On the Reliability of the Old
Testament
Introduction
After months of brain numbing
research, even prayers and tears; one is overwhelmed when the answers come in
an “accidental” flash of light. Not that
anyone should believe in accidents. We
believe that God answers prayer. When
this “Old Testament Introduction”[1] (OTI) blog was first
conceived and the first article published on May 27, 2015, the whole subject was
laid out in outline form, following the BBS2 video sequence exactly. Difficulty was expected in the early
chapters; difficulty was not anticipated for essays on the Hebrew kings.
Now after being bogged down in the
number puzzle, which the Hebrew kings present, we were ready to throw in the
towel, and had all but abandoned hope that a cultural backdrop would be
provided for the period from 930 to 586. That which is (not) provided by The
Bible’s Buried Secrets (BBS)[2] is minimal to nonexistent: it jumps
immediately from Solomon’s Temple and Samaritan Worship to Assyria and Josiah;
leaving all of the rich intervening wealth of material untouched.
Seeking help with this difficult
material we turned to that old standby, Thiele[3], looking for simple
answers. We were sadly disappointed.[4] Thiele was not much more helpful than Anstey[5], which is now seriously
antiquated, having been eclipsed by a deluge of modern archeological studies.[6] And here we though that nothing about biblical
chronology had changed for thousands of years.[7]
On the other hand, our pain did turn
up some fruitful resources, chief among them:
http://newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
These, together with our faithful sidekick,
https://www.biblegateway.com/, have
proved a great help with research.
When we purchased a new copy of
Thiele on the internet, Amazon offered free shipping for a minimum order and
suggested another book, which we purchased only to save the shipping
charge. The other book was set aside as
we plowed into Thiele. Months later,
looking for any reading material that would provide a break, we picked up the
other book as something to read during TV commercials. Imagine our serendipity when we discovered
that the mystery book had all that the doctor ordered and much, much more.
We’ve been reading Kitchen, Kenneth
A., On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, 2003 (2006 paperback) 662 pages: which book Kitchen lovingly dubs, O!
Rot!,[8] as
a commentary on the many false trails of modernizing pseudo-scholarship. If this OTI blog really were a course of
study, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, would be the
text, secondary only to the Old Testament itself. Had we only known we would have read O!
Rot! first, and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. With rare exception O! Rot!
presents the very message that we’ve been attempting all along: except that
Kitchen does a better job of it. O!
Rot! is, if you haven’t already guessed, that mystery book which we
foolishly delayed reading, until all else seemed lost.
Evidence
More than anything else, even more
than Kitchen’s delightful sense of humor, we admire Kitchen’s great respect for
evidence, which we find refreshing. Our
primary complaint with BBS has been its unscientific disregard for evidence;
and its patently dishonest willingness to distort, hide, or ignore evidence
whenever it opposed their antiquated theory (1876/77).[9]
Our humble attempt to unmask the BBS
fraud has always been handicapped by our limited resources. We are far less than ubiquitous, have only a
modest library, and are limited to internet searches for fresh information. Our own basic study foundation in this area is
rather old (1971-1976), nearly as outlandish as a buggy whip; we also have
minimal archaeological and linguistic skills.
Prior to O! Rot! the best archaeology references in the
trunk of our old jalopy were ANEP[10] and ANET[11]. Even so, we knew enough to see through the
BBS fraud and start to expose it.
Kitchen brings a wide range of new
(to us) evidence to the table. He has
access to the great libraries of England, the British Museum, and the vast
hoards of study that Merrie Olde England has to offer. He also has a lifetime of studies in
archaeology and linguistics, such as cuneiform and hieroglyphics, which are far
beyond our capabilities. Moreover,
Kitchen sees all of this with a depth and scope of understanding which greatly
exceeds our novitiate grasp: in short, where we see a phrase or two, Kitchen
sees a book or even an encyclopedia of information.
Scope
Kitchen’s scope is
international. Where we see a tangency,
with Shalmaneser III, for example, Kitchen sees the whole range of
Shalmaneser’s empire and draws implications about it from Mesopotamia or even
India, to Rome or even Spain if needs be.
Thus he shows what must be expected, as well as what cannot be
expected. Hence, Kitchen’s idea of a
chronological layer extends as far as necessary across the known civilization
and can thus be contrasted with all the other strata above and below it. If evidence of a Shalmaneser III layer, or
any other major hallmark event for that matter, is observed, the dating for
that layer becomes fixed with the rest of the archaeological universe. Yet, more than that, the strata above and
below also become anchored by the sequential chain. If several such hallmarks are found, other
dates can be corrected, or at least estimated, and an entire history can be
built: all because Kitchen is able to see the archeological picture as a
whole. How did Kitchen acquire such
scope?
Credentials
It’s not magic. It’s the result of a lifetime of hard
work. Kitchen excels at such scope. The reason that Kitchen has such breadth of
scope, such depth of insight is simple enough: he has worked harder at this
than anybody else, especially in the field of epigraphy. Not many people, even subject matter experts
in this field, read in ten, twelve, or more languages: including over two styles
each of both cuneiform and hieroglyphics.[12] Few have epigraphed over “60,000 lines’ [over
a million lexemes] worth of Egyptian texts…,”[13] not to mention extensive
labors in other languages, plus the publication of over 250 books and journal articles.
We emphasize here that Kitchen is a
firsthand observer of these documents, not a second or third hand commentator (some
of whom are mere kibitzers); or in our case, merely interested spectators or
sports fans. Folks who are not
themselves firsthand observers are in no position to critique Kitchen: they
cannot possibly have acquired the requisite knowledge base to evaluate this
material scientifically.[14]
Max, Min
Maximalism, maximalist, minimalism, and
minimalist are not frequently defined.
Our own definition is that they describe approaches to evidence that
take that evidence either at its greatest possible value, or at its least
possible value; sometimes even exaggerating that max or min condition. Hence realism and reality are to be pursued
in preference to either of these extreme views.[16]
As scientific terms, they can only
be applied to evidence where a great deal of subjectivity is involved. For example, maximalist and minimalist
mathematicians usually hold identical views, so the terms do not apply:
mathematicians expect absolute universal agreement. On the other hand, experts on global warming
frequently differ by wide margins; so that agreement may not even be expected. Unanimous opinions are common in hard
sciences such as chemistry and physics; such agreement is rarer in the soft
sciences; whereas in art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, even mathematicians have their
gainsayers: the field of economic growth is ruled by fixed and well know
exponential equations; yet, there are still those who claim that copper can be
made from lead, and humans have the intelligence to make the earth survive
after the sun dies.[17]
A funny thing about minimalism
though. As far as diamonds are concerned,
I’m a minimalist; I can’t tell them from zircons, and don’t really much care:
it’s just quadruple bonded carbon crystal to me; might as well be a lump of
coal or a chunk of graphite. However,
the longer one studies diamonds, the more inclined one is, to become a maximal
realist in that field: such a one does not invent fantasies about diamonds, yet
sees more of what is really possible to see in the diamond. The maximalist, on the other hand, may be willing
to attribute properties to diamonds that do not exist, and may begin to worship
diamonds. That doesn’t make the expert
who rejects a sample as zircon or industrial artificial man-made diamond a
minimalist, just because he rejects the sample.
A minimalist rejects the whole field of study: for example, the opinion
that psychiatrists are all frauds and quacks.
The minimalist rejects the sample because the field has no value to
him/her; views about the sample itself may be highly biased, pure ignorance, or
occasionally, accidentally correct. A
maximalist, on the other hand has an inflated view of his/her own field,
valuing results out of all proportion to reality, ignoring the contributions of
related fields. Kitchen is neither a
maximalist nor a minimalist.
A biblical minimalist may think that
any evidence from Scripture, no matter how well established or supported by
other study disciplines, is of zero value.
A biblical maximalist tends to think that copies or translations of
Scripture, can contain no human embellishments or errors whatsoever: thus Scripture
is made into an object of worship, and the sin of bibliolatry is
committed. This sometimes results in the
most outlandish doctrines; which, no matter how frequently and thoroughly
disproved, still manage to persist.
An archaeological minimalist tends
to refuse to see the evidence cut in stone even when it strikes him/her in the
face. An archaeological maximalist might
ascribe powers to archaeology that cannot possibly exist. So, for example, some Egyptologists see their
tiny specialty in Egyptology as the whole of the subject matter, refusing to
hear the evidence from Assyriology, or even from other specialties in
Egyptology.
It is important to realize that
Assyria and Egypt, as well as numerous other fields stand on equal ground as
far as evidence is concerned, and no understanding develops until all of that
evidence is reconciled. Moreover, such
studies draw upon a wide variety of scientific disciplines, of which epigraphy
is only one, so that no understanding develops until all relevant sciences are
reconciled. In such a universe of study,
the Bible is every bit as much a source of archaeological evidence as any
Egyptian monument or any Assyrian tablet.
Evidence is evidence, and no
intelligible results take place until all evidence receives an equal and
unbiased evaluation. Truth is
truth. Reality is reality. There is no place for either maximalism or
minimalism in this work. Only the
realistic, neutral point of view may survive.[18] It is simply impossible that the God who
created the universe, could possibly disagree with Himself as He speaks to and
with human beings. Other viewpoints only
lead to unreasoned fanaticism and failure.
There is built into most of us, a
strong temptation to discard unusual evidence that we cannot explain or
understand: sometimes these are known as outliers. Every time I have yielded to this temptation
to discard outliers, I have walked into a colossal, expensive, and painful
blunder. Outliers are frequently,
usually the most important part of the evidence. It is the outlier that resides at the
bleeding edge of science, and scientific discovery. Our very inability to understand an outlier deprives
the outlier of its just consideration in the whole universe of evidence. No one piece of evidence is inherently more
important than any other; yet, the outlier defines the boundaries of evidence. We neglect the outlier at our own peril.
Obscure
Obscurantism, obscurantist is the “the
practice of deliberately preventing [or the person who deliberately prevents]
the facts or full details of something from becoming known:” deliberately
causing obscurity of evidence. One who
in 2015 continues to advocate for the Documentary Hypothesis in any of its
myriad forms, by covering over or denying or hiding the overwhelming evidence
that the Documentary Hypothesis is not scientifically sustainable, is an obscurantist. The prevailing wealth of evidence not only
fails to support the Documentary Hypothesis; it absolutely an unequivocally
contradicts that hypothesis. The
Documentary Hypothesis needs to be rejected from all credible scientific
discussion: it has become a fraud and a hoax.
Obstruct
Obstructionism, obstructionist is “the
practice of deliberately impeding or delaying [or the person who deliberately
impedes or delays] the course of legal, legislative, or other procedures.” To repeatedly propose the Documentary
Hypothesis as a credible working hypothesis is obstructionist. It blocks the path and studies of credible
scientists and makes their work more difficult.
Divide
Divisiveness is the practice of
deliberately setting two scientists against each other in order to block
progress toward reasonable goals, or to advance the progress of a false
goal. The schismatic may promote divisiveness
with a view to drawing others away to his/her own delusion.
Acquiesce
Acquiescence is the practice of
deliberately maintaining silence when any of the above, or other false
practices are going on; it is the practice of supporting wrongdoing by silence.
Criticism
There are those who would have
Kitchen sit in silence while his gainsayers tear his life work apart. When Kitchen dares to defend his work, and
calls out his opponents[19] he is faulted for
exposing the truth. There is a point at
which this is no longer a disagreement between gentle people of good
faith. This nonsense is a hostile attack
on truth, which needs to be put away.
The individual who thinks Kitchen is
a maximalist is wrong. He/she should
have read the whole book. Kitchen seeks
nothing more or less than the careful and honest review of all the
evidence. As such, he is a realist. This should be the goal of every scientist
worth his/her salt. The incessant
attempt to propound a theory, and then hammer the evidence until it fits the
theory must stop.
A theory is and must be nothing more
or less than a proposal, which is best stated as a null hypothesis. The evidence then either does or does not
disprove the null hypothesis. The
Documentary Hypothesis has been disproved many times over. Our statistical conclusion at this point is
that there is no good evidentiary reason[20] to support the
Documentary Hypothesis; on the contrary, there is overwhelming evidentiary
reason to reject the Documentary Hypothesis.
Alternatively, there is no good evidentiary reason to reject the general
biblical construct as it stands; on the contrary, there is considerable
evidentiary reason to accept the biblical long range view as accurate and
true. This is not to assert that every
detail of the biblical record is presently supported, verified, or even
understood, or that the myriad manuscripts we now possess are without human
induced error.
Balaam
The attempt to argue a single
detail, such as the Tell Deir Alla text, the Balaam Inscription (840-760), is such
a case in point.[21] If indeed, this Balaam is the same Balaam,
the inscription adds possible local color to our understanding of Balaam: for
here Balaam “is associated with Ashtar,
a god named Shgr, and Shadday gods and goddesses.”[22] This indicates that Balaam is most likely a
false and idolatrous prophet, who was confronted by Yahweh and forced to submit
to Yahweh’s wishes. Whether this
completely explains the two accounts or not, the two reports are not
necessarily mutually exclusive.
What the Balaam Inscription establishes is increased likelihood that
Balaam is a real historic character: for if two Balaams are involved, the
second is surely named in memory of the first.
What the Balaam
Inscription does not establish is the necessary existence of any ninth century
Balaam: yet rather a ninth century memorial of Balaam, who could be placed at
nearly any time prior to the ninth century.
The Balaam Inscription could very
well be the result of many copies; that it supports a prior event from five to
six hundred years before, is hardly a startling proof that Kitchen has lost his
marbles. The carbon copy Balaam, does
not disprove the original….
Kitchen’s argument, in part, is that
the Balaam motif must be located against an historic milieu that fits all of
the evidence in the long range view of things.
As a single event in the Exodus, with a preponderance of other evidence,
supporting the biblical narrative, there is no good reason to reject that
narrative. All we can hope to gain is a
richer understanding of what that narrative means. Should additional provenance come to light
concerning the life of Balaam, we shall be happy to include it.
In the meanwhile, there is no good
reason to believe that Balaam is not an historic pagan prophet who lived in the
middle fourteenth to early thirteenth centuries, who also died for his
prophetic indiscretions. The Balaam
Inscription, in and of itself, is insufficient evidence to justify postdating
the entire Exodus by five hundred years; nor is there any warrant whatsoever
for questioning the historicity of the record.
The critic should have read the whole book.
Light
Let us seek the conclusion of the
whole matter from Ephesians 5:8-15 Paraphrased:
For you were sometimes left in the dark; but
now, since you have been enlightened by the Lord, behave as children of light …
have no tolerance for the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them:
for … all things that are exposed are clarified by the light: for the thing
that clarifies is light. So see that you
walk prudently, not as fools, but as wise.
For those who protest the exposure
of maximalism, minimalism, obscurantism, obstructionism, divisiveness,
acquiescence, or other forms of lying and self-deception as impolite or rude,
we can only say, “Put a sock in it.” We
have every intention and right to shine the light on truth. If deception, falsehood, and fraud are
embarrassed, exposed, or otherwise held up for ridicule; purveyors of such have
only themselves to blame: they chose to persist against reason. Evidence, light, and truth will continue to
be our only quest.
This does not mean that we accept
Kitchen blindly.
Merneptah Stele
We have questioned the value of the
Merneptah Stele evidence.[24] Many have questioned the validity of the
Israel reading; yet, Kitchen is the master epigrapher: so if Kitchen says the
reading is Israel, then Israel it must be.[25]
Still, the Merneptah Stele evidence
is weakened by other factors. We cannot
locate any certain identification of a place named Yano’am[26]. The subject matter is Libya, Israel is an
afterthought, barely mentioned among other afterthoughts. The graphic art depicts the main topic, Libya,
not Israel.
If Merneptah[27] was almost 60 or even 70 when
he began to reign, say 58 or 68; he reigned from age 58 to 68 or from age 68 to
78 (1213-1203): far too old to be leading military campaigns personally. Hence, these are most likely the campaigns of
subordinate generals conducted when Merneptah was 63 or older, or possibly even
73 (1208), whichever was his age at the fifth year of his reign. Since he also suffered from arthritis and
atherosclerosis, it is dubious that he led much of anything physically. If he moved the capital from Piramesse to Memphis this could indicate a forced
strategic retreat to which Egyptians would never admit. However, Piramesse was not abandoned for
Tanis until around 1039.
So we still have questions about the value of the Merneptah Stele
evidence; especially since BBS seeks to propound a theory for Israel evolving
from disgruntled indigenous Canaanites.
Piramesse
Ramesses I (circa 1290) was a
commoner who ostensibly reached the throne because of diligence and hard work:
however he was too old to enjoy a lengthy reign. On the other hand, he was “born into a noble military family.”[28] This seems to indicate that Piramesse[29] could have been a family
estate, as well as being important to the pharaohs much earlier than 1290,
possibly even as early as the mid-fifteenth century. Indeed, the Ramesside family may have
originally achieved fame by driving out the Hyksos as early as 1535. Since the location is in dispute, being
incorrectly identified with Tanis, rather than Avaris-Qantir, confusion may
arise as with BBS where the error is perpetrated. The exploration of Avaris-Qantir[30] is primarily through ground-penetrating
radar.[31] That fact, plus the fact that a considerable
volume of artifacts were carted off to Tanis, means that we have little
evidence from a physical dig at Avaris-Qantir: the soil structure may simply be
too wet to support much of a physical dig.
440/300
This means that we wish we could
persuade Kitchen to reconsider his position on Judges 11:26 and 1 Kings 6:1. In 1 Kings 6:1 a credible case can be made
that the Septuagint preserves the correct date, indicating a 1406 Exodus. In Judges 11:26 Jephthah’s three hundred
years can be maintained without doing violence to anything else. The Judges narrative changes direction
completely after Jephthah, which may indicate that the necessary overlap of
leaderships in Judges may be the partial co-existence of Jephthah’s narrative
with that of Eli, Sampson, Samuel, Saul, and the early Philistine
domination. That being said, we are not
so stuck on these views that we refuse to bow or listen other evidence and
future discoveries. There is a great
deal to be said in favor of the long range historicity of Torah, Joshua, and
Judges: this is not a claim that we understand every last detail of the record.
Style
Nor would we ever claim that O!
Rot! is an easy read. Kitchen is
English. American is no longer merely a
dialectic variation of English, but rather a distinct language. We get some of Kitchen’s jokes, while others
escape us. Kitchen is very technical, as
indeed he must be, so we must learn more than a few new words. Moreover, Kitchen is so knowledgeable that he
packs many ideas into one-word summaries, which are beyond our understanding. These ideas fly by at such lightening fast
speed that we do well to grasp the mere gist of things. Still, O! Rot! is a worthwhile
read, worth several rereads, worthy of intensive study. If one wants to understand the Old Testament,
one will profit greatly by laboring in the Kitchen.
Mathematics
Some of the players in this field
wish to play games with the numbers. Number
crunching is in our wheelhouse. All of
the growth statistics are described by one variation or another of the
equation:
y
= a * bn;
where: a is the starting value, b =
1 + growth rate (g), n is an expression of the time or distance over which
change takes place.
Thus a growth from 12 to 225
settlements in 200 years is only 1.5%, about today’s worldwide average: neither
huge nor startling by any stretch of the imagination. Even in 100 years, such growth would only
approach 3%. Or a growth from 39 to 200
settlements in 150 years is barely above 1% growth.[32] As a matter of fact the Israelite census was
actually declining in the long range view of things. We agree with Kitchen that even such modest
growth is best explained by migration and not by births.
Finkelstein, the Vigilante[33] imagines a growth from
21,000 to 51,000 people in 150 years: not even a paltry 1% annual growth.[34] This is not exactly the long anticipated
Israelite sex orgy; nor is it frenetic, or phenomenal: it is, in fact, banally
all too ordinary.[35] Even a five fold growth in thirty-three years
would only amount to 5% annual growth. As
the Scripture notes, the bulk of the Israelites were afraid to step out in
faith. Rather than being Canaanites
evolving into Israelites, they were Israelites lapsing into Canaanites.
Progress
Kitchen has expanded our horizons,
so we tentatively suppose that we have learned several new things. We await the grading of our papers; whether
by time or by Kitchen.
Language
We all realize that language is a
moving target: who can understand what the next generation is saying? It is also fairly obvious that writing
developed as a means of recording what either happened or was said, as well as providing
a means to prove contract or covenant rights.
We might not know all the details; yet, a crude outline might include:[36]
1.
Sumerian (3350-1800),
classically until 100 AD
3.
Aramaic (1000-300)
Ancient (1000-700)
Imperial (700-300)
·
Anatolia
1.
Hittite (1650-1200)
2.
Palaic (circa 1300)
3.
C Luwian (1200-600)
4.
H Luwian (1200-600)
5.
Lydian ((700-200)
1.
Phoenician (1100-500)
2.
Paleo-Hebrew (1000-400 extinction)
3.
Arabic (1000-modern)
1. Archaic (3300-2600)
2. Old (2686-2181)
3. Middle (2055-1353)
4. Akkadian cuneiform
(circa 1353)[41]
5. Late (1353-700)
6. Demotic (700 BC-500
AD)
So a cursory glance at some of the
Israelite Patriarchs per our latest best guess might look like:
·
David (b. 1040; reign,
1010-970; d. 970)
·
Moses (b. 1486; exile,
1446-1406; Exodus, 1406-1366; d. 1366)
·
Joseph (b. 1660; d. 1550)
·
Abraham (b. 1911; call,
1836; d. 1736)
·
Heber (b. 2586; d. 2082)
Using these dates as a crude
language guideline, we draw the following tentative conclusions:
·
Heber (2586-2082) did not
speak biblical Hebrew (516-400, 1800 AD-today, at other periods remaining alive
only among select experts). We don’t
know what he spoke. He may have spoken
an ancient Semitic dialect related to an ancestor of Paleo-Hebrew, Phoenician, Proto-Canaanite,
or something similar. More likely, he
spoke Sumerian, or Akkadian, or both, possibly reserving another ancient
Semitic dialect for conversation around the tent.
·
Abraham (1911-1736) did not
speak biblical Hebrew either. He
probably needed both Sumerian and Akkadian to survive in Ur. He most likely picked up an earlier form of Hurrian
or Hittite as he traversed the Fertile Crescent. His Semitic dialect would have been the lip
of Canaan, which looked a lot like Phoenician in those days. He also needed some skill with Middle Egyptian
to survive his altercation with the reigning pharaoh.
·
Joseph (1660-1550) may have
been the first of the family to escape the southern Mesopotamian languages, but
that’s not very likely either: both his mother and grandmother were from
northern Mesopotamia, so we’re probably looking at some form of Akkadian
cuneiform, mixed with Proto-Canaanite.
In Egypt he developed considerable mastery of Middle Egyptian and other
geopolitical languages in order to keep his job. Let’s face it, Joseph was a clever, world
class politician, at the top of his game: you weren’t going to outwit Joseph by
speaking Sumerian behind his back.
·
Moses (1486-1366) had the
best schools, training, and tutors that Egypt had to offer. That adds up to Middle Egyptian; plus some
form of Akkadian cuneiform; plus his
mother’s Semitic dialect, some form of Proto-Canaanite; with possibly
other language skills. Let’s face
another fact here, Akkadian
cuneiform did not simply fall fresh off the shelf as the international language
of diplomacy because it turned up in Akhenaten’s
library (1353): it held that prominent status for many years. The one language that Moses could not have
known was biblical Hebrew, which had not even developed yet. For all we know, Moses could have written
Torah in cuneiform, hieroglyphics, or Phoenician.
·
What language did the
Israelites use between 1406 and 1010?
They probably retained a smattering of Middle Egyptian, just enough to
salt their own developing language, and tell the old jokes and war
stories. Their first language was, or
quickly became something very much akin to Proto-Canaanite.
·
Primarily because of the
writing influence of Moses and the prophets, the language of the Israelites
evolved into something we might call Paleo-Hebrew, or even Hebrew, to Chaldean or Neo-Aramaic, to Greek, to
Aramaic, up until the relatively modern revival of spoken Hebrew.
·
So called biblical Hebrew,
the stuff you can buy in printed versions today is the development of
specialized scholars called Masoretes (500-1000 AD),[42] which is not very old[43] and has precious little
to do with the historic development of Israelite linguistics.
Our conclusion is that the biblical
Hebrew prototype is an unknown evolution of ancient languages over a long
period of time ranging from possibilities of Sumerian, Akkadian, ancient
Semitic dialects, prototypical Hittite, Proto-Canaanite, Phoenician to Middle
Egyptian and Late Egyptian; from a variety of cuneiforms to hieroglyphics; and
possibly a number of other influences.
Retouching
Kitchen draws attention to the
scribal practice of retouching manuscripts.
This is what scribes do: write, repair, and update manuscripts, whether
in stone, plaster, leather, papyrus, or other material. In Ezra-Nehemiah we even witness a complete
translation into what we would call Aramaic: the scribes read the Scripture in
the language of 586; then reread or interpreted the Scripture in the language
of 516, which the people could understand.
One such retouched monument, Kitchen
observes, had the plaster scraped off, was re-plastered, and a new message was
written on top of the old one. This is
called a palimpsest. Over time, wear
caused the new to erode, and in places, both messages could be seen on top of
each other. The epigrapher’s job is to
sort this out.
The point we are driving at is that
due to the standard practice among scribes, the language of Heber, would have
been translated into the language of Abraham, and so on to Joseph, Moses,
Samuel, David, and Zerubbabel. No one
would have thought it strange that the record be kept straight and up to
date. Only modern man would see this as
an error.
Inspiration
While we’re slaying dragons, let’s
take on another. There is a fairly
commonly believed myth, an old wives fable, an urban legend that the only
inspired languages are Hebrew and Aramaic.
The above journey should put that lie to death. There is no such thing as an inspired
language. There are only inspired
writers, who are free to use any language that God chooses in His conversation
with them.
Oral Tradition
Another dragon that Kitchen pretty
well cremates is the widespread myth of oral tradition. Those (scholars?), who are able to work
without reference to evidence love to claim that vast passages of Torah and
other writings are the late recordings of vast oral tradition; those scholars have
run into a considerable wall here: it was a fatal head-on collision. We have not been here reviewing the history
of speech; rather the history of writing and written records. Such written records are a good deal older
than Abraham, or Heber, or possibly even Noah himself. Moreover, these written records contain
several covenantal, governmental, and other legal documents which are absolutely
impossible to maintain in an oral format, and are well attested from antiquity. Who wants to have an oral property deed, or
to keep national boundaries on the basis of a handshake? Who will trust government with a verbal
receipt for payment of taxes? As the
case of the journeying widow shows, the ancients kept such records in writing.[44]
This broad historical backdrop makes
it virtually impossible that the books from Exodus on are based on oral
tradition, except for the least of petty details: details too minute to
discover.
Moreover, such universal use of
record keeping make it extremely difficult to believe that all, or even much,
of Genesis depends entirely on oral tradition.
The covenantal sections, were almost certainly kept in some written
form. Given the history of contemporary
records, we would probably not recognize such a document even if we held it in
our hands: we just do not know what to look for. Discovery would be a happy accident indeed,
bordering on the miraculous discovery of the proverbial needle. The point is that even people who cannot read
or write go to a professional scribe to have property deeds, births, deaths,
marriages, and other significant life events officially recorded. The great covenant events of Genesis could
not have been left to oral chance.
Inerrancy
Kitchen’s compilation of evidence
makes it very difficult to believe many of the common claims for biblical
inerrancy. Some of these claims approach
a fanaticism that is clearly idolatrous.
Our sure confidence is in God Himself and not in written records.
Mind you, we do believe that there
is one inerrant copy of Scripture. This
copy is in the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and no mere human is permitted
to even read it, let alone touch it.[45] Scripture is inerrant as it proceeds from the
mouth of God.[46] As soon as man handles it, Scripture becomes
subject to original and personal sin, and is therefore liable to humanly
induced error.
Our own investigation into numerical
textual variation from a Hebrew prototype across to Greek, Latin, and the
Masoretic text shows that the copied manuscripts of Scripture are very
reliable; yet, none is perfect: for all contain rather obvious errors.
It is impossible, considering the
span of languages from Sumerian up to Greek and Latin, that we would recognize
a perfect copy if it bit us on the nose.
Our ancestors were not holy enough to produce it; we are not holy enough
to recognize it; and we’re sure not pious enough to touch it.
Providence
One of the wildest claims is that
the omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous omni-panto-agapic providence of God
keeps the Scripture pure for us. Let us
ask ourselves, what exactly does the providence of God guarantee for us? Does it warrantee freedom from sin; from
harm, danger, or distress? Does it
provide that we will not die? No, it
gives no assurance of any of these things.
On the contrary, it virtually promises us that we will experience all of
these things. Yet, in sin, we may make
confession, freely receiving absolution, forgiveness, and reconciliation. In the grip of pain, poverty, and suffering we
are assured that even death will bring resurrection from the dead, and the
newness of perfect heavenly life.
Providence does not guarantee a perfect Scripture; not in this
life. What providence certifies to us is
that after the resurrection of the dead and in the heavenly city we will find
our King, enthroned, and holding a complete and undefiled record.
Genre
Kitchen has forced us to rethink the
details of literary genre concerning the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles.
Evidently Israelites and other
ethnic groups sometimes kept day books, diaries, a sort of Log of the Good Ship
Jacob. The books of Joshua and following
have some of the properties and traits of day books. They almost certainly derived some of their
source material from day books. However,
not a single one of these biblical books may be classed under the genre of day
books.
Day books may be screened to remove
the less important, and to emphasize the more important information. Several day books may be observed to acquire
an overall picture. Other information is
gleaned and added, thus a history is written.
None of these books falls under the heading of historic genre.
The editorial page goes beyond history,
searching for themes and trends, striving to acquire the greater lessons that
history might divulge through diligent searching. This is the literary genre of secular
historic analysis; yet, these biblical books are not secular historic analysis
either.
Occasionally, a specialist will
analyze history from the perspective of their particular specialty. This results in the genre of specialized
historic analysis.
If that specialty happens to be
seeing things from God’s perspective, from a Theological point of view, we have
a Divine, or Theological, or Prophetic historic analysis: or more simply,
Prophecy. This is the correct genre of
these books: for what we have called historic, the Jews have always called
Prophetic.
Prophecy does not relate to the future. Prophecy relates to God’s point of view and
the declaration of it. Hence, the
correct and proper genre for Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles is
Prophecy, Theological historic analysis.
None of these books tell us what
happens on a day-to-day basis, give us a complete historical picture, or even
analyze general outcomes. This can only
be a specific analysis. It is what God
thinks about human behavior in Israel from 1366 to roughly 516. This genre includes, day book, history, and
history analysis elements; yet, strictly speaking it is none of these things.
Hence, the more that we can begin to
read these books for their prophetic message and value, the more we will begin
to understand what they are really saying.
Our tendency to falsely interpret what stands written will be greatly
reduced.
Sitz im Leben
We don’t know why scholars think
they have to talk about the real life setting or situation in German; if you
didn’t already know, Sitz im Leben means the setting in real life. In the case of Joshua and Judges that
involves the way we think about raiding and expansion in the Holy Land.
Kitchen has also forced us to
rethink our ideas about the Sitz im Leben concerning Joshua and Judges.[47] Several years ago, some seminary students
invented a memory device called, “The Bible Walkthrough,” in order to survive Old
Testament exams. Unfortunately, this
device summarizes Joshua as “a central campaign, a southern campaign, and a
northern campaign; it summarizes Judges as, “the period of the ups and
downs.” These oversimplified summaries
leave the impression that Joshua completely conquered Canaan, and otherwise
misrepresent the biblical record. The
biblical record requires careful and detailed reading, so as not to make it say
more or less than it actually says.
There is no central campaign, there is only war against two cities,
better described as a raid. The central raid
is interrupted by a pause for religious repentance at Ai and finished with a
worship ceremony at Ebal and Gerizim. After this a major city, Gibeon surrendered
without a fight. The southern and
northern raids are only initiated when Israel’s adversaries gather great
coalition armies to attack Israel. In
swift lightning raids Joshua defeats both coalitions, returning to his main
camp at Gilgal after every raid. There
is no conquest; there are no campaigns: not in the biblical record.
In the last half of the book,[48] Joshua devotes himself to
the assignment of real estate deeds. These are sometimes seen as actual
possessions, a common mistake; they are only legal rights, and have nothing to
do with any actual settlement, which may or may not have taken place.
What we see in Judges is not a
record of possession or settlement. We know
next to nothing of the actual possession or settlement. From archaeology we see, as Kitchen shows us,
that the non specific boundaries of settlement spread from east to west. Biblically we understand that they radiated
outwardly from Gilgal. The trans-Jordan
tribes crossed back east over Jordan. In
the case of Caleb, they may have jumped a short distance away. In most cases the Israelites were reluctant
to leave the comfort and safety of Gilgal, and failed to possess their legal
heritage. Instead, we believe, they
slowly pushed westward from Gilgal, claiming the land little by little,
maintaining contact with the main body of Israelites. Still, we actually know nothing about how
this was actually accomplished, other that that it proceeded with great
timidity and much failure, continuing throughout the reign of David.
Nor should we understand the judges
themselves in terms of absolutes, even though we continue to believe that they
are chronologically connected. So then
it is unlikely that the existence of a single judge indicates total rule, but
rather the spreading of total fame. This
fame predominated because there wasn’t much else going on. Nor should the foreign revolts be understood
as conquering the whole nation. Rather,
as today, a local tragedy sweeps away the emotions of the nation as other
tribes join in sympathetic horror. Thus,
in its expansion, Israel is neither totally victorious, nor totally
overthrown. What Judges reports from
Othniel to Jephthah is the sequential major national news events, the progress
of Divine leadership. Philistia is a
different matter, arising on the western front, Philistia continues as a
problem from as early as Shamgar, and becomes a major threat to peaceful
settlement, shortly after that. The
Philistines overlap the record of Jephthah, which is focused on the eastern
front.
Conclusion
If you want to have a better
understanding of the Old Testament, read Kitchen. If you want to de-bunk some of the mythology
that so-called experts are passing around, read Kitchen. If you want to begin to fill in the rich
history between 930 and 586, read Kitchen.
[3]
Originally circa 1951, Thiele, Edwin R., The Mysterious Numbers of the
Hebrew Kings, (Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1983 (Zondervan): 253 pages)
[4]
Thiele’s style is cluttered and difficult to follow. He likes to follow paths that are irrelevant
or that lead to no resolution. We cannot
accept his presuppositions or approach to evidence either. In spite of his claims for an unbiased
approach, his pseudo-scientific claims of impartiality all fail. Science does not necessarily care with what
sequence a given permutation is approached.
Science is far more concerned that the whole permutation is
approached. So we were frustrated with
the lockstep pseudo-conservative pro KJV, MT, TR attitude. Many pseudo-conservatives have failed to
acknowledge that there was a received text already in existence over 1800 years
before the TR was conceived; yet are too cocksure of their opinions to bother
finding out what it might be. As with
most things, honest historical analysis yields more reliable answers.
[5]
Originally circa 1913, Anstey, Martin, Chronology of the Old Testament,
(Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1973 (Marshall Brothers): 271 pages)
[6]
Besides which, both Anstey and Thiele are beset with that sort of Biblicist
mindset, the ultra-conservative kind, which sees infallibility in every word of
the KJV, without bothering to note that before KJV, there were Greek and
Hebrew, Septuagint before that, Aramaic before that, paleo-Hebrew before that,
with some unidentifiable cuneiform and hieroglyphic, Akkadian, Semitic,
Sumerian, and/or other prototypical mixture before that.
[7]
This sentence is a joke or quip hinging on a pun involving Ussher’s date for
creation at 4000 BC.
[8]
Kitchen, page xv
[10]
ANEP: Pritchard, James B., The
Ancient Near East in Pictures, second edition with supplement
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1969: 396 pages)
[11]
ANET: Pritchard, James B., Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, third edition with supplement (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1969: 710 pages)
[12]
Cuneiform includes Akkadian, Sumerian, C Luwian, and alphabetic styles. Hieroglyphics include Egyptian and H
Luwian. Kitchen, page xiii
[13]
Kitchen, page 481
Richard S. Hess
writes a straight forward book review, nothing more. He does appear to have some firsthand experience
and considerable education in epigraphy.
http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=836,
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/636738.Richard_S_Hess
Charles David Isbell has 208 or more publications, impressive;
still, we could not establish that he has either training or experience in
epigraphy.
[15]
This whole section was conceived and added because Kitchen has received so much
underserved flak from adversaries. We
hope to expose this “scholarly” obfuscation for what it is; namely, lying. The whole max/min discussion, so common in archaeological
discussion is a smoke screen hiding extremists from exposure for what they are. The genuine scientist cannot ever be either
max or min; truth is the only thing sought after. Even one of the commentators referenced in
this article has lifted up the ugly fist of ignorance against Kitchen. There is a point where we must voice our
outrage in Kitchen’s defense: we are not free to acquiesce in the face of such
nonsense.
[16] In
engineering, mathematics, and science max/min does not refer to exaggerated and
falsified extremist opinions; rather, max/min refers to the optimization of a greatest
or least reality. Thus to an engineer,
mathematician, or scientist max/min optimization refers to seeking the best
possible reality of any given set of circumstances: hence, above or below
max/min, performance only drops.
[17]
Albert Allen Bartlett (1923-2013) is our favorite expert on exponential
equations, on growth or decay matters of all kinds, and of all things
Malthusian.
Dr. Bartlett was vigorously opposed by Julian Lincoln Simon
(1932-1998). We are happy to nominate
Dr. Simon as the preeminent scientific nincompoop of the twentieth century.
[18]
Termed balanced in O! Rot!, Kitchen, page 234
[19]
Really criminals…. If this were a
discussion between lawyers in a courtroom, Kitchen should be seeking to have
people put in jail, assigned heavy financial penalties, or removed from
practice before the Bar. Kitchen calls
it, “sloppy scholarship, immense ignorance, special pleading, irrelevant postmodernist-agenda-driven
drivel: and we concur. Kitchen, page 457
[20]
None, zero, probability 0%. Search for
supporting evidence has now been in progress for over a century. No supporting evidence has ever been
found. Opposing evidence has been
found. At this point any genuine
reconsideration of this failed theory should first attempt to overthrow the
mountain of opposing evidence. Since
opposing evidence has been found and supporting evidence has not been found,
the chance of a legitimate revival of the Documentary Hypothesis is very small:
on the order of supposing that the sun won’t rise tomorrow; that our entire
long range view of history is wrong; that pigs can fly; or that life does not
end in death (the current odds of exception are less than 3 out of 14,250,000,000). We expect minor adjustments. Sunrise varies from its scheduled appointment
on the ecliptic by a few seconds every day; history is full of little new surprises.
[21]
We all remember that Balaam is the famous false prophet, who became so mentally
unstable in his disobedience that he ended up talking to his donkey. His disillusion was so great that he
maintained his habitation with the very people he knew would be defeated, even
annihilated by war. No wonder then that
he forfeited his life as the inevitable and inexorable outcome of his
folly. In such an environment it is
possible to understand Tell Deir Alla as a monument to stupidity: this is what
happens to people who persist at wrongdoing, when they know to do better.
[23]
Our questioning is that of a fan or spectator.
Should real matters of fact surface, we immediately yield to Kitchen,
because he is the subject matter expert.
Should matters of opinion appear, we defer to Kitchen’s opinion, because
he is the subject matter expert. We are
willing to question and even argue with others, but we are merely spectators.
Do other epigraphers with equivalent firsthand experience
disagree? That is the discussion we wish
to hear.
[25] Redford
and Kitchen agree on this point. Kitchen,
page 224
[26]
Spelled Yenoam in O! Rot!, Kitchen, page 228 f
[29] Avaris-Qantir are scarcely a half-mile
apart. Since Avaris is the notorious
Hyksos capital (1783-1550) we conclude that the twin cities were important
major cities, likely having continuous occupation from 1783 to after 1039 when
the city was abandoned, and eventually buried in silt.
The scenario that
fits here is that the Ramesside family overthrew the Hyksos and drove them out
around 1550. The Israelites may have
assisted in this effort since they were loyal to pharaoh and Egypt. By 1406 the Israelites had fallen into
political disfavor, their service to the crown forgotten or ignored, and they
were reduced to slavery. This scenario
contains no surprises, since the Egyptians were prone to violent prejudices.
There is no
archaeological evidence at this point, showing that Piramesse was not a major
critical city (1783-1039), whether it was employed as a capital or not: it
appears that Qantir was built contiguously with Avaris as can be seen from the
Google Earth picture. The Pi-Ramesses articles
specifically claim that the Ramessides either abandoned or absorbed Avaris into
the newer city, Qantir.
Hence, the biblical
reference to the store city, Ramesses is no impediment to a 1406 Exodus of the
Israelites. All cities were store cities
in some respect or other, because wealth frequently was measured in the
accumulation of grain, vegetation products, livestock, or gold; all of which
required storage and protection.
[32]
Kitchen, page 225
[34]
0.59%, almost 6 mils
[35]
Kitchen, page 226
[37]
Kitchen, page 3:
Mari (circa 1800), 25,000 tablets, Northwest Semitic dialect
and people, Akkadian cuneiform,
Ebla (circa 2350), 20,000 tablets, Sumerian and Eblaite
(Semitic) cuneiform,
Ugarit (Ras Shamra, 1400-1100), 420 or more tablets, Northwest
Semitic abjadic cuneiform, as well
as Egyptian and Luwian hieroglyphs, and Cypro-Minoan, Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hurrian
Emar (1400-1187), 1100 Akkadian tablets, 100 Hurrian tablets,
1 Hittite tablet,
[44] 2
Kings 8:3
[45]
Revelation 5:2, 4, 9, 12-14
[46]
Matthew 4:4
[47]
Kitchen, page 190 ff
[48]
Joshua, Chapters 14 through 24
[49] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely received,
and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment