Don't Know Much About the Bible

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing, but typical
Review: Like most "historical" analyses of anything religious or spiritual, this book seems more intent on debunking the Bible rather than merely offering the facts. It's obvious that author Kenneth Davis operates from the bias that the Bible is mythological. Are there inconsistencies in the Bible? Yes. And Davis goes to great lengths to point them out. But does he give equal time to the events, people and places that have been proven to be true by archaelogy? Not hardly. Davis does give a good summary of various books of the Bible and the geographical information is good, but shame on Davis for his anti-JudeoChristian bias!

Rating:
Summary: A Decent- But- Too- Confusing- Read
Review: As an avid reader of theology books, I must say that this book wasn't that bad...but it wasn't that good, either. In all honesty, Kenneth C. Davis' attempts to shock those who only have a vague memory of Bible stories is original; he certainly does uncover some information that surprised me. However, whenever the author tries to explain to the reader about the Children Of Israel, one becomes truly lost. Blame it on the dull writing style he uses to explain his theories and a lack of maps! And let's not forget his weird obsession with Pharoahs who really have nothing to do with Biblical stories. Another irritating element is the constant lists of rulers of Persia. The man even managed to confuse/bore me to death with info about the prophets. The real reason I bought this book was to get all the scandalous details about Biblical men like David and Solomon, who we were taught to emulate from a young age. The author delivers these, but they do not make up for the majority of the book which consists of utterly bland content. This book irritated me. I'd suggest trying to read something else to inspire you to read the Bible.

Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile Way to Learn About The Bible
Review: If you'd like to learn a lot about the bible and don't mind reading an author that seems to take some glee in pointing out the book's inconsistencies, then "Don't Know Much About the Bible" is for you. Book-by-book, Kenneth C. Davis provides fairly clear summaries of both the New and Old Testaments. Along the way, he provides a ton of fascinating information, clarifying common misconceptions about famous biblical stories, pointing out events that are conveniently left out of most Sunday or Hebrew school teachings, and explaining believed mistranslations of the ancient Greek or Hebrew texts (e.g., he writes that scholars now mostly believe that the sea the Jews crossed while leaving Egypt is properly translated as "The Sea of Reeds", not "The Red Sea").

Davis seems to take a lot of pleasure in pointing out the various inconsistencies within the bible: historical inaccuracies, conflicting accounts between various parts of the scripture, and books or stories that just don't seem to fit. While it's important for him to point these out in a secular work such as this, the tone that he uses to do so may be a put-off to some (e.g., after describing how the various Gospels disagree on the year of Jesus's birth, he writes: "The date is wrong and the year is a mystery. In other words, the birthday of the 'Son of God' is a movable feast. If this is divinely inspired, couldn't God get that year right?"). This style tends to cast

some doubt on the author's credibility and impartiality throughout the rest of the book.

The summary of the book of Revelation was a bit of a disappointment. It's obviously a complex book that's difficult to read and more difficult to understand; however, Davis decided to punt on providing any interpretations and instead sticks to a very brief plot summary.

"Don't Know Much About The Bible" sticks mostly to the bible itself and does not talk much about the religions of Judaism or Christianity. For instance, there's very little mention of the history of biblical commentary or the debates that occurred throughout the ages as to the meanings of the scriptures (e.g., Aquinas doesn't show up in the index, and Augustine is only mentioned in passing a handful of times). This is not necessarily a problem; the book is long enough as it is (approx. 500 pages). But don't expect to have a full understanding of, for instance, where Catholocism differs from Protestantism, etc., after reading the book.

Asides from these minor points, though, the book is clearly written and an easy and worthwhile read. You will definitely gain a better overall understanding of the bible itself as well as the various books that comprise it.

Rating:
Summary: It's good enough
Review: and I wasn't looking for anything to really impress. I like the funny approach to the bible. there are no references and that has to be the most annoying part. Im a christian.

Rating:
Summary: He doesn't
Review: An aply named book. The author truly does not know much about the bible.

Rating:
Summary: Don't know much . . .
Review: This book is about the Bible from Genesis to Revelation for people who don't know much about the 'good book,' as the author calls it. I read it and enjoyed reading it. I learned things I didn't know, was reminded of things I had forgotten, and reviewed things that I had already known about the Bible. The author is casual and genuine, remaining honest to a secular, historical, or literary interpretation while respectful of the religious traditions that have based their beliefs upon the Bible. He did well, and he has encouraged me to perhaps look into some other secular, religious writers like Karen Armstrong.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Look at the Good Book
Review: I've always been leery of books with names like "Personal Hygienefor the Complete Idiot" or "Home Schooling forDummies." Is it good marketing technique to choose a title thatforces the reader into an embarrassing self-classification? With hispopular "Don't Know Much About... " series, Mr. Davisintroduced a presumably unintentional double meaning that could beconstrued as reflecting on the author as well. .... In my own case,having just finished reading the Old and New Testaments straightthrough but lacking historical background, I readily admittedignorance in the hope of reducing it. I wasn't disappointed.

Davistries to give the reader a sense of when, where, and by whom the 39Old Testament and 27 New Testament "books" were written. Indoing this he has no choice but to reveal how factually thin theinformation base available to Bible scholars really is. Sinceuncertainty usually breeds controversy, the shrillness of the moreacid criticisms directed at the author by self-styled Bible buffs isnot surprising. Perhaps the scholarly types are also annoyed byDavis's effort to keep the tone light, and to emphasize anomaliesbound to surprise readers who have absorbed only the second-handbiblical bromides that permeate popular culture. For example, Eve'ssnake-induced snack was not named as an apple, only as"fruit"; there are two semi-contradictory versions ofGenesis; there weren't enough people to provide Cain with a wife;Moses probably didn't cross the Red Sea, and Jesus may not have beenan only child. Davis also maintains interest by highlighting theBible's copious sex and violence content. I would characterize theauthor's overall tone as bemused but respectful.

There are a coupleof places in the book where I question Mr. Davis's reasoning. Onpages 116 and 118 he supports the view that bad people such as themedieval crusaders, who committed atrocities in the name of religion,were merely blasphemers pretending to be followers of God. Theimplication seems to be that a religious person can't be evil, becauseif he is evil, then he's not truly religious. Logically speaking, youcan't get more speciously circular than that. Shall we argue thatwhen Jehovah orders the slaughter of promised-land citizens down tothe last man, woman, and guiltless child (Deuteronomy 20:16), he'sjust taking a little time out to blaspheme himself?

The author takesanother puzzling position on page 126, saying

"....Manypassages in the Bible condone slavery, one reason it was justified byAmerican Christian slaveholders. We can only consider slavery aninhumane and immoral institution, a very clear case of something thatwas acceptable in the time of Moses but is now consideredreprehensible."

There's nothing wrong with this comment initself, but it ignores a huge underlying issue. Consider thefundamental premise of the Bible. A single being, Jehovah, createdthe entire universe and populated a small part of it with intelligenthumans crafted in his own image. He interacted extensively with apreferred group of these humans, talking to some of them directly,teaching, making rules, in fact micro-managing them relentlessly (seeany part of Leviticus or Numbers). The people of Biblical times werefully as intelligent as we, and fully as capable of understandingmoral principles.

The underlying issue, then, is that to accomplishwhat he is said to have done, Jehovah must have been a master of alldisciplines known to us, and must have been knowledgeable in everyconceivable area. Humans have all sorts of excuses for beingignorant, but Jehovah has none, and had none in the time of Moses. Sowhy didn't Jehovah rule and teach unequivocally against slavery?After all, he issued a formidable roster of laws, many of them fixatedon ceremonial trivia and imposing draconian penalties for minorinfractions (again, see Leviticus). This is a small part of a muchlarger question: Are Jehovah's character, actions and words, taken atface value from Scripture, consistent with the knowledge and abilitiesclaimed for him? I would have been very interested in Mr. Davis'sopinion.

In the end, the parts of the book most directly helpful tome were the factual aids provided by the author to broaden a reader'sperspective. These included:

An eight-installment timeline("Milestones") relating biblical events to well-knownpeople, places and cultural developments outside the scope of theScriptures.

A discussion of various versions of the Bible withguidelines on their interpretive strengths and weaknesses (Davisprefers the New Oxford Annotated edition).

A table of 35New-Testament miracles, showing in which of the four Gospels eachevent is mentioned. This creates an interesting ranking topped by theultra-certified, four-Gospel miracle of feeding five thousand peoplefrom five loaves of bread and two fish.

If you are already an expertin the Scriptures, the title alone should vector you away from thisbook. But for the rest of us, I recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: A great read
Review: As an agnostic, sitting on the seesaw of belief and atheism, I found the book highly informative. Though if you are a doubter, like myself, this will not persuade you toward either end of the spectrum... anyway. My only gripe was the insertion of little pop culture comparisons to biblical events. It just threw me off at times. Many questions I've had were answered, but best of all, it sparked my brain into wanting more in depth answers. It is a thought provoking book. Read it.

Rating:
Summary: CONFUSED BY THE BIBLE?
Review: If you are overwhelmed by the difficulty of trying to understand the Bible, if there are far too many begats and people named Joseph for you to follow, READ THIS BOOK! It presents a fundamental understanding of the texts and, thank the Almighty, is not one of those scholarly texts which will bore the average reader to tears. If you want an interesting read that will explain the basics of this fascinating and inspirational book, this is the place to start. My thanks to the author!

Rating:
Summary: A Great Read -- Informative and Thought-Provoking
Review: If you enjoyed this wonderfully informative and thought-provoking book as much as I did, you'll also love Paul Alan Laughlin's REMEDIAL CHRISTIANITY: WHAT EVERY BELIEVER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE FAITH, BUT PROBABLY DOESN'T (Polebridge Press, 2000), also available through Amazon.com.