A very entertaining way to learn about the Bible. Good as an introduction. It also helps people who are familiar with the Bible to look at biblical stories from a different perspective.

The following is a review of Kenneth G. Davis' book Don't Know Much about the Bible. Davis is not a theologian, but a researcher and popular author. His work, therefore, proposes nothing original, but rather encapsulates the essence of contemporary liberal theology.
By liberal I mean scholars and writers who come to the text with a humanistic or naturalistic world view. By humanist I mean those writers who believe that the value of the Bible rests predominantly in what man can know about himself and his society, rather than what he can know about God. By naturalistic I mean those writers who deny the existence of any supernatural events, or immanence of God in the world. Davis' work reveals his bias in the following areas:


Liberal Theology/Vogue Theology
It is likely that Davis uses the term BCE rather than BC so that he may not offend non-Christians. Yet one must also assume that he prefers the terminology. Perhaps he prefers the term because it's in vogue. Or perhaps he prefers it because it makes more sense in his humanist world-view.

Davis claims that the Babylonian exile was "not as bad" as the biblical authors claimed, nor as bad as other trials the Israelites faced. One can only imagine, however, the criticism that would be showered upon someone who said life was not as bad in India under British rule as it could have been, or that the exile of slaves to the United States from Africa was not as bad as slaves have claimed. In our modern era one can only get away with such critical statements when they are applied to the Bible. It is politically incorrect to diminish the suffering of any group of people in history, except the people of the Bible-they are fair game.
Davis says of the book of Job, that "Like much of the Bible Job brings out more questions than answers." Surely the bulk of humanity who have read the book would disagree with Davis, for ever since it's writing the book has delivered great comfort to afflicted people. The book has remained greatly popular through millennia because of the answers it offers to people in time of distress. But more important than refuting Davis' conclusion is the observation that this conclusion typifies his consistent methodology. By his own admission, Davis believes that "much of the Bible" has more questions than answers.

Another example of this methodology is his introduction to Jesus. Davis asks, "Was Jesus married? Did he have children? The Bible doesn't tell us." The implication is that billions of people have put their faith in a man that they don't even know as well as they people down the street. He says the Bible doesn't tell us the answers, but there is no way anyone can honestly read the New Testament and wonder whether it leaves any doubt that Jesus was not married and didn't have children. Prior to the age of liberal theology no one would have asked this question.

Similarly Davis says, "Christians then [in ancient times] as now agreed on few things. Here again he views the world as full of disagreement rather than agreement-full of questions rather than answers. But when one reads the New Testament and the writings of the Early Christian Fathers, he does not get the sense that Christians agreed on few things. Paul captures the gospel in a nutshell: "that which we preached to you, that Jesus was crucified, died and buried, and that he rose on the third day and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses." These things which Christians agreed on may seem few in number when summarized in this way, but they are not insignificant.

Seeking more questions than answers is an underlying method of Davis' methodology. Unlike the historic Christian approach of coming to Scripture for answers, liberals believe that the Bible is instead fodder for more questions. In fact, questions fascinate them. What's more, liberal theologians are not bothered by a lack of answers. Indeed, answers would only frustrate them in their effort to expose more possible questions. One can see that, when faced with the same facts, this approach to Scripture will produce vastly different results than the traditional approach of study.

Davis says that, "The Gospels may be divinely inspired, but they aren't history. They were written by zealous followers as a call to faith." Liberals do not generally elaborate on their definition of "faith" because they know that their usage is a veiled attempt to speak common language with Christians even though their beliefs are radically different. Faith, according to the Bible and to the historic Christian faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. Faith is the belief in a truth without empirical evidence. So liberals speak of the Christ of history and the Christ of faith, and they maintain that both are valid beliefs which one can simultaneously hold. The Christ if history was a non-spiritual Jewish peasant who hoped to foster liberation for the poor and oppressed. The Christ of faith is the risen lord who gives forgiveness for our sins. But this is really a just an attempt of being less offensive while they speak of the real Jesus and the made-up Jesus. Imbedded in their assertion is the implication that Christ did not historically rise from the dead and he did not historically forgive our sins or even historically intend to do so. If one subjects the Gospels to the rigors of history then he is left with three options: either Jesus was God in the flesh, or he was a liar who claimed to be God but really was not, or he was a lunatic who thought he was God. But liberals are unable to believe he was God, unwilling to call Jesus a liar, and not so naýve as to call him a lunatic. But there are no other options if the Gospels resemble history. So unable to accept any of these options, they instead turn the tables by rejecting the Gospels as history. Then they are given a fresh set of alternatives. If the gospels are not history they either they are simple myths which evolved over time or they are allegories placed into theology to illustrate some great truths. Both of these options fit within their world-view and are less offensive to the non-discerning Christian audience.

Davis says that the Bible is a work of faith, and the stories of Jesus' birth show this. Because, according to liberals, the Bible can't get straight the time or location of his birth, and the gospel writers invented the stories of the virgin birth, we are not to assume that the narratives are intended as history, but only as a work of faith. But one must ask, in what are we to have faith? The plain sense answer to this question is that the gospel writers intended us to have faith that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy, that he was born of a virgin in order to give us a new nature. But if these events did not happen, then we must find faith in something else. Yet the scripture does not indicate anything other than the events in themselves in which we are to put our faith. So when liberals say the Bible is not a work of history they are compelled to answer, then what it is. And to dispel impending criticism they cannot say it is a work of fiction, so they instead choose a more favorable term: it is a work of faith. But their definition of faith is radically different from the Christians understanding. Instead it is closer to Mark Twain's definition: "Faith is believing something with all of your might that you know ain't true."

In line with his ever-questioning outlook, Davis ends his essay with the questions, "Whose Bible? Whose God? Which God?" In other words, he concludes that life's basic questions are still unanswered at the end of his study of Scripture. Of what value, then is the Bible? Well, he says, it is valuable because it is a book of faith. Yes, an barely understood book of faith in an unknown God. So Davis claims that his book is "aimed at people who still view the Bible as sacred and inspired, but don't know much about it." What they don't know about it, however, is that few of the propositions of the Bible are historically accurate, and none of the theology is verifiable.

Finally Davis states that his audience ought not to be afraid of asking questions, and he is right. But there are two implications of his encouragement: first he implies that he has the answers, and more importantly he implies that if one does not agree with his answers they are afraid to ask questions. Though one puts full faith in the truth of the Bible, he may not be afraid to ask questions. The person who seems to be most afraid of asking questions is the liberal who never ventures to wonder, or even examine the faintest possibility that Scripture might be accurate, and that we may possibly live in a supernatural world.



Statements regarding archaeology/anthropology
Davis claims that there is no evidence that any of the events in Esther occurred, and in fact no collaborative details in the book other than the name of the king. In other words, the only thing we can be sure of in the whole book of Esther, is that there was a king named Xerxes. All the other characters in the story, and all the other events are doubtful. But in fact there is a great deal of anthropological evidence for the historicity of these events. Esther closes with the institution of the feast of Purim, a Jewish celebration of the deliverance from genocide at the hands of Xerxes. The feast of Purim dates back to the time of Persian Rule (300 BC) and continues even today. One must assume that this celebration has some origin. And that origin is explained in Esther by the events which occurred in that book. So while one may dispute the actual legitimacy of this origin of Purim, one cannot honestly say that Esther has no evidence. And in the absence of any evidence to refute this origin of Purim, it stands as an excellent attestation to the events of Esther.

Davis states that the only thing we can know about the authorship of Joshua is that Joshua was not the author. The book was not written until a thousand years after the concerned events. And the events which are found in the book did not actually take place. One must ask, therefore, what is one left with? Of what value is the book? What theological truths are contained in a book written by an anonymous distant author who records myths? The central theological theme of Joshua is that God promised the land of Israel to the Jews, and he helped them win the battles for the land. But if Davis is right, then God did not make such a promise, nor did the people win the battles. What, then, is the value of the book?

Statements regarding philosophy/interpretation
Davis states that the story of Lot's wife was a myth used to explain the salt formations around the Dead Sea. This is a theory which states that many myths are aitiological, or that they were created to explain origin. The problem with this interpretation is that there is only one salt formation in the biblical story: Lot's wife. So the story only explains the origin of one salt formation. The other problem with Davis' interpretation is that the biblical account never states anything aitiological: pertaining to origin. Davis' statement is not founded on the biblical narrative, but upon his underlying belief in these myths and their function. Furthermore, his need to maintain this belief is rooted in his inability to accept this story, and others similar, as history. He begins with the assumption that the story is not history, therefore, he then asks, "What is it, if not history?" The logical explanation is that the story had some point, and the natural point of the story is origin. But one only comes to this conclusion if one begins with the assumption that the narrative is not a historical account.

The underlying philosophy of Don't Know Much about the Bible, and liberal interpretations in the same vein is that of literary evolution. Evolution, though commonly applied to the origin of species, predates Darwin as a philosophy. The philosopher Hegel introduced the concept of evolution years before Darwin. He proposed that in many areas of the universe: science, language, history, sociology, there exists first a thesis, which is counteracted by an antithesis, and then results a synthesis. Darwin applied this theory to biology, but it has been used by scholars of all disciplines. The Bible is no exception. Davis assumes that the end-product of Scripture must be the synthesis of a long evolutionary process whereby the original thesis (the first stories of Scripture) were revised throughout time (this is the antithesis). Liberal scholars use this theory as their starting point, just as evolutionary biologists use the same theory as their starting point. The biologist begins with this assumption because, as the saying goes, the alternative is unthinkable. But the point is, neither the biologist nor the historian subscribes to the evolutionary theory because the evidence leads them there, but because their preconceptions require them to start there.

For instance, Davis says that "most scholars agree the Passover is a combination of the barely harvest and the livestock harvest." In other words, the Passover was not an event where God spared the firstborn of Israel; instead, the story of the Passover was created to explain the existence of a celebration rooted in some lost history which Kenneth Davis recently discovered. But Davis, and his plethora of sympathetic scholars did not come to this conclusion from any evidence. It is pure speculation based on their evolutionary model, rooted in their humanist and naturalist world-view.

Davis believes that he has some solid evidence for the evolutionary model. He points to the "missing Mount Sinai." He asks, "How could such an important mountain be so obscure that no one can identify it's location today, if it truly existed?" And he points to the Ark of the Covenant which he says "disappears" after the Babylonian exile. He asks, "How could such an important possession drop from the minds of the Israelites if it truly ever existed?"

Davis claims that the existence of prose and poetry in the Deborah story in Judges proves the existence of two separate groups of authors. This assumption is also rooted in his evolutionary model. Isn't it equally reasonable that one author wrote in both prose and poetry? Is he saying that the quality of the prose and of the poetry is so masterful that no person could possibly excel to this degree at two skills? Obviously one person is capable of this work. Further Davis suggests that because of the importance of Deborah in the book of Judges, perhaps the writer of this narrative was a woman. But is it inconceivable that a man could write something favorable to a woman in ancient times? What's more, isn't reasonable to assume that if such a powerful and successful heroine actually lived, her story would be written down by a man? In other words, if the story is fiction, then perhaps Davis has a point: it may be more likely that a woman would make up a story about a heroine than a man to do so. But if the events actually occurred, then it is just as likely that a man or woman wrote them. Except, of course, for the fact that literacy was a rarity for women in ancient times. Davis' suggestion, therefore, is rooted in the prior assumption that the events did not take place, and there is no reason to believe that they did not.

Davis states that when Josiah read the book of the law, he probably read Deuteronomy. There is not textual or historical basis for this statement. There is no textual or historical reason to believe he did not read the whole Penteteuch (all the books of Moses). On what basis does he make this claim then? Simply put, his evolutionary model requires him to believe that ancient people could not have had access to all the books because they arose somewhat independently among different groups of authors. If Josiah had the whole Penteteuch, then Davis would be forced to admit that these books were more unified in their composition, and consequently more reliable. And if they are more reliable, then God is more powerful and active in the events of the world than Davis is willing to believe.

Davis says that the "two books of Chronicles are the best examples of revisionist history." He says they "leave out the nasty parts and create a safer version" of history. Because Chronicles varies so greatly from it's similar accounts in Kings and Samuel, he says that these differences prove "very human authorship." He bases this all-encompassing claim on two pieces of evidence. First, David is called a "man after God's heart" throughout Chronicles, and second, Solomon is said to have "followed in the ways of his father." So Davis says "the two kings are depicted not as they had been, but as they should have been." He makes a over-arching claim that the books are "the best examples of revisionist history" based on the generally positive view that the extensive books take toward two of the hundreds of characters. So even if Davis is right that Chronicles tones down the negative aspects of David and Solomon, what about the hundreds of other passages which stand uncontested? If this is the best example of revisionist history, then perhaps the theory can be discarded with certainty.

Furthermore, Davis fails to mention that Chronicles is a far more condensed version of history than Kings and Samuel. The books of Chronicles cover the same time period in fewer than half of the chapters of Kings and Samuel.

Finally, since Davis claims that Chronicles depicts David and Samuel as they should have been, not as they actually were, does that mean he upholds the historical reliability of these two men? That statement implies that it is possible to know, and in fact that Davis does indeed know what Solomon and David actually were like. Since he criticizes Chronicles for failing to mention David's massive bloodshed and Solomon's numerous extravagancies and women, surely he must believe that the accounts of these two men in Kings and Samuel are reliable. Yet we know that this is not the case. Davis elsewhere claims that Solomon and David were not as rich and powerful as Kings depict them. So Davis uses Kings as evidence to prove that Chronicles was revised and left out important information. But when he critiques Kings he says that the stories of David and Solomon are largely legend. Logic does not permit one to have it both ways. So in reality, not Chronicles, but Davis is the perfect example of revisionist history.

Davis' naturalist world-view precludes one from accepting prophecy. Therefore Davis says, "Isaiah was crafted into Jesus' life as Messiah." In other words, Isaiah did not predict anything particularly relevant to Jesus, but after Jesus died creative people found things in Isaiah that could be made relevant. The problem with this naturalist interpretation is that since the writing of Isaiah, more than 700 years before Christ, Hebrew scholars formed a picture of what they expected the Messiah to be, and they recorded their expectations in the Talmud; a Hebrew commentary on the Old Testament. Their picture of the awaited Messiah was greatly influenced by the prophecies of Isaiah. So the Gospel writers did not apply passages from Isaiah that had no relevance to messianic prophecies; they realized that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies which the Rabbis expected the Messiah to fulfill for hundreds of years.
Statements regarding authorship
Davis' philosophy is best summarized in his statement, "The fact remains, no one knows who wrote the Bible." He leaves no possibility that the books of Moses were written by Moses but instead subscribes to the documentary hypothesis with which he exaggerates, "Most scholars agree." This theory states that the Old Testament evolved over a period of time through an evolutionary process. His first support is that he confidently states that there are two conflicting creation stories. He does not even attempt to explain how these two accounts can be reconciled, yet they have remained side by side in Genesis for over 4,500 years. Does Davis believe that he has discovered some error in the Bible which lay unnoticed for millennia? Obviously biblical authors, scribes, rabbis, and Christians have known about the transition from Genesis 1 to 2 since the text was written, and have sought an explanation. Yet Davis does not even give the faintest lip service to the historic understanding that Genesis 2 is a particularization of Genesis 1. In other words, the second narrative more specifically states what occurred in the previous, short narrative. Academic honesty compels writers to give some acknowledgement to conflicting views, especially when the body of literature concerning the issue is so massive and ancient. Yet Davis never does this. So the implication is that either he is not academic or he is not honest.

He says that "Jeremiah is not the likely author of Lamentations." He provides no support for this claim. But in the absence of contradictory evidence, it seems reasonable to support the historic view that Jeremiah is the author. Lamentations was clearly written during the same time period as Jeremiah, it concerns the same events. Furthermore, Lamentations serves as a natural sequel to Jeremiah. The obvious connection between the two books may perhaps be the reason ancient scholars assumed Jeremiah was the author. So while there is no textual claim that he is the author, it is more reasonable to support the traditional view than to discard it without any rationale.

Most criticism of biblical authorship derives from one or two verses in the book which contain a prophetic word. Those prophecies are inconceivable to naturalists, so they assume the book was written after the event happened. This is a somewhat veiled attempt to foster doubt without coming off so offensively as saying that the biblical authors lied. But the implication is just the same. If the books were written after the fact, but they purport to have been written before the events they prophesy, then the pseudonymous author is both lying about his identity and the historical sequence of events. Most liberals would deny that they think the authors were lying. They wouldn't use such a harsh word. They claim that this literary device was well accepted in ancient times. Even if this were true, and there is evidence that it is not true, there is still ample reason to reject the liberal interpretation.

First, we may reject the liberal interpretation because it is rooted in a naturalistic world-view. One who believes in God's immanent work in this world need not start with the assumption that prophecy is impossible. Without that assumption, there will be no reason to suggest the prophetic books were written hundreds of years after they claim. Second, even if one rejects prophecy, there is still a literary/philosophical reason to reject pseudonymous, after the fact authorship. The theme of Isaiah, for instance, is that God is sending a message to the people of Israel to repent. If they repent, he will spare them. But if they do not repent, they will know what a powerful God they have as they are punished by his hand through the invasion of Syria. If we accept the naturalist world-view, and the late authorship of the book, we must ask what affect this acceptance has on the literary value of the book. If the book were written after the facts, then the warnings of future punishment are irrelevant. If it were written after the fact, then the possibility of God's gracious forgiveness is irrelevant. In addition, the greatness of God's ability to control the future and to relay prophecy to man is also irrelevant. Clearly the central themes, in fact, the whole message of Isaiah, is bound to the idea of future prophecy. Without prophecy, there is no meaning to the book. The very truths which the book intends to convey require prophecy to have been true. If a pseudonymous author wrote Isaiah, there is no way he could have incorporated the themes which are found in the book.

On this note, liberals rightly point out that the Proverbs were written over a period of years, and that some are anonymous. Yet they claim that many were borrowed from neighboring nations, especially Egyptian sages. There are two problems with this conclusion. First, similarity does not imply causality. In other words, there may be strong similarities between Hebrew and Egyptian proverbs, but they could have been written independently. After all, proverbs do not address historical events, but universal generalizations. Second, it is equally plausible to assert that a Hebrew proverb was borrowed from an Egyptian one as it is to assert that an Egyptian proverb was borrowed from a Hebrew one. In the absence of evidence, neither statement can be deemed more likely. Yet the liberals always confidently take a position, and it is always the position that the Hebrews borrowed. One must ask why they so consistently take this position. And the answer seems to be that scholarship thrives on controversy and on provocation.

Davis gives a late date to every book in order to cast doubt on them. Esther was allegedly written in 200 BC, rather than 400 BC, because it contains Persian words. Isaiah was written in 400 BC, rather than 722 BC because it contains the word Cyrus. The existence of that one word causes liberals confidently to maintain that it was written 300 years after the author claims. Liberals say that at least half of the books of Paul are pseudonymous, and therefore written long after Paul, because they neither resemble the authentic letters in style or content. But the entire authentic writings of Paul can be read in less than an hour, and they evidently maintain that they have sufficient data conclusively to state what is Paul's style and what are his preferences of content.

Davis assumes that the gospels were among the last written, not first written material. This assertion, unanimously held by liberals, is based solely on Jesus prophecy that the temple would be destroyed. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, as all four gospels prophesy. But since prophecy is impossible, the gospels must have been written after 70 AD. The problem with this assumption is that 2 Peter, which according to liberals is an early book, quotes the gospel of Mark. So Mark must already have been in wide circulation by the time of Mark. The other problem with the late date, of course, is that it revolves around one verse and the liberals' inability to accept prophecy.

Davis states that most scholars agree that the Gospels derive from a common source know as "Q." One wonders whether he, during his extensive research for this book surveyed a stratified sample of scholars to see whether most scholars do in fact agree. Certainly most scholars he consulted subscribe to this theory, but there have been no studies to determine what most scholars believe. He is not making a researched conclusion, but using an intimidation device to convince his less-informed audience that he is in the know and in the majority. Aside from his tactic, the theory of Q is a recent invention of liberals to explain why the gospels agree. First they attack the gospels because they disagree, then they attack the gospels because they do not cover all the same events, and finally they attack the gospels because they agree too often. Rather than inventing some additional source know as Q, wouldn't it be more plausible to suggest that the Gospels agree because they represent the truth?

Nearly every attack on the date and authorship of any Scriptural book involves the assumption that prophecy is not possible. If the book contains prophecy which has been so-call fulfilled, then obviously the book was written after the events. The possibility of predicting the future is inconceivable to these liberal scholars. So they are left with no other choice but to dispute the authorship, and thereby move the date to a time after the concerned events. This is the driving motive behind any case for pseudonymous authorship.

Statements regarding Oral Tradition
The notion of oral tradition is a theory with no specific biblical evidence and no compelling historical evidence. The theory that the Bible was passed down through the generations is a necessary out-growth of the liberal world-view. Because many books of the Bible contain fulfilled prophecy, and liberals cannot accept that such fulfillment is possible, they assume the books were written in late dates. If they were written in late dates, then the authors are pseudonymous. And if the books were written in late dates, then perhaps a kernel of the story is ancient, but the narrative was passed down and revised through time. Davis says this is the case with the crossing of the Red Sea. He states that this part of the epic only emerged after hundreds of years of retelling.

This is a great book. I always wondered how so many people can preach to the world that the bible is the ABSOLUTE word of God. And that every word is true. There are so many obvious contradictions in the bible that any logical mind can see that there is no possible way you can look on it as "fact." The simple point that Jesus' lineage is different depending on which book you're reading, or the order in which god created man and animals, also varies in the two creations, would be enough for any newspaper editor to suggest that his reporter "get his facts straight" and submit a re-write.

The author has a great sense of humor, and is not overly negative or attacking in tone. He's simply pointing out things that don't make sense (and there's A LOT of them.)

Very interesting and enjoyable book.

This is a great book. I have never been a bible scholar and I consider myself a moderate Christian. I bought this book because I was uncomfortable with the emphasis on what I term radical Christianity. Don't Know Much . . . can be read cover to cover as a great, plain-spoken history book. It can also be used as a reference for Bible research. I have done both. It is a completely enjoyable read and I am grateful to have more facts, which have helped me reconcile my personal beliefs about Christianity and also science and history. The writer's style is so completely comfortable that I plan to purchase another Don't Know Much . . . book.