In On the Reliability of the Old Testament, scholar K.A. Kitchen disagrees vehemently with the minimalist position (he is a Biblical maximist), and presents his case for the historicity of the Old Testament. His approach is to "go back both to the writings of the Old Testament and to the very varied data that have so far been recovered from the world in which those writings were born, whether early or late." This 'very varied data' includes external records (writings found in Egypt, Assyria, and so on) and Archaeological evidence. And then he compares all against each other to see what results. Put another way, in each chapter, he examines "first the actual physiognomy and contents of the biblical account, and then its wider literary, conceptual, and archaeological context." A summary follows.
---------------
Kitchen starts with the 'most recent' (930–400 B.C.) and works backwards.
A good percentage of Near Eastern history in the years 930–580 B.C. is provided by Assyria and Babylon (to the east) and Egypt (to the southwest). Biblically, this time frame corresponds to the divided monarchy or two kingdoms (Israel and Judah) period, which lasted from 931–722 B.C. (Israel) and 931–586 B.C. (Judah). He argues that the extant Egyptian records complement what we find in the OT (specifically, 1 and 2 Kings) quite well, both in terms of rulers and historical events.
Aside: some people argue that the mention of a deity in a writing invalidates the possibility of historical accuracy in the account. Kitchen argues, looking across multiple cultures of the age, that "the ancient writer's theological beliefs in each case have nothing to do with the reality of the events—only with the imputed cause behind the events."
From 600–400 B.C. (the period of exile), we have good and complementary records from Babylonia and Assyria.
From 1042–930 B.C. is the period of united monarchy (under Saul, David, and Solomon, respectively). There is not a lot of external evidence from this time period, though there is external mention of the House of David, and what little does exist realistically agrees with known "practical and cultural aspects" presented in the Biblical accounts of that era.
From 1210–1042 B.C. is the Biblical period of the judges (as discussed in the Biblical books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel 1–10). Like the united monarchy, "there are almost no external sources that mention people and events that feature in the books of Joshua and Judges." Why? Kitchen argues that Assyria, a major source of documentation from that time, was well east of the region and no interest in (nor reason to comment on) affairs in Canaan until centuries later (when they would invade). Egypt had more control/interest, but focused on the productive coastal regions, not the poorer highlands where Israel would settle. In addition, "tented wanderers like the Hebrews (and others) have commonly left no surviving traces." However, there is some evidence: Egyptian mention of the people of Israel in 1209/1208, and "many features of the narratives in Joshua (and Judges) find direct echoes and counterparts in texts and representations in their surrounding world."
Continuing going back in time, we reach the Exodus, that famous episode where Moses leads the Jewish people out of Egypt. There is not a lot of evidence here, either, in part due to terrain: Egypt's East Delta, where Israel would have been, is stone-free, muddy, and subject to frequent flooding. Poor conditions for survival of (say) papyri. Comparing the OT 'oath narratives' with their Egyptian counterparts, and restricting timelines further based on places and people groups mentioned (or not) across several sources, Kitchen places a potential oppression period and Exodus around 1320–1260/1250 B.C. All else that can be said about this is "that the existing Exodus narratives fit readily into the general East Delta topography as presently known," and "their correspondence with not just attested realities but with known usage of the late second millennium B.C. and earlier does favor acceptance of their having had a definite historical basis."
Now we're back to the Patriarchs: the time of Abraham and Genesis. Looking at a variety of factors (to include inheritance procedures, names, cultures of the age, the use of divination, animals, and more), Kitchen dates Abraham to Joseph as 1900–1600 B.C. And "the patriarchal narratives do retain much data faithfully preserved from the early second millenium."
Kitchen then 'fast forwards' to look at the prophets who worked across the centuries. These were recorded, intentionally and faithfully, to check against their later fulfillment. And, not surprisingly, the prophetic books in the Bible "are inextricably linked to the limited historical periods in which they are set."
Finally, he looks at the Biblical beginnings (Genesis 1–11), covering a period likely before 2700 B.C. (and beyond written records). It is obvious that these chapters are "a very characteristic literary composition . . . which shares this particular schema with a small group of related compositions in early Mesopotamia, all of which were of a type in vogue in the early second millenium B.C., and seemingly only then."
His basic point in summary: if the OT narratives were written centuries later and largely invented, "how come so consistent a correlation emerges between the "tales" and the archaeological sequence if they were separated by many centuries? . . . It is easier to accept that the "tales" contain a basic history, faithfully transmitted via these books, either themselves written quite early or else written later but drawing upon earlier source data." He argues that from the divided monarchy onward, there is a "very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exist) and of reliability . . . when we go back (before ca. 1000) to periods when inscriptional mentions of a then-obscure tribal community and its antecedent families . . . simply cannot be expected a priori, then chronologically typological comparisons of the biblical and external phenomena show clearly that the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period. The same applies to the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt and appearance in Canaan, with one clear mention, of course (Israel on the stela of Merenptah). The Sinai covenant (Deuteronomy included) has to have originated within a close-set period (1400–1200) —likewise other features . . . [all told] we have a consistent level of good, fact-based correlations right through from circa 2000 B.C. (with earlier roots) down to 400 B.C."
---------------
Agree with him or not, Kitchen is certainly thorough. This book is 500 pages of text, 100 pages of notes/citations, and 40 pages of figures. The reading is systematic and dry; he presents as much as the archaeological field knew at the time (2003). He also looks at all literary/textual aspects: names, people groups, cultures, elements like pottery and tabernacle styles, terrain/livelihoods, literature characteristics, population explosion during a certain era, and more. Overall, he does a great job, and this is an excellent reference. Unless a plethora of additional material turns up (and it just might), there is a lot we will not know for certain . . . but there is good reason for confidence in what we have.
Rating: A
No comments:
Post a Comment