The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament: Volume 1

by Joshua Bowen

The Old Testament is a fierce battleground for atheists and Christian apologists, with each side accusing the other of taking challenging and troubling passages out of context. In this handbook, Joshua Bowen not only provides the background to the Old Testament and the ancient Near East, but engages with hotly contested topics like slavery, failed prophecy, and the authorship of debated Old Testament books.

This book provides:
• clear and straightforward explanations to complex topics;
• direct engagement with hot-button Old Testament issues;
• specific arguments to help you in a debate or discussion.

Whether you are looking to debate problematic Old Testament issues on social media or have a relaxed, meaningful discussion with a family member over coffee, The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament is an indispensable resource for you.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Atheism, Christianity, Skepticism

428 pages, Hardcover

Published May 1, 2021

About the author

Dr. Joshua Aaron Bowen graduated from the Johns Hopkins University in 2017, with a Ph.D. in Assyriology. He wrote his dissertation on the lamentational liturgies of the city of Kiš, and specializes in the Sumerian language. Joshua was awarded the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (D.A.A.D.) and Fulbright scholarship during the 2014-2015 academic year, allowing him to spend the year in Tubingen, Germany, working with Dr. Konrad Volk on his dissertation project.

As well as his Ph.D., Josh holds a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, a Th.M. in the Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary, and a M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the Johns Hopkins University. Prior to entering academia, Joshua was a chaplain in the U.S. Airforce where he also gained an A.A. in Avionics.

Reviews

[Heu Quanto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite what you may have read or heard, this book isn't an anti-Christian polemic: It's a gentle, well-written, and thorough introduction to the Old Testament. Dr. Bowen seeks neither to persuade nor proselytize. His sole intent is to inform and educate his readers on the broader historical, linguistic, and anthropological contexts in which the OT was written. After summarizing the book of Genesis, he provides a brief historical/geographical survey of the nations, empires, and cultures of the ANE, and Israel’s place within it. He then discusses four perennial controversial issues in Apologetics/Counter apologetics: The authorship and composition of the Torah, the dating and composition of the Book of Daniel, Slavery in the Bible, and finally, Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning Tyre. For each of these contentious topics Dr. Bowen impartially describes the scholarly consensus, and meticulously provides us with the evidence for and against it. The readers are then encouraged to draw their own conclusions.
Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians (of all denominations) alike will find this book extremely beneficial. One of the ideals of discourse is that every participant should begin the dialectic with a sufficient understanding of the issues involved. This book provides such an understanding.

[Slade Lane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read for anyone (atheist or theist). Provides historical framework for the ancient near east and consensus scholarship.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I regret ever taking the Bible as a serious inspired book. It only appears that way when I ignored the context it was written in while contrasting it only with itself univocally and relating what it said only to itself. Bowen gives the context I wish I had years ago that would have saved me from years of stupidity.

The Book of Daniel is a travesty unless you assume special pleading that ignores relations, context, and contrast with reality. That book of the Bible has the most spot-on accurate prophecies in the Bible and proves that it is prophetic if you fabricate an alternate reality and assume it was written before the events it talks about except for the fourth prophecy and that prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and according to Christians foretells the second coming of the messiah and a make-believe end times. Of course, it’s all convoluted nonsense. Only the gullible and the writers of the New Testament think that Jesus was the Messiah and no messianic non-trivial prophecy was fulfilled through Jesus (I rode a donkey, but I'm not the messiah). Bowen does a good job of putting Daniel in context and how nonsensical it really is.

I just as well use the Book of Mormon or the Koran rather than the New Testament to re-imagine the Old Testament. The sad reality is that neither Christians, Mormons or Muslims will ever easily step away from their presuppositions until they look at context and include reality as the basis of their worldview. Talking snakes and donkeys, Noah, and Adam and Eve in a garden with magic trees are not part of any reality I can ever accept without sufficient evidence; besides I would never accept slavery as moral, rape as okay with a bride fee, or capturing young virgins as war brides, misogyny (women keep your mouth shut in church!) and so on. I regret ever entertaining the possibility of any of that stuff to be divinely inspired and my original crack in to that false belief was from the Book of Daniel. My bad.

[Perle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review of
The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament by Joshua Bowen

When scientists use their privileged and trusted position to inform the public on a topic, it is not unreasonable to expect them to be expertly familiar with the available data on the topic they’re about to address, as well as scrupulous in their reporting of such.

I’m only going to discuss part of chapter 3 of Dr Bowen’s book to illustrate to both atheists, ex-Christians and struggling Christians how little they can rely on scholarly works to determine the course of their lives.


In Chapter 3, Dr Joshua Bowen writes, [Chapter 3, P95, E-book]

“…we will use child sacrifice as a test case to illustrate how the Old Testament often describes events or people groups in ways that conflict with what we know from other, more reliable sources.”

Following, is a quote from Leviticus 18:1-3[NASB]
“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.”

Among these wicked practices were child sacrifice:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord… Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” Lev 18:21, 24-25[NASB]

But, asks Dr Bowen,
“…what evidence do we have that there was the widespread ritual practice of child sacrifice throughout Canaan in the centuries leading up to the Israelite “conquest”? As it turns out, we have very limited archaeological evidence for the practice of child sacrifice on the whole, and it would appear from the available data that the Israelites themselves were participating in this practice, sacrificing their children, not to a foreign Canaanite deity, but to Yahweh.” P96

In order to bolster this claim, the author refers to Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, a 2017 publication of Heath Dewrell—the assistant professor of Old Testament Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary.

“There is as yet no unambiguous material evidence from Syria-Palastine itself that corroborates the claims of the Hebrew Bible.”

Heath Dewrell proceeds to refer to evidence of child sacrifices on the Punic colonies, but notes that similar evidence has not been found on the mainland, that is, for the purpose of this review, Canaan.

“Unfortunately, there is as yet no strong material evidence for child sacrifice in Phoenicia proper, or Syria-Palestine in general, apart from the possible exception of the third-millennium equid burials at Umm el-Marra, which are largely irrelevant to this discussion, given their early date…’ - Heath Dewrell


As an understanding of the people, places and terms involved is necessary, I will diverge for a moment. Contrary to what most people believe, a Canaanite was not a genetic descriptor but a socio-religious-political identity. Canaan was inhabited by several, somewhat genetically similar, groups of people who adhered to common ideas. The Hebrew Bible refer to Hivites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites and Perizzites, who, all localised in Canaan, were Canaanites. These groups later formed separated small kingdoms within this region, such as the Philistines, Phoenicians, Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites. The peoples of these kingdoms were made up of Canaanites. The Phoenician-Canaanites were located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the land of Canaan. Two of their famous sea trading city-states were, Tyre and Sidon.

The story (?fable) goes the Queen of Tyre, Alyssa, aka, Dido—by all accounts a remarkable woman—ca 1000BC flees her power-grabbing, homicidal brother, Pygmalion, after she discoverers he’s responsible for the death of her husband. She settles down on the northwest coast of Africa, modern day Tunisia, founding the Phoenician city-state of Carthage. Carthage becomes one of the most prosperous cities of the ancient world and an important trading hub. The Latin term for “Phoeni-cian” is “Puni-c.” Carthage is one of the first Punic colonies. Several further colonies are established around the Mediterranean coast.

It is in Carthage where archaeological evidence for child sacrifice emerged in the 1920s. This evidence was discovered in a large cemetery dedicated to the remains of children and consisted of charred bones and ashes stored in ceramic funerary urns and buried. Some of the urns additionally contained the bones and cremated remains of very young animals.

“These infants in the Punic burial sights were newly or prematurely born infants, rarely did the infants live beyond one year but some reached the age of four.” [Tatlock, JR Dissertation, How they Sacrificed People in Ancient Times, 2006]

Marking many of these burials, but not all, were stone monuments—stelae—only some of which bore inscriptions such as:

Stele of a *mlk sacrifice consisting of a child, which Nahhum erected for Ba’al Hammon, the lord, because he listened to sound of his speech.

Another deity, the consort of Ba’al Hammon, was the Lady Tanit,

For the Lady taNit, the one before Baal and for the Lord Baal Hammon which Magon vowed, a child…

It was subsequently established that the unmarked stelae were the oldest of the burials, covering a period from the mid 800 - 700BC. [Tatlock, JR.]

It appeared from Carthage, these settler Phoenicians allocated areas specifically for infant burials, seperate from where adults and older children were laid to rest. The preponderance of the evidence point to child sacrifice of very young non-adults often accompanied by an offering of equally young lambs, kids or birds.
[Osteological Analysis in the Study of the Phoenician and Punic Tophet: A History of Research, Verona 2013]


Returning to the mainland. In the harbour region of the Phoenician city-state of Tyre a cemetery, dating to mid 900-700BC, delivered archaeological evidence of cremated remains in funerary urns, and mostly unmarked stone monuments—thus, no written evidence of whether the interned remains is a ‘votive offering.’ In some deeper (older) strata, un-cremated remains were discovered. [The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre, ME Aubet, 2010]
No infant remains were identified among any of the relics. The mainland Phoenician burial habits thus corresponded with those of the Punic colonies.

JR Tatlock, concludes:
“Two issues are especially worthy of consideration: (1) The stelae do not present any information concerning sacrifice and (2) the funerary urns did not contain infant remains, mainly those of juveniles and adults. Infant cremation is thus far unknown among the extant Phoenician cemeteries.”

We note the correlation of the the unmarked stelae of the oldest burials in Punic Carthage and the state of these internments of the same time period, on the mainland. Dedicatory inscriptions on stelae it appears, were a later development. Without dedicatory inscriptions on the stelae, the nature of the internments on the mainland are thus unknown. Should infants remains have survived in areas previously inhabited by Phoenicians, they will be discovered apart from cemeteries dedicated to adults and older children.


To continue the review. Dr Bowen provides a summary:
“In short, the depictions of the Canaanites presented in passages like Leviticus 18 and 20 do not reflect historical reality and clearly functioned as a form of anti-Canaanite propaganda.” P99

He then concludes:

"What does this mean for us if we are using child sacrifice as test case?
…we have a fair amount of evidence that helps us understand Canaanite culture from the 2nd millennium B.C.E., the period described in the Old Testament as one of gross immorality and child sacrifice. The land of Canaan–during the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.C.E.)–was firmly under the control of the Egyptians and does not reflect the descriptions of the Canaanites given in the Old Testament…
More specifically, however, the archaeological evidence that we have for child sacrifice does not come from the 2nd millennium, but from the middle and latter portions of the 1st millennium B.C.E. The evidence itself also does not come from the land of Canaan, but from Carthage and the Punic colonies. Thus, we have no solid evidence of child sacrifice in Canaan proper, and what evidence we have comes from the 1st millennium B.C.E.”

There are multiple problems with these statements:

1. The Hebrew Bible does not specify a specific time period regarding the misdeeds of the inhabitants of Canaan. [Canaanite is first mentioned in the Archaeological record as far back as 2500BC, in the Letters of Mari.]
2. Dr Bowen himself specifies this time period. Why? It seems in order to avoid making known to his readers that archaeological evidence of child sacrifice do exist in Canaan, albeit of a different type than the “mlk” or burnt sacrifice and of a different time period, stretching from 5000BC to approximately 1500BC. About this later.
3. The child sacrifices critiqued in the Levitical and Deuteronomic passages are those unto ‘molek’ and those in imitation of Canaanite practices.
4. Dr Bowen appears unaware of the fact that burial practices have changed in the Ancient Near East from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, that is from 1300BC - 600BC. It is only in the Late Bronze Age that cremation burials became increasingly widespread, while burying of bodies or remains in the ground or caves—inhumation—remained generally the rule.
[https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...]

5. The survival of the skeletal remains of a buried body depend on many factors, namely, soil pH, soil type, bone size and kind, ambient temperature, bodily trauma, depth of burial— it was found that those non-adults in the 0-1 year age category were consistently buried at less depth than the older children and adults—local insects and snails, scavengers, plant roots, handling of the body post mortem, prior metabolic disease and also age, sex and size of the individual. “The evidence from the taphonomy literature does suggest that infant and children’s remains do decompose, and that smaller bones, with higher collagen and lower density are more prone to decay more rapidly than their adult counterparts.”
[Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Involved in the Preservation of Non-Adult Skeletal Remains in Archaeology and Forensic Science. BM Manifold, 2012.]

6. This is in fact a familiar problem among archaeologists and has engendered a known phenomenon. Rebecca Reeves writes: “Non-adults are everywhere. Without them, humanity would cease to exist. Just as today but more so in the past, before the advent of modern medicine, non-adults were highly susceptible to various illnesses and diseases and their mortality high. This means that they should be found everywhere in the archaeological record. As mentioned earlier however, there is the problem of “missing” non-adults in the global archaeological record.” [A Landscape of Death: A Comparison of Non-adult to Adult Burials at the Late Bronze Age Site of Tell el-Far'ah (South), Rebecca Reeves Dissertation 2018]

MJ Becker in 1995 asked, ‘If in a normal context half of all people born die before reaching adulthood, then where are their remains? Clearly these young people are under represented in almost all skeletal representations discussed from archaeological contexts.’
[Infanticide, chid sacrifice and infant mortality rates - Direct archaeological evidence as interpreted by human skeletal analysis - 1995 Marshall Joseph Becker]
https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/...

The extend of this problem is highlighted in a study done in 2002 where cemetery samples from Medieval and Post-Medieval England demonstrate that just 12 individuals less than 1 year of age died in a 500-year period.

In conclusion:
Infants remains stored and protected in funerary jars after cremation preserve well, but infant bodies or charred remnants entered in shallow graves do not.
Cremation and use of funerary jars only came into use in this region—Canaan and the surrounding areas—in the Late Bronze Age, after 1300BC. Inhumation of the deceased in pits and caves preceded this period, and mostly continued alongside cremation once it was initiated.
Sacrificed non-adults remains, especially those of infants, are unlikely to show up in the archaeological record prior to the use of urns, due to rapid decay.
Inscription of stelae is an Iron Age development, thus it is doubtful any stelae describing a votive event will be found dating to the Bronze Age in this area.
Even if offering infants as mlk/burnt sacrifices was rampant in Canaan, in the period leading up to the adoption of cremation, no such evidence is likely to show up in the archaeological record.

As stated, evidence of child sacrifice, albeit not mlk or burnt sacrifice do, however, exist in Canaan stretching from 5000BC to roughly 1500BC. Known in archaeology as construction sacrifices, these consisted of the killing of children—infants, juveniles or teenagers—in order to capture their remains in the foundations or walls of buildings, often temples. The rationale for this custom, is unknown. Most likely, they were meant to ward of evil or to appease a deity disturbed by the building project.
[Sacred Killing, Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near east, Chapter 1; See Tatlock Dissertation.]

A further kind of sacrifice known in this region, is mentioned in 2 Kings 3:27 where Mesha, a Moabite king, under siege from a Judah-Edom-Israel coalition, sacrifices his firstborn son on the city wall, “And he took his firstborn son, who would reign after him, and he offered him up as a whole burnt offering upon the wall. And a great wrath was against Israel, and they went out from him and they returned to their land.”

Corroboration for the existence of this type of sacrifice is found in a Late Bronze Age, Ugaritic text. Ugarit is an ancient port city north of Israel.

When a mighty one assails you gate,
A warrior your walls,
Your eyes you shall elevate unto Balu,
O Balu [if] you will force the mighty one away from our gate,
The warrior [from] our walls;
A bull, o Balu, we shall set apart;
A vow, o Balu, we shall carry out;
[a first]born ma[le], O Ball, we shall set [ap]art
A htp sacrifice, O Balu, we shall carry out

Further affirming this practice in Canaan and neighbouring regions are two Egyptian reliefs depicting the sacrifice of children by the inhabitants of Syro-Palastine when besieged by the Egyptian army. These date to 1300-1200BC. The cities referenced are Askelon (in Southern Israel) and Tunip (A city in the north, near Ugarit). Thus throughout the region, this was an accepted practice.

Finally:

Scholars who participate in the debate on the depravity vs the piety of the Canaanites and the villainy vs the moral purity of the Israelites, miss the entire point the Biblical writers are making. There are sufficient clues for the discerning reader to suspect the moral condition of the Israelites and to anticipate their eventual fate long before they reach Canaan.

The message of Deuteronomy 9:4-6 is a summary of what is aptly narrated in the preceding chapters, and is a ominous hint on what will follow:

“After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 6 Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.”

To make it explicit:

“After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, better say to yourself, ‘The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land even through I too am wicked, and they being wicked are being driven out.’ It is not because you’re any better than them that you’ll possess the land, but on account of their wickedness the Lord will drive them out in order to accomplish what He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even though you are a wicked people.. Understand then, even though you’re reprehensible, the Lord is giving you this good land to possess.’ … Thus, do not do as they have done there, for you too will be vomited out.’


Maybe this will put this issue, on who had the moral upper hand and who deserved to be in the land, to rest.

[Bob · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mythology of Atheism (etc.)

(-reviewing and debunking The Atheist Handbook)

Joshua Bowen’s book is a fine example of atheist (etc.) mythology! He presents several imagined “contradictions” of the Bible and misleading statements about what the Bible says. He also has imagined discrepancies with archaeological finds and Biblical descriptions. While reading his book I got an undertone impression that he at times seems more concerned with countering apologists rather than just dealing with the Biblical text; many times he injects a slant against apologists while analyzing the text; for instance, pages 162-4, 169, 194, 280. Page ii reads, “I hope that this series will help make our interactions with Christian apologists more productive and meaningful.” It sounds like responding to apologists was his prime intent, but that would be a strange approach; even if the apologists get it wrong, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible got it wrong (for example, if apologists maintain Moses is the sole author for the Torah, that doesn’t mean the Biblical text itself has a problem with allowing a supporting school for Moses [i.e., Deut. 34:5-8 explains the death of Moses]; or, if apologists deny that slavery exists in the Bible and are answered, that doesn’t mean U.S. Civil War slavery is in the Bible). Several times Joshua admits that he is “outside of my field of expertise” on certain subjects (page 304; also 7, 164, 208, 277, 298; Vol. 2, pages 46, 256, 264, 332, 405). Unfortunately, Joshua’s tone is sometimes a childish sarcasm when attacking the Bible (pages 185-7); highly questionable for a scholar – is his book supposed to be a professional presentation? There’s also a rather lame, generic attempt at humor at the bottom of page 213 – a dad joke. The book has many preliminary pages that don’t seem terribly relevant before getting to his main complaint sections (begins page 125). The oversized book also has a strange printing format: the letter size is too large, and the sentence lines are double spaced or near it. The book could easily be half the size it is with a corrected lettering and spacing; maybe one-third size. The dimensions are also unnecessarily large (7x10x1).

After making it sound like archaeology for the Bible has been badly discredited on pages 124, 156, 158-9, Joshua writes: “No longer do biblical archaeologists dig ‘with a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other.’ Archaeologists have stopped basing their excavations on the biblical texts ..” (page 382). However, ABR might have something to say about that. The Associates for Biblical Research quarterly magazine is titled Bible and Spade (emphasis on BIBLE AND SPADE). While I disagree with ABR in several areas, they do seem to nullify Bowen’s echoed statement, which sounds all-encompassing for biblical archaeologists. Some (or more) biblical archaeologists do dig with a Bible and a spade. They currently have excavations going on in Shiloh (central Israel).

Bowen focuses in part on Canaanite child sacrifices in his book for an example of the Bible not matching discoveries. He maintains evidence for it is in the 1st millennium BC, from the 7th-1st centuries BC and outside Canaan (pages 134-5, 137, 158, 382; also Vol. 2, page 236). The Bible has child sacrifice as a reason for the conquest of Canaan c. 1400 BC, in the 2nd millennium. Actually, evidence of child sacrifice was found at Jericho (which is inside Canaan) as noted by excavator Kenyon, contrary to Bowen (etc); not sure what date is assigned to it, but it is pre-conquest and pre-1st millennium BC. She writes, “.. there is an unpleasant suggestion of infant sacrifices, for beneath a curious bath-like structure of mud-plaster there is, besides one complete infant burial, a collection of infant skulls with the neck vertebrae attached, showing that the heads were cut off and not merely collected from burials” ( - Digging Up Jericho, 1957, page 72; by Kathleen Kenyon). But, Kenyon made a curious and key error when she dated Jericho outside the time of the Biblical descriptions. TIME summarizes: “.. Kenyon established in the 1950s that while the ancient city [Jericho] was indeed destroyed, it happened around 1550 B.C., some 150 years before Joshua could have shown up. But archaeologist Bryant Wood .. claims that Kenyon was wrong. Based on a re-evaluation of her research, which was published in detail only recently, Wood says that the city’s walls could have come tumbling down at just the right time to match the biblical account … Kenyon’s dating of Jericho’s destruction was based largely on the fact that she failed to find a type of decorative pottery, imported from Cyprus, that was popular in the region around 1400 B.C. Its absence, she reasoned, meant that the city had long since become uninhabited. But Wood, an ancient-pottery expert now at the University of Toronto, argues that Kenyon’s excavations were made in a poorer part of the city, where the expensive imported pottery would have been absent in any case. And he says that other pottery, dug up in Jericho in the 1930s, was common in 1400 B.C. Except for the disputed dating, Kenyon’s discoveries at Jericho were largely consistent with the Bible story … she found that the city’s walls had fallen in a way suggestive of sudden collapse … Moreover, Kenyon found bushels of grain on the site. That is consistent with the Bible’s assertions that Jericho was conquered quickly. If the city had capitulated after a long siege, the grain would have been used up. A thick layer of soot at the site, which according to radioactive carbon-14 dating was laid down about 1400 B.C., supports the biblical idea that the city was burned, not simply conquered. Finally, Egyptian amulets found in Jericho graves can be dated to around 1400 B.C. as well” ( - Time magazine, March 5, 1990, page 59).

Bowen maintains the Bible approves of child sacrifice to God on pages 133, 135-6, 158, pointing to Exodus 22:29-30. But, those verses do not say children were blood sacrifices, it’s simply pointing out the dedication. Earlier, Exodus 13:15 says the animals were blood sacrifices, but the children were not, they had a substitute payment; also Num. 18:15-7.

Bowen, on page 2, identifies a warfare in the Bible as genocide (for behavior, not biology). He briefly writes: “.. the call for mass genocide or forced relocation in the book of Joshua ..” But, Bowen also later agrees that part or most of these warfare texts are hyperbolic (does the atheist (etc.) nation know about this?): “.. there is clearly hyperbolic language in the Hebrew Bible – as throughout most of ancient Near Eastern literature … This could explain why, in certain passages, X group is said to be ‘completely wiped out,’ but the same group shows up again later in the text … there is little doubt that rhetoric and hyperbole are employed in the Old Testament conquest narratives ..” (Volume 2, pages 243-4, 248; also see 247). But, if it’s hyperbole that would mean people were not killed, and were allowed to live, which is not genocide. The Israelites were not trying to wipe out everyone, but rather to regain the land and contain the opposition.

Bowen sounds like he is trying to go so far as to partly blame the OT period for the U.S. Civil War some 3,000 years later on pages 303-4, 320, 384 (one proposed Exodus date is 1450 BC); he writes, “there is a significant amount of commonality in the apparent legal rationale used in deciding cases” (page 384), referring to “laws were set in place in an apparent attempt to curb the abuse of slaves … we would do well to remember that a very similar legal rationale in both periods [OT and America] resulted in the atrocities that we saw prior to the Civil War” (pages 303-4). But, he doesn’t explain how curbing abuse leads to atrocities or war, and there are key distinctions from OT law. And, is curbing abuse really that unique? Why would curbing abuse be a uniqueness to compare to American slavery? Ancient Roman law also “curbed abuse;” does that mean ancient Rome is partly to blame for the U.S. Civil War some 1,700 years later? Bowen seems to be reading into it something that isn’t there. Hezser notes that, “Roman law constantly vacillated between preserving the master’s authority and trying to curtail his cruelty towards slaves. A law of the first century CE stipulated that slaves were not supposed to be handed over to fight against wild beasts. According to an edict of the emperor Claudius, a master who killed his sick or weak slave was ‘liable to the charge of murder’ … Hadrian threatened with capital punishment anyone who castrated a slave … Antonius Pius is said to have gone further than his predecessors in his attempt to restrict undue cruelty toward slaves. He ruled that ‘whoever kills his slave without cause is to be punished no less than one who kills the slave of another’ ..” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005 Oxford University Press, page 206; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D., Chair/Professor of Jewish Studies, Trinity College, Dublin). In addition, various ancient nations had laws that “curbed abuse,” as well. Does that mean the ancient Near East can be partly blamed for the U.S. Civil War millennia later? Why is only the Bible singled out and slandered? “Within the various legal collections and royal edicts of the ancient Near East there are several laws and decrees that deal with the treatment and manumission of debt-slaves as well as various aspects of the institution of lending that was often responsible for debt-slavery … LH [Law of Hammurabi, c. 1760 BC] contains various legal precedents that attempted to curb some of the abuses prevalent in Babylon, including LH §§114-116, 117-119 … Similar laws can also be found in the Akkadian legal collection LE [Laws of Eshnunna] from Eshnunna (ca. 1790 BCE) and in MAL [Middle Assyrian Laws] (ca. 1450-1250 BCE) … there are various laws in LH that afforded certain rights to chattel-slaves (e.g., §§170-171) and prevented excessive penalties from being imposed upon them by their masters (i.e., §282)” ( - Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 1993, pages 55, 57, 145; by Gregory Chirichigno, Ph.D.)

Bowen attempts to show similarity with American and OT slave laws on pages 299, 300, 302. But, there is a glaring bypass from him. The American laws he quotes there allow killing a slave if it is for correction, but purposely killing a slave for correction was prohibited in OT law (Exo. 21:20; Bowen appears to admit this on page 287). He then summarizes the matter by omitting this key difference of murder allowed for correction in American law on pages 303-4. Also, fails to note U.S. law is race-based, unlike OT law.

Oddly enough, Joshua writes an entire separate book on OT slavery (Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?; see my 1-star review for 2nd edition), and then later strongly hints at his lack of qualifications to speak on the subject. He later writes in this series: “.. concerning slavery in the Old Testament .. I am simply a conduit to the actual biblical and ancient Near Eastern legal specialists ..” (Vol. 2, page 405). Bowen also previously mentions American slavery in his earlier book, but he seems to shy away from a connection with OT slavery. One gets the impression the two are not related (at least with U.S. practice/behavior). He writes: “.. I have found that people tend to automatically compare Old Testament slavery to the practice of slavery before the Civil War, or Antebellum slavery. This is often done to draw attention to the horrors of Antebellum slavery, which will then set the standard for the rest of our [social media] discussion. This will ‘muddy the waters’ in the discussion, as many people assume that when the word slavery is used, it must refer to the same practice that, for example, we see portrayed in movies set in the pre-Civil War era … While the mention of the word ‘slavery’ often conjures up images of that which was practiced in the Antebellum South (including kidnapping), as we have seen, slavery in the Hebrew Bible should be defined on its own terms, and need not require the kidnapping of others to be classified as ‘slavery’ ” ( - Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?, 2020, pages 14, 91).

For debt-slavery, the OT seems to be trying to get rid of it, not endorse it. Copan notes, “.. lifelong servanthood was prohibited, unless someone loved the head of the household and wanted to attach himself to him (Exod. 21:5) .. servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel … Israel’s servant laws were concerned about controlling or regulating – not idealizing – an inferior work arrangement .. The intent of these laws was to combat potential abuses, not to institutionalize servitude … Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-servitude .. debts were to be automatically canceled every seven years … The Ultimate Goal: No Poverty, No Servanthood (Deut. 15:1-18) … The overriding, revolutionary goal expressed in this text [Deut. 15:4, 7, 12] is to totally eradicate debt-servanthood in the land: ‘there will be no poor [and therefore no debt-servanthood] among you’ (v. 4). Being a realist, however, God was aware that inferior conditions would exist and that poverty (and thus servanthood) would continue in the land (v. 11). Even so, this undesirable situation was to be battled rather than institutionalized” ( - Is God A Moral Monster?, 2011, pages 126-9; by Paul Copan, Ph.D.). Hezser mentions, “Although the quantitative significance of slave labour in ancient Israel may have been relatively low when compared with other ancient societies, it is nevertheless noteworthy that the biblical authors repeatedly criticized the phenomenon of debt slavery. Slavery itself was taken for granted but the enslavement of a fellow-Israelite whose poverty had brought him into miserable circumstances which left him no choice but to sell himself, his wife, or his children was seen as abnormal and rejected by religious leaders” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005, page 300; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.).

For foreign slaves (chattel), “Only one law permits chattel slavery (Lev. 25:44-46a), and even this does not encourage it, but limits it to those outside the covenant community; residents of other countries and foreign residents in Israel. The law permits buying slaves, not kidnapping; so it concerns acquisition of those who are already slaves, or are offered by sale by their families, not forcible enslaving of free people … it is part of a longer law, the main point of which is to prohibit slavery for Israelites (vv. 39, 42-3, 46b)” ( - The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament, 2018 edition, page 14; by David L. Baker, Ph.D.). “.. an Israelite servant had ‘term limits’ of six years [Exo. 21:2; Deut. 15:1, 12], but for an alien servant, those restrictions didn’t apply … an employer (master) could not force fellow Israelites into permanent service; that had to be voluntary (Exod. 21:6). Because aliens couldn’t own land but could attach themselves to Israelite families, their permanent service was assumed” ( - Is God A Vindictive Bully?, 2022, page 182; by Paul Copan, Ph.D.). For war captives, slavery acted as an imprisonment since Israel did not have prisons/jails, to prevent insurrection (offensive war appears to have been limited mostly to reclaiming Canaan; Israel was not interested in conquering the world). This is a similar case for thieves, no jails, so they were enslaved to repay (Exo. 22:3).

“.. depersonalization – not to mention abuse – is commonly what we associate with the word ‘chattel.’ And if ‘chattel’ implies ‘no rights,’ ‘free to abuse,’ or ‘mere property rather than a dignified person,’ it flies in the face of the biblical vision .. (Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; ..) … Leviticus does not encourage acquiring foreign servants. The law only permits this … it is certainly a far cry from what Frederick Douglass experienced as ‘chattel’ ” ( - Is God A Vindictive Bully?, 2022, pages 175-6; by Paul Copan, Ph.D.). Bowen himself previously hints at this lack of a pure chattel: “Although slaves were often considered chattel .. this does not mean that they were merely subject to the whims of their master, to be treated in any way that the master saw fit … As we saw in the Hebrew Bible, slaves had certain rights, and there were limitations on how they could be treated … the slave had the right to be free from excessive beatings and outright abuse, and could not be killed with premeditation by the master” ( - Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?, 2020, pages 51, 174; by Joshua Bowen; cf. 2nd edition, pages 128-9, 133, 210).

Referring to Exo. 21:26-7, on pages 288-9 Bowen complains that a slave that is permanently damaged by the owner (a prohibited beating) doesn’t get to have the eye for eye retaliation (talionic retribution) on the owner, likening the OT to Laws of Hammurabi. While he quotes the Exodus verses on page 288, it’s curious that Bowen does not emphasize in these verses the slave becomes a free person as restitution for the damage. This is rather different from Hammurabi law – the slave’s “social status” does not change there. You would rather have the owner beaten and the slave remain a slave? Bowen complains that slaves are not treated the same as someone free, then he fails to emphasize the slave becomes someone free. Baker notes, “.. the Laws of Hammurabi, where a master is compensated for injury to his slave by a third party but nothing at all is said about compensation for the slave (§199). Here [in Exodus] the master himself is punished for abuse of his slave, because he forfeits a valuable piece of property, and the slave actually benefits much more than if the lex talionis were applied … the [ANE] laws concerning abuse are designed to compensate the master for loss or damage to his property. In the Old Testament, however, the laws emphasize that slaves are to be treated as persons – even if not on quite the same level as free citizens – and masters are to be punished ..” ( - Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 2009, pages 128-9; by David L. Baker, Ph.D.). “.. the lex talionis, .. its application in this case would only increase the master’s resentment against the slave. He would take revenge and torment the slave throughout his life so that the slave might even commit suicide. The biblical prescription to manumit the slave is considered preferable … the master loses the value and service of the slave; the slave receives freedom and becomes independent of his cruel master” ( - Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 2005, page 208; by Catherine Hezser, Ph.D.).

This is a shortened review due to space limit. See my slightly longer review on Amazon, 1-star section.

[Xavier Patiño]

This was a very thorough look at some the issues found within the bible. The chapters are setup in a way to ensure that the reader has a solid understanding of the more contentious parts of scripture. Bowen does a really good job at giving context, so that if the atheist finds himself in a debate with an apologist, the former can hold their own.

I found the audiobook tough to follow. There is a lot of information being thrown at you, and I couldn't keep up with a lot of it. Personally, I would go with the book instead so you can highlight/take notes etc. I'll have to revisit this one in the future.

[Jc · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first three chapters of this text make this must-read material for anyone interested in the Torah/Pentateuch, the origins of Judaism and/or Christianity, or the general history of the Ancient Near East. Atheist or believer, it doesn’t matter, the opening chapters are useful for a basic understanding of the events and people of the Near East ca. 3000-300 bce. The first chapter is a brief overview of the 5 books of the Torah told in a narrative form that helps explain the flow of the material. Chapter two is a basic (secular) history of the Ancient Middle East with enough detail to develop a framework of the influences on Hebraic society and writings up until Alexander and the development of the subsequent Hellenist world. The third chapter is a brief introduction to Classical and “Biblical” archaeology, explaining how we know what we know of the period, and the limits of that knowledge. The rest of the book addresses specific issues of debate between atheists and christian theists, and so these may not be of as much interest to a general audience as the first three chapters (which compose ~40% of the book).

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-reasearched and excellent writing. Great narration by Seth Andrews. I’m looking forward to reading the second volume.

[Darn Arckerman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Breezy read. Highlights are the broad strokes on ancient West Asia from early Sumer to Alexander.

The summary of the Torah is pretty useful too. Brought my attention to some areas I hadn’t taken much note of before: Moses’s fights with Amalek; the episode where the divine covenant with Abraham is sealed by a “smoking firepot with blazing torch” passing through a line of sacrificial animals cut into halves; the inconsistencies in the narratives of the great flood, the selling of Joseph into slavery, etc.

The section on the signs of pseudepigraphy (forgery) in the Book of Daniel is very useful, though not the most accessible treatment I’ve seen of the topic and doesn’t touch on “Danel” in Ezekiel and Ugarit, which is one of the more interesting angles to me.

The examinations of the construction of Jewish legend around another namesake of mine, Alexander, taught me a lot. The story I was told as a child about Alexander and the Jewish people seems to appear in written record first in Josephus, and Josephus actually describes Alexander’s reading the Book of Daniel and recognizing himself in the prophecies. The anachronism there is one of the pieces of evidence for the lack of veracity in Josephus’s story, since the Book of Daniel, at least as far as those prophecies are concerned, seems more likely to have been Maccabee historical fiction about the time of Ezekiel.

My main interest in Bowen is as an assyriologist, and I’d like to dig more into that side of his work. Might also check out Volume 2 of this series.

[Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book as an atheist Jew to understand more the core texts of the Jewish tradition from a more rationalist/academic perspective. Overall it was useful for that although the clear focus of the book is on the "Old Testament" as part of the broader Christan cannon and the way that Christians use and abuse the text. Nonetheless, a lot of the background info in this book is very interesting and it has a good introduction to the documentary hypothesis. I would say that some of the assyriology background in this book is a little gratuitous but was interesting nonetheless.

[Michael Sellers · Rating 5 out of 5]

I do wish this book had a different name so that it would have a wider appeal and be able to reach a wider audience. It is so fascinating and educational in a way that is accessible and easily understandable to people at all levels. I saw another review refer to Bowen’s style as gentle, and I don’t think there’s a better word for it. Having seen Bowen on YouTube/podcasts, I’ve heard him reference the fact that he’s a people pleaser and doesn’t want to upset others, which is evident in his approach to what could very easily be an inflammatory topic for some. The only part that I would change is the title as I am positive that many who call themselves Christians - the people who could stand to read this book the most - will never even think twice about ignoring a book titled “The ATHEIST Handbook” to anything, much less the Atheist’s guide to the Bible. Overall, fantastic book. Excited to read the second volume.

[Peter Kalin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a great reminder, one that just isn't taught all that well in American schools, that human civilization pre-dates the Bible by millennia, and that within that small region of the world in which the Bible took place, most if not all of the ideas, thoughts and laws within the 'great holy book' were stolen or borrowed from other cultures and countries. The writing is even-handed, fact based, has the consensus of the academy behind it as well as a deep knowledge of the world of the ancient Far East. I'm looking forward to the next chapter in the series.

[Brenton Swafford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! Joshua Bowen effectively highlights some of the major historical and archaeological errors of the Bible. This volume (Volume 1) deals with the origins of the Phillistines, the Exodus story, the forms in which slavery is condoned and encouraged in the Bible, and several of the failed prophecies which are often creatively reinterpreted to make them appear as if they actually succeeded. I was impressed by the level of insight and scholarly discipline that Joshua Bowen displayed in his writing.

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not just for atheists.

Fantastic introductory book to the study of biblical history as well a history and archeology in general! It reads very easily and is copiously referenced with an astounding bibliography that can serve as a great jumping off point to anyone who wants to dive more deeply into the subjects presented.

Overall a great resource for beginning to explore the scholarly consensus on biblical history and insight into why and how that consensus is reached.

[Tonya Breck · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this was very interesting, there were sections where it seemed to drag for me. That’s not a knock on the writing, it’s just a result of this not being right up my alley. Still, it was very much worth the read and I will be reading the second volume.

[Dave Darb · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I liked about this book:

- Old Testament recap from Creation to Moses was helpful for jogging my memory and even contextualizing events that I apparently didn't know as much about.

- The contradictions regarding the creation story (Genesis 1 and 2), the global flood (Genesis 6-9), and how Joseph got sold into slavery (Genesis 37) were good examples of why the Torah was not written by just one author:

Ex. After plotting to murder Joseph and throwing him into a pit, his brothers change plans when they see a caravan of Ishmaelites passing by. So instead of murdering him, they decide to sell him as a slave to the Ishmaelites - may as well make a profit. But suddenly, some "Midianite merchant men were passing by, and they pulled Joseph up out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites for 20 shekels of silver, and they brought Joseph to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28).”

So... a group of Midianites come along and pull Joseph out of the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites before the brothers can get back, apparently. But then it says:
“And the Midianites sold him to Egypt, to Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the head of the guards” (Genesis 37:36).

But didn't the Midianites come across Joseph in a pit in the desert and proceed to sell him to the Ishmaelite merchant caravan? Now the story has the Midianites selling Joseph to Egypt, directly to Potiphar, as a slave? Then in Genesis 39:1, we read:
“Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, where Potiphar . . . had purchased him from the Ishmaelites who brought him down there”.

So was he sold into slavery by Ishmaelites, Midianites… both?
“In verses 25-27, the brothers agree to sell him to Ishmaelites. But in verse 28, Midianite traders come by and pull Joseph up out of the pit. So who sells him to the Ishmaelites? Is he even sold to the Ishmaelites? The NIV translates verse 28: “So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28). However, the original Hebrew makes no mention of the brothers; it says: “And Midianite men who were merchants passed by and they pulled and lifted up Joseph from the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites...” (Genesis 37:28).

Anyway, that's just one example. There is also the story of Bethel, Moses' father-in-law, and the Pentateuch's laws on slavery that reveal inconsistencies. Rather than insist that Moses alone wrote these books, these contradictions make more sense when we see that these are different versions of the same narratives that got amalgamated (or one main story with redactions/revisions by others). Even with the Joseph example, there's more to be said, but just like the New Testament, it's important to read these ancient texts critically through a historical lense. Doing so will reveal the fact that the book of Daniel did not actually prophesize anything, or that Eziekel 26's prophecy failed. Naturally, apologists can propose theological explanations or solutions to alot of these contradictions, but at the end of the day, many of these border on mental gymnastics. As Joshua Bowen puts it: "Can the contradictions in the Joseph story be reconciled? Maybe. A better question is, should they be?"

We should always be looking for the most probable explanation when it comes to these texts, rather than starting off presupposing that they are inerrant. If archaeology and history are done only to vindicate the Bible's truth and with the presupposition that the Bible has to be true, then that's not real scholarship.

[Amy NoLastName · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is carefully researched and even more carefully written. No matter your background knowledge, it is informative. If Chapter 1 is more of a recap for you, it's still helpful to have someone lay out the story with very little commentary and no major counter-arguments (in this section).

The chapter on Daniel was probably my favorite, because I hadn't been aware of how much data went into dating Daniel. Bowen does a fantastic job of explaining it. This is something that I've found lacking in some of the other books I've read on historicity of the Bible. Many of the books I've read have asked me to accept the analysis of experts at face value. I have no issues with accepting the consensus view on most topics, but I'm reading these books because I'm interested. And I feel a bit betrayed when someone cites (for example) sources tracing directly back to the person of Jesus, and it turns out they are referring to the hypothesized Q source. And Q - in turn - is based on textual analysis using methods that haven't been described to me.

So it was refreshing to read a book on the dating of Daniel that discusses the specific grammar, words and even characters that have gone into the analysis for Daniel. It was refreshing to read his analysis of where and when Daniel is historically inaccurate, and to use clear analogies that outline the logic behind the conclusions. And to then bring all of the separate analyses together and discuss the weight they bring as a whole to the consensus opinion.

It may be surprising, considering the title, but it's also clear that Bowen has done the work to clearly and fully examine the critical assumptions that go into this work. As such, he doesn't make some of the definitive claims you see in these spaces. He has no issues with allowing for uncertainty where the evidence requires it. He has no problem accurately portraying the strongest apologist arguments. And I don't have to worry that he's summarizing someone else's work with his own slant, because he includes full quotations from other experts within the text of the chapter.

He structures his chapters so that his points are clear and easy to follow. I will admit that - at times - the "here's what I'm going to explain, [meat of the argument], here's what we just covered" structure can be a bit repetitive. But it means that none of his points are lost, and the narrative structure of his arguments are made very clear. And it made this a very easy read.

I'm looking forward to the second volume.

[Alexey · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and fairly detailed excursion into the historical context in which the books of the Old Testament were written—especially for a popular-level book. While it positions itself as a kind of guide for internet debates, it's engaging to read even without a debater’s zeal.

Some chapters focus on biblical studies, where the author discusses the scholarly consensus on dating, interpretation, sources, and other aspects of various Old Testament books. He not only highlights contradictions and inconvenient points for apologists but also simply explains how things are understood in academic circles.

Other chapters provide a concise historical overview of the Near East during the periods when the Old Testament was written, with a particular emphasis on the history of the Israelites and, especially, Mesopotamia. The information is dense and plentiful, though not all of it is directly related to the Bible.

Overall, the title is somewhat misleading. It’s clear that the author aimed to pack a large amount of information into a single book, offering a brief but solid introduction to his field of study for interested non-specialists. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to those who just want to argue, as in the good old days of internet atheism (which I don’t think is all that relevant anymore). Instead, it’s better suited for those who, for whatever reason and regardless of their brief in Good, want to read about the Old Testament as a literary and historical monument—without apologetic attempts to force coherence where there is none. In that regard, the book is very engaging.

[Brian Pond · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book with a lot of information that does what it intends to do, which is give the atheist or skeptic background knowledge of the ancient Near East with which to better understand the context of the Bible. The author is clearly very knowledgeable about the subject matter. My only complaint is that I wish a few more topics/inconsistencies/common arguments had been addressed rather than such an extensive amount of time spent belaboring and rehashing points long after they’ve been made. I found myself several times thinking, “Ok, yep, I get it. We covered that point already.” and having to consciously resist the urge to skip ahead in the audio (my love for Seth and The Thinking Atheist also helped quell that compulsion). I understand Dr. Bowen’s desire to thoroughly cover the topic and make a solid argument for both the sake of factfulness and to best equip his audience, but it did become a little tedious at times. The chapter “Tired of Tyre” is very appropriate because I was super tired of hearing about the failed prophecy against Tyre. You can be sure I won’t forget that Tyre fell to Alexander and definitively NOT Nebuchadnezzar!
Overall, this is an excellent book, and I’m looking forward to Vol. 2. As a resource for a skeptic looking to validate their skepticism in the Bible’s veracity, I would recommend this only after other more broad resources such as The God Delusion or the podcast Dragons in Genesis. For a confident atheist looking to dig (much) deeper into a few specifics and contradictions, this is your jam.

[Jeremiah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've found it, I've found the best atheist book! (Unless volume 2 proves to be even better). In addition to being well-argued and rigorously researched, the book is just plain fascinating. I was educated from beginning to end. The chapter on Biblical Archaeology is an example. I knew almost nothing about archaeology going in, not even that an archaeological site is called a tell. So it was very instructive. This applies as well to the chapter on The History of the Ancient Near East. As for the actual parts on the inaccuracies and evils in the Bible, they're excellent. The evidence that the Bible supports slavery and never repudiates it, that there are failed prophecies in the Bible, and so on, is overwhelming. Assyriologist Josh Bowen, who has done actual archaeology in the Near East, has a steady hand, writing directly, courteously, and simply. This book strengthened and informed my atheism. I would not only recommend it to other atheists but to any open-minded Christian who is up for a challenge. I also appreciated that this book has by far the largest typeface and widest margins I have seen in any book for adults, let alone any academically inclined book. It made reading easier and invited underlining and marginalia. This is, of course, a costly way to go and it was greatly appreciated. Volume two waits for me on my shelf already and I am very happy with that decision. These five stars are among the most enthusiastic I have ever given.

[Piotr · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament: Vol 1 [audiobook] by Joshua Bowen

(1.5⭐) I was very excited to dig in to this audiobook. However I have finished after first 1.5 hour of it. I think the title is misleading. In that short of the time, I have realised it is more of ex-Christian that still unknowingly holds to some of the Christian views. From the start this work irritating me grately as it was leaning heavily more towards Christian apologists than actual critical thinking. While the argument that people should educate themself on the topic is not without a merit, I'm not sure it should be just aimed at atheists. It is not necessary to experience or understand any faith to critique it, especially on controversial topics the author mentions e.g. slavery etc. Annoyingly so after that intro, the next chapter was just retelling the old Testament stories in short without stopping to really dig or uncover deeper meaning in anything. I mean otherwise I'd rather read the Bible that retelling of the stories. Very quickly I have realised it wasn't a book for me. I expected someone who'd be more critical of the work, its origin, traditional or original meaning of words, expressions, misinterpretation and how it related to customs of the times it was written etc.

Not sure it is a work for an atheist but more for a Bible fan who is not necessarily a (true) believer.

[Boscopup · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is intended to give an overview of the Old Testament up to the death of Moses and explain what current scholarship says about this section and a couple other areas based on the data that we have from the Bible itself, extra-Biblical sources, and archeology. While the audience is atheists, it would be useful to Christians as well. He deals with some of the apologetic solutions to contradictions, failed prophecy of Tyre, the dating of Daniel, and the general issue of slavery (which he wrote an entire book about). This was a thorough and honest overview of the topics included, well sourced. A lot of attention is given to internal contradiction and looking at each story in the context of the Bible and the context of the culture. Surrounding cultures are included, which are often ignored in apologetics (for example, the Law of Hammurabi has many similar laws to those in the Law of Moses). Coming from a conservative Christian church that believed in inerrancy, I knew the Bible stories very well but wasn't aware of some of the historical and archeological data that exist - the things often overlooked by apologists.

Sometimes parts of the book felt a bit repetitive, but at the same time, there's so much meat that maybe that repetition was needed.

[ElenTikvah (Lea Coville) · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is rare that I pick up a book because of the narrator - I think I could listen to Seth Andrews read the phone book! - and surprisingly discovered a book dealing with the Christian Old Testament in similar vein to Bart Ehrman with the Christian New Testament.

For someone raised cutting my teeth on Christian apologetics, and having read the Bible through multiple times during my life, and specifically focused on various portions on the Christian Old Testament as I pursued my life-long interest in Judiasm - I was happily surprised to learn more historical context to the texts that I have studied through my young/early adulthood. Additionally, I was so glad to have an objective, rationale view of these stories and the scholarly historical context - no "angry atheists" here, thank goodness!

This is a book that I will probably purchase a paper-copy for more detailed reading, notations, highlights, etc.

Rating 4/5 stars "really liked it"
11 hrs and 39 mins / ~425 pages
Audiobook

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really don’t like the title of this book. On the one hand, it feels like it will turn a lot of people away. But then again, it would possibly be lost in a sea of similar inferior books otherwise.

Regardless, this is a much needed series for religious and irreligious alike.

Even though I consider myself a skeptic, a lot of articles and other resources from the skeptic community can often be flippant with the Bible.

I remember reading some excerpts from some “atheist” study bibles that were often very ignorant of the Bible, its culture, and common apologetical responses to criticisms.

This remedies that.

Here is someone that has studied much of the data in question, and most of all, is careful with it.

Make no mistake, it is critical in its outlook. Religious will find its conclusions challenging, but not mean spirited.

Some others may find it tedious, but it is dealing with needed background. It does come across as a resource, but is also very readable.

I’d recommend getting a print version for the above reasons as well, though the audible version is easy to follow.

[Peter Keenan · Rating 5 out of 5]

a great insight.

Josh clearly explains the intricacies of the Old Testament with actual history scholarly insight and an appreciation of archeological techniques, so one can be grounded in the facts verses the fables.

The churches never want this to be known by the lay person hoping to deliver a one sided biased story. Thank goodness for critical thinking and a free society to permit this to be challenged. Good people will always ask hard questions and want good answers. Here it is.

[Frank Clark · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a very informative read. It starts out well enough, however it quickly becomes as dry as the arid deserts of the Middle East. It can get quite repetitive, which makes for a struggle to maintain focus. I applaud Bowen for taking on such a task and delving deep into not only some of the glaring inconsistencies of the bible, but of countering arguments posited by apologists. I just wish it could have been an easier read. I'm very interested in Volume 2, but I honestly don't know if I have the patience.

[Benny Hinrichs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Bowen lays out the data on consensus scholarship excellently. It was nice to have an overview of extra-biblical history from the area, which I wasn't very clear on before. I'd have to go over that chapter a few more times to let the details really sink in. It's crazy that we have thousands of tablets from the 2000's BCE, but almost nothing from Israel during the reign of the kings or before. I'd definitely pick up the book if it's a topic that you find intriguing.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like the idea of this book and enjoy Dr. Bowen on Youtube. I think the information in this book is great too, but as can happen when reading topics based on history with cultures unfamiliar to the reader, names and other things can be thrown in the book without proper context or background info. Overall, the book's information is very good but the editing and writing could be better. Definitely worth a read for any atheist and christians interested learning about the Old Testament.

[عبد الله القصير · Rating 2 out of 5]

لا أقول أنني لم استمتع بقراءة الكتاب لكن طوله جعلني أمل بعض فصوله. هو كتاب استرشادي وضعه المؤلف لمساعدة الملحيدين في نقاشاتهم مع المسيحيين عن الكتاب المقدس. عندما تدخل في نقاشات في موضع حساس ثم يكون خصمك ألم منك بموضوعه، ترى نفسك مرتبك حتى مع قناعتك بأفكارك. هذا الكتاب يساعد الملحد بأن لا يكون في هذا الموقف، عن طريق إعطاءه مجموعة من التناقضات التاريخية بالتوراة ثم شرحها وشرح الخلفية التاريخية لها.

[Michael David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be considered a primer for academic analysis not only of the Old Testament, but also the ancient Near East. While not exhaustive by any means, it provides a solid foundation for the reader to further examine and research these subjects with a critical eye and emphasis on academic consensus from those who have study the field in an attempt to further our knowledge-- not confirm our own biases.