.

Dear david f, NNS & OzSpen,

.

Professor Kenneth Anderson Kitchen is an evangelical Christian :

http://everything.explained.today/Kenneth_Kitchen/#Ref-7

In the introduction of his book (On the Reliability of the Old Testament), entitled “First things first – What’s in question”, Kitchen warns his readers clearly and honestly, page 3 :

« In this little book we are dealing with matters of history, literature, culture, not with theology, doctrine, or dogma. My readers must go elsewhere if that is their sole interest. So "reliability" here is a quest into finding out what may be authentic (or otherwise) in the content and formats of the books of the Hebrew bible. Are they purely fiction, containing nothing of historical value, or of major historical content and value, or a fictional matrix with a few historical nuggets embedded? »

Kitchen indicates that his study is based on the interpretation of archeological findings and over 90 ancient documents “set against the Old Testament data”. It is limited to facts relating to individuals, societies, places times and events of an exclusively human and earthly nature.

It does not deal with any religious beliefs or anything of a supernatural nature as related in the Old Testament.

You will find this here :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&pg=PA3&dq=%22in+this+little+book%22,+On+the+reliability+of+the+Old+Testament&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxudTajbTiAhWJmBQKHRK2AV8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20this%20little%20book%22%2C%20On%20the%20reliability%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament&f=false

The editors of Kitchen’s “Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003)” asked Charles David Isbell, Director of Jewish Studies, Louisiana State University for a brief, partial peer review of Chapter Ten. It is not too long, not systematically negative, and is worth a read. But, he does note, for example :

« … from the biblical text itself, Professor Kitchen can no more prove his own assertions about a Ramesside foreign ministry baccalaureate degree for Moses than his opponents can prove the opposite. That is the point. Professor Kitchen is just as alacritous about inventing possibilities to sustain a point of view [his!] as are the very foes whom he so roundly condemns. Both resort to their own theories and step outside the evidence whenever necessary to sustain a personal ideology »

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Isbell-Kitchen_and_Minimalism.shtml

.

To Banjo Paterson.

What does the book or any reviews and critisms of the book Kitchen wrote have to do with abortion?

There is a thread between Christian philosophy rejecting abortion, that can link Christianity to the topic. However does this book or the review of one of it's chapters have any relevance to the topic? The book is about justifying the Old Testiment through historical research isn't it, and the review is criticisms on the book? Is that the only apporach to this subject on abortion? It's justified because Christianity is regarded as lacking?

Banjo Paterson, I think this book and it's review could be it's own topic in it's own right. Maybe start a topic with it in the general section on OLO?

I'm no historian, and I'm gathering from a different book on the history of Bethlehem, that historians are prone to find fault with other historians they disagree with. That said, I'm sure OzSpen can be of better value on the book and it's review then I can. Again, perhaps this is a good enough subject to be it's own topic instead of here on the topic of abortion?

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

« What does the book or any reviews and critisms of the book Kitchen wrote have to do with abortion? »

I really don’t know, Not_Now.Soon. Better ask OzSpen. He brought the subject up in his last post to David F.

.