Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

On the Reliability of the Old Testament

Kenneth A. Kitchen

4.30 · Rating details · 182 ratings · 28 reviews

For more than two hundred years controversy has raged over the reliability of the Old Testament. Questions about the factuality of its colorful stories of heroes, villains, and kings, for example, have led many critics to see the entire Hebrew Bible as little more than pious fiction. In this fascinating book, noted ancient historian K. A. Kitchen takes strong issue with to ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 684 pages

Published June 9th 2006 by Eerdmans (first published 2003)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about On the Reliability of the Old Testament, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about On the Reliability of the Old Testament

Lists with This Book

The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Essential Theology Books for a Seminary Education

505 books — 202 voters

Must Read Books for the Thinking Christian

1,035 books — 682 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.30 ·

Rating details

· 182 ratings · 28 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of On the Reliability of the Old Testament

Aug 03, 2011 James Korsmo added it

If you have watched any Nova or National Geographic specials on pretty much any facet of the Old Testament over the past few years, it very quickly becomes obvious that a rather stark historical minimalism is dominant in the scholarly world, or at least the scholarly world they feature. And this could be dismissed as just media bias, but a similar minimalism is also quite prominent in the OT academic circles and is evidenced in many introductory OT textbook. So what in the OT is historical? The If you have watched any Nova or National Geographic specials on pretty much any facet of the Old Testament over the past few years, it very quickly becomes obvious that a rather stark historical minimalism is dominant in the scholarly world, or at least the scholarly world they feature. And this could be dismissed as just media bias, but a similar minimalism is also quite prominent in the OT academic circles and is evidenced in many introductory OT textbook. So what in the OT is historical? The Bible certainly treats the major characters and events in the OT as historical, and it builds its understanding of God and his character from God's acts in history (God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the exodus). So if the OT was entirely made-up history, a fictional construct from after the exile to give a rag-tag band of people an identity, that would have pretty profound implications for how we understand God and how we understand the Bible.

K. A. Kitchen, an emeritus professor of Egyptology at Liverpool University, takes these questions head on, as he systematically looks at the historicity and plausibility of the OT writings in their historical contexts. The book is a detailed era-by-era investigation into the Biblical text (sometimes point out that what we assume the Bible says isn't actually what it reports), cultural settings, archaeological discoveries, and documentary and inscriptional evidence from the Levant and the surrounding world, in order to see whether the Bible's historical record fits with, and often intersects with, the history as it can be understood from outside the Bible.

The book is filled with detail. It is 500 pages of discussion of the evidence and the various approaches to its reconstruction along with careful evaluation of how the historical and archaeological data coheres with the Bible, along with another 150 pages of notes, diagrams, and indices. That's all to say, he deals with all of the major issues that arise out of this wide-ranging subject matter. This mountain of detail and discussion is made easily navigable by its good organization, helpful use of charts, and its concise summaries at the end of each chapter.

Kitchen's careful conclusion is that the minimalism so prevalent in the academy and in popular scholarship today is merely a relic of past assumptions now eclipsed by the evidence. He concludes his investigation of whether the Biblical writings were composed entirely within the postexilic period (400–200 B.C.) or whether they reflect their purported historical settings by asserting, with regard to the divided monarchy, exile, and return, that the Bible's accounts of these periods "show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exists) and of reliability." And, concluding on what can be said of the historicity of the accounts before the united monarchy, when direct evidence is more difficult to find, that "the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period." Thus, he concludes that the Bible's historical accounts make sense in the times that they purport to represent, and don't give evidence of a postexilic invention so popular in academic circles. I must also say that while Kitchen's study is indeed detailed, it is also entertaining, as he shows a warm and sometimes scathing humor as he looks at historical evidence or at rival historical reconstructions. The book was enjoyable to read, and is a very helpful push back against the minimalism that can begin to erode Biblical faith. It certainly isn't the last word on any of these matters, but it is an important and substantial tome that will need to be reckoned with. And if you're not ambitious enough to dig in to all of the data, selective reading of especially important topics and careful reading of all of the introductory and summary materials makes for a good overview of the relevant materials. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2016 Dorian Driscoll rated it really liked it

Shelves: apologetics, biblical-studies, extra-biblical-texts, literary-criticism, miscellaneous-reference, religious-studies

It is hard to overstate the value of this book. To be concise, here is a list of affirmations for which Kitchen provides abundant evidence:

-A 13th century dating of the Exodus
-The historicity of Kings/Chronicles. This is largely based on nearly identically formatted analogues in other ANE texts (day books and other official records) which are generally understood to have been created during the time of those purported by the biblical reports.
-The historicity of the Exodus. He explains that certa It is hard to overstate the value of this book. To be concise, here is a list of affirmations for which Kitchen provides abundant evidence:

-A 13th century dating of the Exodus
-The historicity of Kings/Chronicles. This is largely based on nearly identically formatted analogues in other ANE texts (day books and other official records) which are generally understood to have been created during the time of those purported by the biblical reports.
-The historicity of the Exodus. He explains that certain forms of physical evidence could not have possibly remained, and that the biblical narrative was generally consistent with a topographical understanding of the terrain at that time. He shows how Egypt had repeatedly brought in foreign slave labor and that this is supported by Egyptian texts, etc.
-The general historicity of the patriarchs. This is argued by comparing everything from language and its evolution over the centuries after the patriarchs, the various customs, prices, names, and practices that are mentioned, and finding similar analogues in other reports generally understood to correspond to that time. One very clear example of a bias against the biblical narrative is the oft repeated affirmation that the presence of camels in the stories of Abraham invalidate its historicity since camels were not present in that part of the world during Abraham's time. Kitchen explains that there are records in Egypt of camels that date back to at least as far back as Abraham.
-The general historicity and reliability of the book of Joshua. This is done by showing that the reports in Joshua do not actually support the interpretation that he stormed in and conquered, but that he strategically took certain towns, but nearly always returned to a certain city, and that this process was lengthy.
-Implicitly, the authorship of Moses. Kitchen explains, in great detail, that the documents which constitute the Pentateuch are formatted in very specific ways that could not possibly--by any stretch of the imagination-- been known either to a bunch of leaderless nomads wandering in the desert, or the supposed authors and schools of authors of the 7th century BC. They reflect technical knowledge of religious documents, official documents, and international relations documents. Kitchen claims that only a person familiar both the elite levels of Egyptian government and interaction with neighboring kingdoms AND an intimate knowledge of the Hebrews, could have written them. He says, essentially, that if someone like Moses hadn't been put forward as the author, we would need to invent someone like him to explain the various literary characteristics of much of the Pentateuch.
I could go on, but I will conclude by saying that any serious student of biblical apologetics ought to read this book. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jun 09, 2021 Chad rated it it was amazing

In the world of biblical studies, especially the Old Testament, minimalists are those who those who argue that a minimum of the OT is rooted in actual historical events while maximalists argue the opposite. That’s a simple definition but it is the gist of the difference between the two ends of the spectrum. Kenneth Kitchen, a renowned expert in Egypt and the ancient Near East, offers a lengthy, highly detailed, and often humorous defense of the (more) maximalist position. Working his way backwar ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Nov 02, 2020 Christian Barrett rated it really liked it

In a world full of books written on the historical reliability of the New Testament, this resource is much needed. Kitchen walks through the data in the Biblical narrative, the works from those surrounding Israel, and archeological discoveries to argue that the Old Testament is a reliable source of history. The evidence from non-biblical accounts is incredible as it cooperates with the Biblical texts, and he lays it out well. This book is very fact driven. If you are looking for an accessible bo ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 29, 2012 Robert rated it it was amazing

The book is long, but worth reading if you want a good overview of how archeology supports the Old Testament.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 08, 2017 Nathan Albright rated it it was amazing

This book is a 500-page tour de force of scholarly work from ancient Near East texts that sets the dividing line between faith and evidence. If you believe in the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures to a greater degree than the author (and I do), you do so because you are a person of faith. If you believe in the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures to a lesser degree than this author, you do so because of insufficient rationality and understanding of the evidence. The fact that this book comes This book is a 500-page tour de force of scholarly work from ancient Near East texts that sets the dividing line between faith and evidence. If you believe in the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures to a greater degree than the author (and I do), you do so because you are a person of faith. If you believe in the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures to a lesser degree than this author, you do so because of insufficient rationality and understanding of the evidence. The fact that this book comes from a perspective that is not faith-based, but rather evidence-based, from someone who knows the relevant Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Levantine textual and archeological evidence, makes it even better. The dry humor makes it an extremely worthy read for someone who has a love of very scholarly books about the Bible that go down very smoothly (unless you’re a minimalist or a disciple of Wellhausen, in which case you would probably be insulted by this weighty tome).

The book is supremely well-organized–the author clearly knows what he is about. It opens with a statement of its goals and scope–to examine the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures as historical texts in light of the relevant knowledge we possess about the Near East at the time of the book’s publication (2003). The book then starts in the divided kingdom era, then the period of the exile and return, the united monarchy, the tribal confederation period, the Exodus, the patriarchs, biblical prophets, biblical “prehistory,” and a few saucy and biting conclusions (in that order). Despite the variability in order from a strict chronological one, the author remains in full command of the evidence (and his ironic and dry sense of humor) throughout.

This is not to say that I agree with all of the book’s conclusions (I don’t), but merely that my disagreement with him exists from the standpoint of someone friendly to his approach to the scriptures and respectful of his credentials as an expert in the relevant texts and archeology of the Near East. Where the author makes conjectures (as he does a lot of in the book’s least satisfying chapter, on biblical prehistory), he says so, to his credit. He happens to believe in a 13th century Exodus, but gives some worthwhile reasons for his position that, while I disagree with on balance, I respect, as it still is an open question.

On the plus side, the book is full of tables, maps, and charts that provide a compelling picture of the biblical world and that demonstrate over and over again that the biblical material begins at a very early date (possibly as early as the third millennium) and that the Pentateuch, except for some very minor updates on terms like Dan for Laish and Ur of the Chaldees, is no later than the 13th century. Most notably, these grounds are not made with on the grounds of faith, but on a variety of independent evidence, including the price of slaves at various eras, the format of contemporary near eastern treaties, the type of shrine used in the tabernacle, and so on. This evidence is widely available (if not widely studied–I myself was familiar with most of it, but not all of it), and makes minimalist and broadly anti-biblical claims untenable from the point of view of fact and reason.

If you read this book and get nothing else out of it, you should understand that the Bible is a genuinely very old book (with its origins going back at least 4000 years, if not longer) with a genuinely historical, fact-based approach, written within contexts of cultural influences at appropriate locations, where they ought to be based on the content of the message. The biblical authors are shown to be broadly aware of contemporary norms of theological history, and are shown to be less given to exaggeration than their peers. By providing a great deal of context, this author, though not an obvious “believer” himself, provides a great service to apologists who have an eye towards historical examination. If you (like me) happen to be that kind of person, this book will make an excellent addition to your library, for demolishing arguments with pointed evidence about the existence of David in three near-contemporary ancient inscriptions, the known existence of Israel as a recognized independent culture from the 13th century in the promised land, and many other worthy areas of study. Suffice it to say, the “legendary” numbers of the Bible will look a lot less legendary to the history student who can compare Solomon’s wealth to that of Orsokon (much of it stolen by his father Shoshenq (better known as Shishak) from Judah and Israel. In short, if you’re friendly to the historical value of the Bible, you will find this book a pleasant read (though it is a fairly long one). If you’re hostile to the truth claims of the Bible, don’t bring weak a priori arguments into examining this book, lest you be found wanting. ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 27, 2020 Michael rated it it was amazing

Kenneth Kitchen is a scholar of the Ancient Near East who criticizes mainstream Biblical scholars for unnecessary skepticism about the historical value of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). He has a vast knowledge of Near Eastern archaeology and ancient Near Eastern documents. Kitchen sharply criticizes the view, classically expressed by Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, that the Pentateuch had four main sources from different time periods, J(awist), E(loist), D(euteronomist, and P(rie Kenneth Kitchen is a scholar of the Ancient Near East who criticizes mainstream Biblical scholars for unnecessary skepticism about the historical value of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). He has a vast knowledge of Near Eastern archaeology and ancient Near Eastern documents. Kitchen sharply criticizes the view, classically expressed by Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, that the Pentateuch had four main sources from different time periods, J(awist), E(loist), D(euteronomist, and P(riestly). The classic position also holds that the material from Deuteronomy to II Kings was the product of the Deuternomistic School that focused on God rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked.. While contemporary scholars do not usually think of these sources as individual documents any more, but as multiple sources unified under particular schools of thought, this does not matter to Kitchen, He systematically destroys the classic view and also refutes the classical critical view that most of the Old Testament is non-historical.

Kitchen makes the strong point that literary analysis of Ancient Near Eastern texts should focus on how actual ancient Near Eastern texts are written. He notes that the indications that modern and contemporary scholars seek when looking for sources do not apply to ancient Near Eastern literature. Thus he argues that the Pentateuch primarily is a unity, mostly written by Moses, but finalized later. He denies the existence of a Deuternomistic School, noting that punishment for sin and reward for obeying God or the gods was a common theme in ancient Near Eastern literature long before the traditional date of Deuteronomy. Later, Kitchen makes a strong case for the unity of Isaiah. His arguments for the basic historical accuracy of the Old Testament are powerful and depend on his many years of studying ancient Near Eastern archaeology. He points out that the stories of the Patriarchs in Genesis only make sense in an early second millennium B.C. context. The laws in the Pentateuch only make sense given a late second millennium context and do not make sense later. Kitchen notes the rich archaeological evidence for the existence of Old Testament characters, including references to "Bet David," "House of David" and seals of servants of various kings of Israel and Judah from Uzziah of Judah onward. He destroys some claims of critics, such as the claim that camels were not domesticated until the late second millennium B.C. and could not have been used by the Patriarchs. He points to archaeological evidence of domesticated camels dating from the early second millennium B.C.

In my judgment, Kitchen succeeds admirably in proving his thesis that the Old Testament is as reliable as any other ancient Near Eastern historical source. He reveals the flimsiness of arguments by Biblical scholars, and is free with his sarcasm when he identifies the obvious errors, fallacies, and even deceptive tactics of these scholars. The section of the book where he criticizes the New Criticism nonsense is worth the price of the book. I highly recommend this book to anyone studying the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible if you prefer). ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 04, 2018 Christopher G. rated it it was amazing

Shelves: apologetics

Some scholars insist that the Old Testament was fabricated and that no evidence exists to prove these people and events ever took place. This argument stems from a number of reasons including: bias, self agenda, inadequate research, and the earliest written record only dates back to 200 b.c. Kitchen counters their claims by evaluating both direct and indirect evidence throughout the entire timeline of the Old Testament. The direct evidence is most abundant after 1000 b.c. while prior to that tim ...more

flag Like · see review

May 20, 2019 Curby Graham rated it it was amazing

This is Kitchen's Magnum Opus on the Old Testament and what a fantastic book this is. It came out in 2003 and I hope he does an update for the 20th or 25th anniversary.

Kitchen's thesis is that we have good reason and evidence to think that the narrative in the Old Testament is reliable. The attempts by the minimalists fail and deliberately ignore the ever growing mound of archaeological evidence.

The chapters go backwards in time - starting with the end of the Hebrew Kingdoms and working backwar ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 14, 2021 Ashton Herrod rated it it was amazing

Great facts! This is definitely a book that is needed to show through the archaeological evidence and the historical textual evidence that the Old Testament is reliable as far as we can tell with the information we have now. In addition, the evidence we continue to get nowadays is showing more and more that the Old Testament is historically reliable. He is extremely fair in his dealings with the information and I enjoyed reading this. The only real issue I had with it was that I didn’t think it ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 07, 2017 Nick Sommers rated it really liked it

A highly academic book. Read for a seminary class on Old Testament. Kenneth Kitchen is a world renowned Egyptologist who undertook to write a defense of the Old Testament against secular biblical criticism. Though this book is a difficult read filled with technical language, it is worth the effort. I believe Kitchen succeeded in demonstrating that the Old Testament is a remarkably reliable and historically accurate collection of ancient documents. Modern atheists and secularists who dismiss the ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 02, 2018 Brice Bigham rated it really liked it

Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen offers compelling evidence for the reliability of the Hebrew Bible. He compares the text with documents contemporary to the OT and archaeological finds - all which refute the claim that the majority of the OT was written after the 6th century BC, and that it could not be idealized fiction all made up by some late or post-exilic author(s). If scholars truly do their homework - the evidence in support of the reliability of the Biblical record is overwhelming.

flag Like · see review

Jul 13, 2020 Spencer rated it really liked it

Shelves: old-testament, ancient-israel, ancient-near-east, archaeology, biblical-criticism

Interesting read, although a bit rambling at times (especially at the end of the book). Kitchen provides a reassessment of the major periods of biblical history beginning with the "United" Kingdom. Some of his writing is technical and without having a lot of Archaeological/ANE/Semitic linguistics experience it can be hard to read, but I think there are enough nuggets that warrants a read for most. ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 23, 2020 Kelle Craft rated it really liked it

Extremely detailed-which is good. But at times, very dry and reads like a collection of history details and facts. Most useful for selective use, research purposes, or inquiries into specific issues with the OT or skeptical questions. Very good example of how to assess comparative materials alongside the biblical evidence, rather than using them as a rod with which to measure the Biblical accounts.

flag Like · see review

Jul 05, 2021 Emily Gayle rated it really liked it

You can tell Kitchen is extremely passionate about his subject matter and his research. I really enjoyed his sense of humor in his writing. For instance: "Just one gold/ivory throne? Really! Solomon, you must do better than that." (Kitchen, 130). The one downfall for me is that he was so long-winded. Every chapter read felt like I was reading a novel. He packed so much information in for the reader that it was hard to remain focused on what was being discussed in the first place. ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 02, 2020 David Tee rated it it was amazing

A very thorough and detailed work where you get as much information in the endnotes as you do the different chapters. Mr. Kitchen is well versed on this topic and puts the minimalists like I Finkelstein and Mr. Silbermann in their places.

He is known to be an evangelical archaeologist and Egyptologist and his work =does not ruin the faith nor cast doubt on the Bible.

flag Like · see review

Jun 02, 2018 Michael rated it it was amazing

Shelves: history, favorites

Just phenomenal. Last chapter directly addresses multiple scholars. Actually knows what he's talking about and understands how history and archeology works, surprisingly hard to come by. Hard to understand in some parts, definitely not meant for average Joe's. ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 25, 2020 Alex rated it really liked it

A rather fun romp through the actual evidence for the history as portrayed by the Scriptures... which comes strongly down on the side of the OT being an historically reliable source.

flag Like · see review

Jan 10, 2018 Brian White rated it it was amazing

A thorough treatment of the historical documents, archeology, ... related to the setting of the old testament. Well worth the read!

flag Like · see review

Jul 05, 2020 Nicole Cober-Lake rated it really liked it

*On the Reliability of the Old Testament* is a long, thorough work evaluating the state of current archaeological evidence relating to Old Testament historical narratives. Using a reverse chronology, the book considers the exile and return of the Israelites, Joshua's conquest and occupation of Canaan, the exodus from Egypt, the people's sojourn in Egypt, and the days of the patriarchs. Kitchen's approach is scholarly and very logical. In each chapter, he first outlines the Biblical narrative and *On the Reliability of the Old Testament* is a long, thorough work evaluating the state of current archaeological evidence relating to Old Testament historical narratives. Using a reverse chronology, the book considers the exile and return of the Israelites, Joshua's conquest and occupation of Canaan, the exodus from Egypt, the people's sojourn in Egypt, and the days of the patriarchs. Kitchen's approach is scholarly and very logical. In each chapter, he first outlines the Biblical narrative and briefly surveys the available sources, then evaluates the sources at great length both for their reliability and the precise information they provide, and concludes with a summary of the evidence. His discussion of the sources can be technical at times, so while the reader does not have to be an expert in the ancient world or its archaeology, a strong working knowledge of archaeological methods and a general sense of Ancient Near Eastern history is very helpful.

For me, Kitchen gains credibility by not trying to do more with the evidence than it can bear. He readily admits when we don't possess definitive information from a time period or geographical area. However, his key insight really changed the way I think about Biblical archaeology. While he admits that in the absence of more information, we are sometimes unable to absolutely verify a particular story, Kitchen masterfully marshals the information we do have to show how remarkably accurate the Biblical narratives are in their portrayal of the times and places in which they purport to be set. For example, while we have no specific artifacts linked to the patriarch Abraham, we do have hundreds of examples of Near Eastern covenants written in a particular genre that can be meticulously dated, and which match the time period and format of the covenants preserved in Genesis. Filled with many similar examples across the entire span of the Old Testament period, the book makes an elegant and modest case for the authenticity of the texts within their very real historical worlds.

Throughout, the learned tone of the book is sprinkled with dry side comments from Kitchen himself. He tells us his colleagues' arguments are foolish. He gently scolds promising scholars for the errors in their books. The effect is one of sitting down with an older gentleman who has made his name and achieved his success, and who no longer has to play politics, so has no time for anything other than calling it like he sees it. These moments both enlivened a long narrative and endeared its author to me.

Although I enjoyed this book greatly, I would only recommend it to those for whom Biblical archaeology is a real passion. If you're looking for a more basic and accessible introduction, I'd suggest reading James Hoffmeier's Biblical Archaeology. Hoffmeier is extensively cited in Kitchen, and his information is far less technical. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 30, 2012 Kenneth rated it really liked it

Shelves: reviewed

Good book detailing the archeological evidence used to historically date or verify the Old Testament. Kitchen pushes back the most important dates nearer to the time historical tradition commonly accepts in terms of authorship.

For instance, Kitchen makes the case for the Pentateuch being written close to or at the time of Moses. Moses might have written parts of the writings attributed to his name or not. Whether he did or not is not nearly so significant in terms of the proximity of the writin Good book detailing the archeological evidence used to historically date or verify the Old Testament. Kitchen pushes back the most important dates nearer to the time historical tradition commonly accepts in terms of authorship.

For instance, Kitchen makes the case for the Pentateuch being written close to or at the time of Moses. Moses might have written parts of the writings attributed to his name or not. Whether he did or not is not nearly so significant in terms of the proximity of the writing to the material events.

That the writings of the Old Testament can actually have been written in factual accordance with the real deeds or sayings in reflection of real words or actions of real prophets, priests or kings, is not just scientifically possible, but maybe even probable.

Kitchen’s argument is based largely on the structure of covenant texts from the respective times in question (which resemble ancient legal contracts), an immense treasure of archeological evidence, in addition to extra-Biblical sources or more honest approaches to Historical criticism.

Based on Kitchen's arguments there is reason to question the JEPD thesis that arose with the advent of the Critical Method at the turn of the 20th century. According to the JEPD thesis 4 separate sources can be discerned from the five books of Moses that were supposedly redacted together at a later date (between the divided Kingdom and the Exile in Babylon).

There is really no substantial evidence for this. The theory is posited in a vacuum outside of tangible evidence from modern archeology.

Historical criticism of the Bible was relatively new "science" when the theory was invented. Scholars often enthusiastically embrace speculative theories when first made known to the public.

According to the research presented in this book by Kitchen the Old Testament is actually more akin to what the traditional authority of the Church has always believed.

Interesting book to say the least, albeit a little dry at times. Biblical scholarship is incredibly complex.

Simple answers do not exist for the most part. Wide disagreements persist amongst experts. I submit that my authority is humble on this subject.
...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 16, 2015 Glenn Crouch rated it it was amazing

Shelves: theology

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 ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 24, 2011 Kirk Lowery added it

Shelves: bible, apologetics

This book is a polemic: it's proposition is that the documents of the Hebrew Bible properly reflect the times they purport to be writing about. The author proceeds to amass textual, archaeological and other evidence to support his thesis in detail. It is also a polemic because the author has specific opponents in mind and he curmudgeonly attacks their persons and not just their ideas. That is the least attractive part of the book, but it is testimony to the author's passion.

Whether or not you ag ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 01, 2011 Timothy Bertolet added it

This is a helpful book diving into the reliability of the Old Testament. Not all will agree with all the details but Kitchen examines the OT in its Ancient Near East context. He discusses the nature of evidence for the reliability of the OT particularly from archeology and other cognate studies. While every detail of the OT cannot be verified by ancillary evidence as it is the nature of history to leave aspects of the past in the dust. Kitchen paints a picture that persuades and argues that what ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 22, 2016 Jean-michel Pigeon rated it it was amazing

Livre extrêmement bien documenté sur l'historicité de l'ancien testament. Une bonne réponse aux minimalistes. ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 15, 2014 Jeffrey rated it it was amazing

Shelves: history, theology

Best source I know of on the Old Testament historicity.

flag Like · see review

Jun 30, 2010 Aaron Carlberg added it

Controversy has raged about Old Testament reliability for a couple centuries now. Kitchens take on revisionist critics and provides a great foundation for the historicity of biblical texts.

flag Like · see review

Jan 18, 2015 David Smiley rated it really liked it

Detailed analysis of various archaeological findings. However at points conclusions were made from a lack of evidence and some conclusions were premature with the small amount of evidence given.

flag Like · see review

Rick Schneider rated it it was amazing
Aug 26, 2014

Reagan rated it really liked it
Jul 07, 2011

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

History

16 users

Religion > Theology

15 users

Christianity > Old Testament

12 users

Religion

9 users

Christian

7 users

Religion > Christianity

5 users

Nonfiction

4 users

History > Archaeology

4 users

Religion > Judaism

3 users

See top shelves…

About Kenneth A. Kitchen

Kenneth A. Kitchen

16 followers

Kenneth Anderson Kitchen is Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, England. Despite extensive practical and academic research and output, he has never received a Ph.D., being quite proud to be "plain Mr Kitchen".

He is one of the leading experts on the Egyptian Third Intermedi ...more