The Value of Reading Bad Books

I am presently reading Kenneth C. Davis' Don't Know Much About the Bible and it is fascinating. It is also very flawed. I have read a couple other books by Davis in the Don't Know Much series and thought they were great. The first was on American History and the second on the Civil War and he has many others. Davis is a historian, but he is certainly no theologian. I have enjoyed many aspects of the book that present broad historical pictures, discuss life in ancient times and make connections that are not always obvious. Unfortunately, Davis seems to be set on attacking the infallibility of the Bible in ways that can be misleading to the casual reader. To Davis, differences in the Bible usually equal contradictions. Other times, he points out problems in the Bible that can be solved simply by going to the original languages if he had only taken the time. Davis also regularly refers to a divide between historical truth and faith which is to say that many things in the Bible are not historically true, but are to be believed by faith. This is not what the Bible was intended to be. It seems to me that Davis must have relied heavily on some very liberal theologians and historians who were eager to assist in the attacks on the infallibility of the Bible. I, personally, have no problem with people asking honest questions and raising doubts about the Bible. If it is true, then it should stand up to our toughest questions. However, when a historian writes "Many scholars think..." or "It is widely accepted that..." and then presents an argument that is based on the work of a relatively few liberal minds, I think it is dangerous, unconvincing and ultimately less than honest.

Because of this, I am also reading The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (May 22 , 1916 – April 27 , 2004) Dr. Archer taught for 30 years on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism. He graduated from Harvard majoring in classics which gave him training in Latin, Greek, French and German, and then in seminary he majored in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. He also studied and taught elective courses in Syriac and Akkadian and later studied Coptic and Sumerian. He also went to law school and was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar. This was a man who knew his stuff and knew how to think! I am so glad that he loved Jesus.

It is fascinating to read Davis and understand what the modern (somewhat liberal) scholarship position is on many biblical issues. It is even more fascinating to read somebody like Archer essentially responding to the liberals with thoughtful, reasoned explanations from an expert of the highest order. This has been such an enlightening experience for me. It would be very easy to lose faith in the infallibility of the Bible by just reading a historical analysis like Davis', but it is very reassuring to read a brilliant scholar like Archer defend inerrancy so convincingly.

I have greatly enjoyed this study of history and biblical inerrancy and highly recommend something like this to others. There is great benefit from reading books like Davis' to gain greater understanding of the context of the Bible and the cultures in which it was written. But it is even more benenficial to have Archer in the other hand to provide answers to questions that Davis raises and to defend the Bible.