Review of Walter C. Kaiser’s The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?

From the title of his work, we understand that Kaiser is seeking to answer the question of whether the Old Testament is reliable and relevant for believers today. In answering this question, he breaks the reliability portion into three major sections before going on to discuss relevance. In doing this he demonstrates that opposition to the reliability of the Scriptures does not emerge from an unbiased evaluation of the evidence. While Kaiser provides excellent information on reliability of the Old Testament and tactfully abstains from unprovable claims of empirical absolutes, he fails to present his opposition in a way that gives credit to their scholarly work.
The first portion deals with canonicity and textual reliability; who determined the canon of the Old Testament, and whether we have it unchanged from its original text. This is of primary importance for any discussion of reliability. Kaiser certainly demonstrates the reliability of the text beyond reasonable doubt. The second section deals with historical accuracy. Clearly, if we have the actual canon, it should line up with the historical circumstances that it claims to speak of. While not every conceivable issue was examined, the overall demonstration of details from the biblical record that have been verified by external sources creates a solid track record of accuracy. Third, Kaiser deals with the reliability of the message. If the Old Testament is the canon, and is historically accurate, then it should speak the truth about God. Again, Kaiser demonstrates a reasonable level of accuracy without dealing with every possible point. Only when he has developed an argument for the reliability for the Old Testament does Kaiser move into its relevance for today, successfully arguing that all three portions of the Tanak are relevant for today.
In my complete reading of the Kaiser text, I found it interesting that he is not inclined to make absolute claims about evidence supporting the accuracy of Scripture, but rather made an effort to enhance the believability of the record. Rather than stand on his chair and declare that he has found irrefutable proof that the Old Testament is accurate down to every jot and tittle, he says things like “The text . . . must still be presumed innocent until definitely proven guilty by external sources” on page 66 and “Archeology is not used to ‘prove’ the Bible . . .” on page 98. While many Christians who were raised under a modern worldview have tried to give various evidences for the absolute certainty of some scriptural fact or another, Kaiser uses evidence to build a case based on faith. He understands the impossibility of empirically proving the truth of the Bible. Rather, he examines whether the evidence at hand is more in support of the Scriptures or the hypotheses levied against it. Neither space nor reader patience would allow for this text to discuss every possible question on reliability, so Kaiser deals with a number of details as case studies and leaves everything else to come out in the wash. This demonstrates an understanding that those who don’t believe the Bible will often say that it is because of the historical or scientific errors, or a lack of confidence in its message or relevance, but they have an underlying motivation for not believing: their sin. Kaiser is simply presenting an argument, which will break down the defenses, not ultimately “prove” that the Old Testament is accurate. He does an admirable job of demonstrating reliability and relevance in such a short text, pointing out significant evidence of a track record of Biblical truth.
While I enjoyed and appreciated Kaiser’s work, there seems to be little interaction with opponents of the Old Testament as reliable. While he has clearly done significant scholarly work in the area of historical and textual reliability, his work is not in a vacuum, there are scholars on the other side. I would have appreciated more interaction with common issues that opponents of reliability bring up. Kaiser may have even done so without specifying the argument, but it seems as if the arguments opposing him are all straw men. Perhaps this is more a tribute to Kaiser’s persuasiveness than it is a valid criticism, but as a critical reader, I come away from this text convinced that I only have half the story.
Overall, it is difficult to criticize the work Kaiser has done. His presentation is not perfect, but the evidence he gives is difficult to argue with. He demonstrates that it is rational to believe the reliability of the Old Testament, and even to use it as guidance for life, and for that, believers should be grateful.