How God Became God: What Scholars Are Really Saying About God and the Bible

by Richard M. Smoley

This epic, thrilling journey through Bible scholarship and ancient religion shows how much of Scripture is historically false--yet the ancient writings also resound with theologies that crisscrossed the primeval world and that direct us today toward a deep, inner, authentic experience of the truly sacred.From a historical perspective, the Bible is shockingly, provably wrong--a point supported by today's best archaeological and historical scholarship but not well understood by (or communicated to) the public. Yet this emphatically does not mean that the Bible isn't, in some very real measure, true, argues scholar of mysticism Richard Smoley. Smoley reviews the most authoritative historical evidence to demonstrate that figures such as Moses, Abraham, and Jesus are not only unlikely to have existed, but bear strong composite resemblances to other Near Eastern religious icons. Likewise, the geopolitical and military events of Scripture fail to mesh with the largely settled historical time line and social structures. Smoley meticulously shows how our concepts of the Hebrew and Christian God, including Christ himself, are an assemblage of ideas that were altered, argued over, and edited--until their canonization. This process, to a large degree, gave Western civilization its consensus view of God. But these conclusions are not cause for nihilism or disbelief. Rather, beneath the metaphorical figures and mythical historicism of Scripture appears an extraordinary, truly transcendent theology born from the most sacred and fully realized spiritual and human insights of the antique Eastern world. Far from being "untrue," the Bible is remarkably, extraordinarily true as it connects us to the sublime insights of our ancient ancestors and points to a unifying ethic behind many of the world's faiths.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, History

317 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 7, 2016

Reviews

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smiley takes an interesting and unconventional approach to the Bible. This is not the book for those who take the Bible literally, but for those who are willing to consider differing points of view this is a well-written book.

[Maggie Holmes · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read -- and purchased for the library -- this book thinking it would mostly be about how the early Hebrew god became what we now think of us as the One True God. Some of the chapters dealt with this and gave me some new information to mull over.
Once it started talking more about Jesus and Paul I lost interest because I've read enough about those subjects and in more depth.
The writer presented many different points of view on each topic and then gave his opinion about which is most likely if it could be decided. Many times it can't be decided. There just isn't enough information.
It was a relatively easy read, but probably won't convince many people one way or the other.

[Connie · Rating 3 out of 5]

FTC Disclosure: I received this book free from Goodreads hoping I would review it.

[Nick · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked this up knowing it was going to be bad. Knowing that this book wasn't worth the time, and I only read about 30-40 pages before shrugging and just being done.

The author never proves a point. He has no evidence for anything he suggests, anything he asserts, or any claims he makes. All of his claims are, "experts believe . . ." or "as the majority of scholars agree . . ." my favorite, "educated people understand. . ."

This is a toothpaste commercial where 9/10 scholars believe that this author has found the correct answer to everything.

It's maddening, that people who like this book allow him to get away with faulty logic, circular reasoning, or appeals to authority that he himself has not researched or discovered. He hasn't engaged in the actual dialogue and debate of the Bible, hasn't read or understood current understandings of how the Bible was written, and couldn't even be bothered to google search his own claims to see what comes up.

There is evidence of a historical David. In fact, archaeology has proven the ancient texts to be the single most reliable sources in the world. The author is expecting empirical science to answer only what historical science can give.

His arguments are all old, trite, and shallow. Any undergrad can pitch these to Frank Turek at Cross Examined and have three or four answers. These are problems that have been addressed for centuries and are not new revelations.

This author is welcome to disagree with biblical scholars, but he might try engaging with them. All of his sources are flimsy at best. Most are from the 90's at the latest, and several are simply quotes he has taken from other fiction novels that would have far more issues with their writing than the Bible.

Anyone agreeing with this book . . . phew, I recommend a course in remedial logic because unsubstantiated claims and a total lack of evidence for any of his points are kind of a big deal. Appeals to the masses does not make something right, nor do appeals to a mysterious shadowy "they" who know everything and agree with this author. The man even refused to give his own credentials in the introduction.

This guy is not a Christian. He does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, and his argument is a fairly standard depiction of liberalism and post-modernism. There are a ton of these liberal theologians and they are a very sad lot.

After the 30 pages I read I had four pages worth of notes for everything this author had incorrect or hadn't developed. I'm not a Biblical Scholar, but even I knew enough to note these:


Introduction:
In what way is Taoism and Confucianism the most sane religions?

The protestant reformation was opposed to many of the Catholic issues, but the final straw was indulgences. Realize, of course, that Martin Luther never intended to start the reformation.
Claims that Moses isn’t literal history is pretty big without any scientific evidence.
Using modern publications to prove what happened 2000 years ago is rarely a good idea. Sounds like he needs to read his Bible and engage those arguments, not what someone thinks now.
In what world does he think the US is inundated by people who know their Bible too well? Biblical illiteracy is an absolute joke.

His lack of objectivity is simply leading him to see the path he wants to see. He presents no logical arguments, or factual evidence, simply dredges up ideas that have been disproven for centuries.
WOW! Your modern evidence is words from an Episcopalian minister, as quoted in the Huffington Post.
His quote here implies that Fundamental Christians say and believe the same thing, while liberal Christians are hypocrites . . .

Seminary in no way showed me the “problems with the historical Jesus and Moses” that is simply a garbage statement without any backing.

The argument that the majority must know the truth is a huge flaw in thinking. Just because a bunch of lousy pastors have the wrong worldview, doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong.
The Old Testament facts were there far before the Greeks and Romans got bored with their gods. This is another nonsensical argument? Who is arguing the Bible shouldn’t be read literally? Only liberals.

Here it is! The old Darwin proved the earth is older argument. Oh No! Now all of Christianity must crumble because of ideas from 200 years ago that have never been observed, evaluated, or should even be taken as science. No Christian scholar has ever encountered these ideas before!
David and Solomon never existed! Jerusalem was a small hill town, there is no proof of a magnificent temple . . . these are the arguments you’re headlining here? All claims without any backing or evidence, just items that should be taken for granted. Where is your proof, sir?
Archaeology is a relatively new science, and you are demanding proof of stuff that happened more than 4000 years ago in an area that has seen constant habitation for as long as humans have existed. This is absurd. So, if you can’t find archaeological proof immediately, then it must be myth and legend? History is researched and studied through other means as well . . . including historical documents.

Not to mention, you are completely cherry-picking which evidence you want to see. First, I do believe evidence for David and Solomon exists (a Google search reveals that yes, there is in fact archaeological evidence for David), on top of which, there is proof positive evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as Noah’s ark. You’ve simply chosen to reinterpret the evidence in a manner you’d like to see.

Is this author a Christian? No. The answer he is looking for here, is no. In fact, it would appear he has no authority to write on any of these issues, has studied them very little if at all, and is only interested in a morality without any grounding as to why one must be moral.
All of his books are liberalism hiding behind a religious veneer.

References:
I looked through his references in the back . . . I am by no means the leading expert, and I do not claim to know all the sources, but it would appear like some rather large sources are missing. Wayne Grudem wrote the Systematic Theology book accepted in many seminaries (and I’ve been led to believe he is a Charismatic and might even agree with some of his points), Norm Geissler wrote hundreds of scholarly books before he passed, Frank Turek, Ken Ham, Eric Metaxes, Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis, F.F. Bruce, Warren Wiersbe, John MacArthur, Nabeel Quereshi, Augustine, Aquinas . . . These are names off the top of my head, and are all suspiciously absent from his references. Did he engage with anyone with a differing viewpoint?

All of his references appear to have been within the last . . . 30 years (that’s 1990), and most appear from liberal sources at best. These are hardly “leading scholars” especially when you can’t even be bothered to engage with someone who would disagree with you. And that's if you can tell where he is using his sources. It would appear like none of his evidence/arguments/statements are from his sources. Most of his sources are for out of context quotes or even fictional works . . .

Chapter one:
A lot of this appears to be ad hominem based. “The educated world believes . . .” Implying that if you don’t believe you are uneducated, and taking for granted arguments that his book should be trying to prove. His arguments are based on arguments that he needs to prove and should not simply be taken at face value because he says, “educated people believe . . .” Which should also create the argument of what it means to be educated? People with degrees? Pumped through liberal colleges so they can spew whatever humanism they’ve been indoctrinated with.

Sounds a lot like Hinduism/mysticism that ultimately leads to self-worship. Our experiences are the ultimate reality. Wow! His history of religion has no proof or historical grounds. For a dude demanding evidence of David (because he refuses to Google) this was a huge stretch.

Moses, Christ, and Mohammed are not only vastly different examples of revelation, but they teach some pretty different ideas. Lumping the three together reveals how little you know.

Ultimately, his spirit as ground water argument is an argument for there being no god, at the most it is an impersonal force.

The game of telephone is a real problem. Maybe study how we got the Bible, and if the Bible is reliable. Honestly, it is more reliable than any other source you’ve quoted so far. Do you have any proof of this being the case? “This distortion is beyond question” then prove it. The only ones left believing are bigots and fanatics. WOW! This guy is super objective.

You realize, in this entire chapter, he used 5 sources. In a chapter where he disproves the existence of God, he uses 5 sources, 2 of them works of fiction.

Chapter 2

Why is the Hebrew Bible from Nazi Germany the most authoritative and best? He makes these statements without any evidence or backing.

I’m still struggling with the comment that Americans are attached to their Bibles. Maybe 60 years ago, and even then, I’d question it.

Does he really expect people to be shocked that the Bible is 66 different books put together? Like . . . that is shocking . . . to people he claims are attached to the Bibles. I’ve heard before that Jonah can be read as satire, but that doesn’t change the book . . . at all. Calling it satire doesn’t disprove the book, the minor prophets, or the history of Jonah. And adding the word “actually” doesn’t make your argument correct.

I’ve seen these arguments about Moses not having written the first five books. The problem is the total lack of evidence, you are working off the assumption that “Moses couldn’t be the author” because you don’t like that answer, but you have no evidence for what you are claiming, and no evidence to support your side. You don’t like the evidence presented, so you create an answer that better fits what you want it to be.

Where does it get history wrong? He still hasn’t provided any examples. On top of that, how many cultures’ founding documents are filled with all the horrible stuff their founders did? The books you claim lack any historical evidence spend much of their time revealing how horrible their people are, discussing their time in slavery, and focus on a small family of pilgrims and shepherds. What exactly is the historical record distorting or hiding to benefit Israel which undoubtedly exists and came from somewhere?

Even the easy stuff to explain isn’t explained. How are you dating these documents? You’re not a few years off, you are dating these things millenniums after when they are claiming to be written. Like 3000 years after they are claimed.

He offers no proof of his claim! Archaeology doesn’t prove the Bible, but he offers no proof of that, he just makes the statement, then repeats the claim in the slightly different way. Archaeology has repeatedly proved the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. They’ve found Sodom and Gomorrah. They’ve found cities discussed, and markings naming people the Bible names. The Hittites are a famous example. There are multiple examples of Archaeology proving the Bible, but he is arguing that because we don’t have whatever specific evidence he wants, it never existed. He’s not only wrong, but obviously and empirically wrong.

“Scholars on the whole,” “Scholars believe” etc. etc. these are appeals to authority, except the authority is some mystical unknown entity. What scholars? Who? Quiet frankly, you don’t even connect your end notes with these statements so I could backtrack who said these things. Anyone can say anything at that rate.

Paul never claims to know Jesus personally. In fact, his transformation is a key moment in acts, and the fact that Paul is a believer at all shoots everything you are saying full of holes. Paul is the one person who had no incentive to believe in Christ.

Why does the Talmud have more weight than the Torah?

The final form of the Hebrew Bible had to be before 100AD because the Septuagint already existed. I’m not even a Biblical Scholar, and I’ve read enough F.F. Bruce to know you don’t know what you are talking about. The Apocrypha has never been taken as scripture, always as good history and good information, but never on the same level as revelation.

The canon was known long before 367. This is a tired and old argument that has been refuted for centuries. Jerome, Origin, even Polycarp has writings that name most of the scriptures. This was the first time they are all listed out, but that doesn’t mean it is the first time they were recognized as scripture.



This was after a mere 30 pages, and it became apparent this guy had nothing new to offer.

Seriously, look up Frank Turk and Cross Examined he answers all of these issues on a daily basis.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

>> An in depth compilation of scholarly research on the bible that can easily be digested by layman. A great guide for those who are thirty for the facts about the holy book and a great reminder for our religious friends on the true purpose of religions.

Summary:
Have you ever wondered how Christianity has changed since the crucifixion of Jesus? Or why there are many controversial and contradicting biblical texts?

Smoley's immense knowledge in the history of Christianity brings me into a journey to understand the true purpose of spirituality and religion. He cited all works that are done by other scholars from different schools of thought without showing much bias for or against Christianity. His comparison of different texts from different gospels shines light on many human errors that occured when the early Christians compiled them. Other problems, such as translation error, theological intervention and influence from different culture, are also comprehensively exposed by this book. The meaning behind the Book of Revelation, the worship of the Virgin Mary and the nature of Christ are some of the issues that are explored.

Nevertheless, Smoley is not an ignorant liberal who is anti-religion. In fact, he encourages the research into the spiritual realm and encourage all his religious readers to try understand their religion beyond its literal teaching. The bible may be an imperfect guide but Jesus and Paul actually have great advice on how to be spiritually enlightened. After all, he confesses that he bought a bible for his daughter as a gift in the early chapters.

The best takeaway from this book is Smoley's reminder that while "humanity is not the center of the universe... humanity is the center of our universe." When we look beyond the literal meaning of religions, the spiritual teachers or prophets guide us to love our neighbours and be someone who is bigger than ourselves.

ps. This book is challenging for those who are not familiar with the common biblical narratives, like the exodus or nativity.

[Danny M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'll give this book the benefit of the doubt that I was not its target audience, but I DNFed less than halfway through, which was disappointing. Chapter 1, which the author spent trying to justify the existence of a higher power (for the reader's sake? I think this entire chapter was extraneous), made me think this was directed more towards questioning/open-minded Christians who are already religious. I am not a theist personally, but I am very interested in religion, which is why I picked up this book. I found its discussion of the nature and existence of God to be not only reductive (almost wholly described in analogy and anecdote), but irrelevant to what I thought this book was going to be: a scholarly, academic breakdown of the historical contexts in which the books contained in the Bible arose, the historical context of the Bible itself (the development of recognized canon, translations, authorial disputes, etc.), and the uncertainties surrounding. Once it finally did get to that portion, the actual information included was vague, speculative, and in some cases just incorrect. I was hoping for something more meaty. I am no stickler for the sanctity of the Bible as a religious text, but I am a stickler for reliable, specific citations and data in academic works. I think this book failed on both fronts.
There was one section in Chapter 1 that almost made me drop it right away: "'Everybody knows in their bones that something is eternal, and that something has to do with human beings' ... There is no need to elaborate on it. But is it true? I strongly suspect that you know it's true. For one thing, you are reading this book."
A strange assumption to make. I, for one, do not know for certain that there is something eternal, and if there is, I don't see why it should have anything to do with human beings specifically. And if you're going to make that claim, you certainly ought to elaborate on it, since it is not as self-evident of a truth as you had assumed.

[Shannon · Rating 2 out of 5]

the worst bible history i’ve ever read. seriously, read any other, you’ll be better off. this author has an esoteric understanding of christianity and has never engaged in orthodoxy— that’s fine, but he shows this bias by writing off christian fundamentals because he doesn’t understand them; ie, the bodily resurrection, the concept of jesus dying for our sins. rather than try to explain the catholic explanation of these core concepts, he portrays the church as ignorant and intentionally misrepresentative.

he also handwaves popular and well supported scholarly concepts like romans viewing jesus as a political insurgent. he innocently asks us, what is political about ethical teachings? without giving any context of this time period in which there were frequent jewish revolts, the coming of a messiah signifying a war effort to defeat the jews’ enemies, and how the prospect of the apocalypse emboldened jews to revolt. you cannot teach new testament history without this context. “if [jesus] was really worried about the end of the world, why was he so concerned about ethical teachings?” this has to be intentionally ignorant. a laymen simply reading the bible with basic knowledge of the final judgement could answer this.

in trying to cover such a large amount of material in a short book, this reads far more as an opinion piece instead of a history, and if you are new to this topic you will walk away misinformed.

[Malzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book wasn’t as technical or detailed as I was expecting, however it’s a decent overview of a variety of perspectives on the topic. If scholarly books on the topic are too meaty, this is a decent alternative to dip one’s toes into the many different views and noteworthy academic consensus (+ there’s the authors personal beliefs mentioned which I appreciated at some times and didn’t care for at others)

[Melissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

It started out interesting and informative when speaking of the Hebrew Bible but once he introduced Jesus his Christian bias started showing as far as objectivity was concerned. I honestly would not recommended it and was left disappointed.

[Reader · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although the reviewers may call this book "epic", I certainly cannot express the same feeling.

I found this book to be full of holes and containing few sources.

I think "Hidden Wisdom" is much more comprehensive in the discussion of the mysteries of faiths.

[Rick Weiler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, concise & thought-provoking.

[Joe Stack · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a book for anyone who believes that the Bible is sacred, is divine revelation, or is to be taken literally. If you consider the Bible to be trustworthy history, then this is not the book to read. In very clear and straight forward writing, the author lays out what we think is true in the Bible and what isn't (a very wide gap), where there is exaggeration and fabrication, the differences between Christian theology now and when the New Testament books were written, and the importance of symbolism, myth & legend. The author reviews current Biblical scholarship and even offers some of his own reasoning which I found enhances some of the ideas scholars have. He reminds the reader that much of the prophecies in the Bible never came true, much less aimed for future readers. This is good book to grasp an understanding of how the books of the Bible should be understood in the context of their time; yet how we can also appreciate the power of its message. As Mr. Smoley mentions, the history of the Bible are stories that start out simple, are elaborated over time, and given details that have more to do with the mindset of the Biblical authors rather than what actually happened. If the reader is not interested in everything the author covers, I'd recommend just reading the chapter on how God became God.

[Nicholas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this quite awhile ago. I mostly remember why I had given it a 3 star rating… It was because it was good and introduces to the reader a lot of scholarship. The reason I was apprehensive about it, was although the author seems to note when something is their own opinion and not necessarily scholarly consensus, I felt there was still perhaps a little too much speculation. That may not bother some people at all. If it is of interest to you, I would probably still give it a go.

[Eugenea Pollock · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was going to rate this book as "3" because of its theological technicality, which is too tedious for my taste; however, in the very last chapter on pp. 247-49, the author explained "Levels of Meaning" in a way that was totally new to me and that made more sense than any religious writing I have read in a very long time. Hence, "4" for this Sunday School text!