Critique an Assigned Reading

Myth Busting

Kenneth A. Kitchen challenges Julius Wellhausen’s influential document hypothesis, which claims that the Genesis account was written during the Babylonian Exile (6th century B.C.) rather than during the Late Bronze Age (13th century B.C.). Kitchen defends that the Patriarchal Age is historical, not an illustrative Hebrew story written later and “projected back in time” (p. 1). In support of the Middle Bronze Age as the Patriarchal Age, Kitchen lays out several pieces of evidence:

• The Price of Slaves
• Treaties and Covenants
• Geo-Political Conditions
• References to Egypt
• Patriarchal Names
• Social World of the Patriarchs

From this list, I find the first three hypotheses most plausible in placing the Genesis account within the historical timeline of the Middle Bronze Age. The author gives solid arguments for each of these pieces of evidence; the first three are most illustrative in proving the historicity of the biblical account of the patriarchs.

Kitchen attempts to prove the historicity of the Genesis account of the Hebrew Patriarchal Age as historical and not “fictional creations” from the Babylonian Exile period (p. 1). In Kitchen’s “The Price of Slaves” section (p. 2), he proves that the price of slaves was aligned with the historical prices and was unlikely to have been invented centuries later. In the section “Treaties and Covenants” (p. 3), Kitchen’s analysis of the changes through history, the structures of covenants spanning five periods from the third to the first millennium B.C. Kitchen matches the Genesis treaties with the second millennium B.C. Treaties in Exodus/Deuteronomy and Joshua match the second millennium B.C. period. Kitchen’s “Geo-Political Conditions” section (p. 5) covers the changes in the geo-political landscapes during Biblical times. Only one geo-political period which matches the Genesis 14 account was in the second millennium B.C. when shifting political alliances was possible in Mesopotamia.

Kitchen’s detailed and careful analysis of historical data convincingly proves the veracity of the Biblical accounts as historical and not fictitious myths.

First, I will examine Kitchen’s investigation of the price of slaves from 2400 to 400 B.C. The slaves’ prices changed over time as different empires ruled the Ancient Near East (ANE). The fluctuations in slaves’ prices gave enough historical data to pinpoint Genesis 37:28 account of the selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 silver shekels. According to Kitchen, the 20-shekel slave price dates to the 18th century B.C. The article maps several slave prices mentioned in the Biblical account that track prices during the same periods.

If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
— Exodus 21:32 (ESV, emphasis mine)

During the 14th or 13th century B.C., the prices for slaves rose to 30 shekels at Nuzi and Ugarit. Exodus raised the price of a slave to 30 shekels accordingly. Kitchen continues tracing the slave prices through the 8th century B.C. when Menahem, king of Israel, ransomed Israelites from the king of Assyria; he paid 50 shekels per slave — the cost of the slave during the Assyrian domination — further proving the historicity of the Patriarchal Age. Ronald S. Hendel, in his article, “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives” (p. 9), argues against the dating of King Menahem’s tax to the 8th century B.C. saying the 50 shekels price for ransom might not correlate to slave pricing. However, I agree with Kitchen in his response to Hendel’s inconsistent critiques:

Hendel would ascribe the 50-shekel dedication-rate of Leviticus 27:3 to the 1st millennium B.C., partly because it is an accepted theoretical dogma in Old Testament studies, and partly by comparing it with an Assyrian slave-price of the 8th/7th centuries B.C. However, at the same time, he is unwilling to allow the far closer comparison with the 50-shekel redemption-price raised by Menahem of Israel, to pay tribute to Assyria (2 Kgs 15:20) in lieu of Israel being enslaved by the Assyrians!
— Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Patriarchs Revisited: A Reply to Dr. Ronald S. Hendel” (p. 3)

I believe the alignment of slave prices from non-biblical sources in the Ancient Near East with the Biblical accounts gives a clear verdict of the historicity of the Biblical account.

Secondly, Kitchen’s “Treaties and Covenants” section spans five periods from the third to the first millennium B.C. Kitchen lays out the structures of different covenants that align with the Biblical timeline, particularly the Early Second Millennium B.C. and the Late Second Millennium B.C. The varying treaties typology shows their morphology throughout history aligns Biblical chronology with historical events. The three treaties, Abraham and Isaac’s covenants with Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 21, 26) and Jacob’s treaty with Laban (Genesis 31) match up with ANE’s period treaties in their structure and thematization. The treaties in the early second millennium B.C. have the following simple structure:

• Witnesses
• Oath
• Stipulations
• Curses

The treaty between Jacob and Laban begins with stones as witnesses: “Come now, let us make a covenant, you and I. And let it be a witness between you and me.” So Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar” (Genesis 31:44-45). Similarly, when Abraham made a covenant with Abimelech, God was the witness between them (Genesis 21:23). The second part (oaths and stipulations) was the central part of the treaty; Jacob and Laban’s treaty stipulated the boundary between them: “I will not pass over this heap to you, and you will not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, to do harm” (Genesis 31:52); in the same period-defining covenantal flow, Abraham made a non-aggression pact with Abimelech: “that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you” (Genesis 26:29). The last part of the treaty involves curses; those were also found in the biblical accounts of the patriarchs. The patriarchs concluded their agreements with curses (Genesis 31:53, 26:30, 31:54). The Biblical treaties followed closely with the treaties in the ANE during the early second millennial B.C. bolster the argument that the Patriarchal Age was around 1950–1700 B.C. Hendel disagrees with Kitchen’s separating Abraham’s (J source) covenant and Isaac’s (E source) covenant with Abimelech as two distinct covenants citing the documentary hypothesis; furthermore, the doublet did not have all four elements as they are missing witnesses and curses (p. 10). Kitchen throws out Hendel’s use of the documentary hypothesis as “theoretical modern inventions from the minds of Old Testament scholars” (p. 3), and there is no reason why Abimelech could not make treaties with both patriarchs. Regarding the missing elements from the treaty, Kitchen points out Hendel’s misunderstood the “difference between enactment and formal document” (p. 4). My take on Kitchen’s scholarship and research is convincing, and his rebuttal to Hendel’s objections is valid and further proves the historicity of the Patriarchal Age.

Thirdly, in the “Geo-Political Conditions” section, Kitchen argues that the geo-political setting matches the account in Genesis 14 and reflects only one historical period, the early second millennium B.C. Kitchen’s argument for the shifting alliances — such geo-political conditions suitable for the event found in Genesis 14 — is found only during the early second millennium B.C. before the consolidation of power by Hammurabi of Babylon and Shamsi-Adad I of Assyria. Furthermore, Kitchen points out that the geo-political condition of about 2000 B.C. (late third millennium B.C.) was controlled by the Third Dynasty of Ur, thus placing the time of the patriarchs in the time of shifting alliances and divided power. Hendel argues against Kitchen’s historical window of shifting geo-political alliances to the Middle Bronze Age by citing other alliances found during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. Therefore, the account in Genesis 14 can also be set during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. Kitchen refutes Hendel’s arguments by pointing out that these shifting alliances occurred outside the Canaan of the patriarchs. Kitchen’s scholarships and authority in ANE history and Biblical chronology convinced me that the Patriarchal Age occurred during the early second millennium B.C.

Are the patriarchal narratives in Genesis fabricated later as a “glorified mirage” to glamorize Hebrew history? Kenneth Kitchen’s article compellingly presents the evidence for the Biblical historicity of the Patriarchal Age. Kitchen’s excellent and careful analysis of the historical data in laying out the evidence for the veracity of the Patriarchal Age that happened during the Middle Bronze Age. While the Christian faith transcends historical evidence, is grounded in the Bible, and is transformed by the Spirit of God, Kitchen’s work is essential for confirming the historicity of the Biblical accounts as valid and trustworthy, affirming and protecting our tradition and history, preserving them faithfully for the generations to come.