The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?

Rating:
Summary: The Relevancy and Reliability of the Old Testament
Review: Kaisers work with the Old Testament Documents is an interesting read. I had the belief that the Old Testament documents were both reliable and relevent before I began to read this book, and after reading it my belief still stands. There are only two arguments that I would like to confront after reading Kaiser's work. The first thing that I dislike is how Kaiser skims over some topics of debait and basically just says that they are historically accurate because they are found in historical documents from more than one source. This could easily be construed by simple "word of mouth" or lack of an eye witness. A rumor or tale could be believable and convincing and yet not true or precise. The second thing that I noticed about this book, is the fact there is very little evidence to go by in regards to the Old Testament, and Kaiser does not thoroughly discuss this problem. Although further discussion of this topic might hurt Kaiser's points, it would only be fair to show how small the stack of evidence, even though convincing, really is. Overall, this book was very informative and serves as a great introduction to how the Old Testament can be both "reliable and relevant" today.

Rating:
Summary: The Relevancy and Reliability of the Old Testament
Review: Kaisers work with the Old Testament Documents is an interesting read. I had the belief that the Old Testament documents were both reliable and relevent before I began to read this book, and after reading it my belief still stands. There are only two arguments that I would like to confront after reading Kaiser's work. The first thing that I dislike is how Kaiser skims over some topics of debait and basically just says that they are historically accurate because they are found in historical documents from more than one source. This could easily be construed by simple "word of mouth" or lack of an eye witness. A rumor or tale could be believable and convincing and yet not true or precise. The second thing that I noticed about this book, is the fact there is very little evidence to go by in regards to the Old Testament, and Kaiser does not thoroughly discuss this problem. Although further discussion of this topic might hurt Kaiser's points, it would only be fair to show how small the stack of evidence, even though convincing, really is. Overall, this book was very informative and serves as a great introduction to how the Old Testament can be both "reliable and relevant" today.

Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction, But Needs Expansion In Some Areas.
Review: Most books dealing with the reliability of Biblical documents focus on their transmission history, and usually that of the New Testament, as we know more about it. How much less we know of the textual history of the Older Testament, however, is seen in that only 35 pages of this book are actually devoted to it! The rest of the work is filled out by discussions of whether or not the history and message recorded in those documents is reliable and relevant to today. These discussions are introductory and survey the field in a manner that seems to skate over some rather prickly issues, particularly in the areas where Kaiser argues for the reliability of the recorded history. Given that this work came out some six years after the first major public salvo from minimalist interpreters, who deny the historicity of the events Kaiser argues are historical, there should have been more interaction with them. Their views are becoming general public knowledge and should be interacted with. There also seems to be a tendency in the later sections on the reliability of the messages in the documents, to jump from the fact that something in the text is historically accurate to the view that the message is therefore reliable. The message of Ezekiel, for example, may or may not be reliable, but it isn't proven by the fact that other people at the same time also used bricks as writing materials. On the positive side, however, the discussion of the textual history is concise and informative, as is most of the book. There is also useful information on how many critical views of the text, which remain prevalent in the popular conscience and media, are actually either passe, dead, or under serious fire on the academic end. Over all, the book is worth reading as long as one keeps in mind its introductory survey nature and are willing to pursue the issues to greater depth via the footnotes. The book will give you a good foothold in and understanding of the field to make a solid start at it.