising since the periods it talks above cover well over 1,000 years (and far longer depending on how you see the Creation Account).Kitchen does a fine job of treating the Old Testament seriously and seeing how it stands up against modern understanding for the Ancient World. Whilst I have read the entire book (and well worth it), it is also a great reference tool to get background info - not just for preaching but for a better understanding of the world as it was then.I find especially interesting the argument that much in Genesis fits well into the time period that long pre-dates Moses / Exodus period (whatever date you put on that). I also find convincing that the cultural background we see through much of the Old Testament fits nicely into the time period that it purports to be reporting on - thus making it quite difficult to accept that it was "made up" in the Babylonian Captivity as some suggest.The Author crams quite a lot into this book! The only downside, I felt, was the final chapter - where he does get quite "angry" with those who disregard the reliability of the Old Testament - though I would recommend his examination of Wellhausen and the whole J E D P approach to the Pentateuch.Highly recommended :)

After 500 pages of text and 100 pages of endnotes, Kitchen concludes that the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data, open to all. The words fairly and evenhandedly are directed toward many scholars who have mishandled the text of O.T.The independent data that Kitchen refers to come from 5000 years of handwritten texts (p. 470), more than a dozen languages (Egyptian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Hebrew, etc.), a dozen or more nation states, archaeology, and histories contemporary with the O.T. It has taken Professor Kitchen more than 50 years to digest all of these independent data, about which he has often written. In this book on the O.T., Kitchen draws upon all of his learning and the notes on this project (p. xiii) to produce a mostly readable and even entertaining (except for those whom he soundly criticizes for their presuppositional scholarship) survey. Here are a few selections from Kitchen's survey.The O.T. books of Kings and Chronicles provide a magnificent chronology of the Hebrew Kings based upon the facts. The Prophecy of Isaiah is a unified 8th century B.C. document based upon the facts. The Prophecy of Daniel (containing both Hebrew and Aramaic languages) is a 6th -5th century document based upon the facts. Deuteronomy is a 14th century covenantal document based upon the facts. Joshua and Judges fit perfectly within the 13th-12th centuries based upon the facts; and the Patriarchal narratives likewise fit within the cultural milieu of 20th -17th centuries B.C.Kitchen has accomplished the remarkable task of assembling the O.T. facts that speak for themselves. The facts bear testimony to the trustworthiness of the O.T. This is what you expect from a book claiming to be the Word of God.

According to Kitchen, there are more documents from the Ancient Near East (ANE) than from ancient Greece and Rome combined. However, most Old Testament (OT) scholars get limited exposure to these documents when pursuing their doctorates. Thus, there is a lot of ignorance about the ANE among OT scholars. The bold pronouncements by many scholars about the fictional character of much of the OT does not necessarily get thoroughly checked against ANE history. Kitchen claims OT scholars work in a vacuum from the OT's ANE background and history. Like a breath of fresh air, Kitchen's book systematically brings to bear documents, artifacts, and archeological findings on questions related to the historicity of the Old Testament. The results are very encouraging.Kitchen shows how the Bible contain customs, information, etc. that fit the era they claim to be from. For example, the Mosaic covenant fits the kind of covenants from Moses' era, not from any other era. Ever wonder about Sarah giving Abraham her maidservent to have a baby for her, and Rachel and Leah doing the same for Jacob? Sure enough, that custom turns up in documents from precisely the era of the patriarchs, but not later. These kinds of things show up time and time again in Kitchen's book. Extensive endnotes give his ANE sources.The bottom line is that Kitchen shows how historically appropriate and "in-sync" the OT is with the ANE, throughout all of its history. It would have been impossible for later Jews to "create" Israelite history as skeptical scholars claim. The stuff in the OT "fits" too well. There's no way later Jews could have gotten that all correct.Unfortunately, this valuable information will not get the wide exposure it deserves due to the book's length and often technical nature. I wish Kitchen would create a more popular 125 page summary version of this that hits the highlights and be a true companion to F. F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are The Reliable?"