Satan's Guide to the Bible: Summary and Critical Review

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Movies can influence our society profoundly, shaping opinions and sparking discussions on a myriad of topics. This influence is particularly noticeable in films tackling religious subjects, as evidenced by the widespread reactions to movies like The Passion of the Christ and The Da Vinci Code. Such films can stir emotions, provoke thought, and sometimes even incite controversy.

Recently, a very popular film called Satan’s Guide to the Bible was released on YouTube. It’s an animated film made by Zeke Piestrup, in which the main character, Satan, reveals lesser-known Bible “secrets” to a class of Sunday school children.  Playing the role of Satan is Tim Johnson, an animator and director who has made popular movies such as Antz and Over the Hedge.  Piestrup is a documentary filmmaker and TV host with an interest in biblical studies.

This review of Satan’s Guide to the Bible will adopt a scholarly lens, dissecting the film’s Old and New Testament claims from a historical perspective to assess their accuracy and the implications they hold. However, it will also include personal observations, offering a dual perspective that blends academic analysis with the reflective insights of a viewer.

What is Satan’s Guide to the Bible About? Introducing the Plot and Characters

Satan’s Guide to the Bible is a humorous take on what biblical scholars know about the Bible. It points out that pastors learn this same knowledge in seminary but usually don’t pass it on to their congregations. The plot has Satan substituting for a Sunday School class and teaching the kids about scholarly biblical insights.

Early on in the film, Satan also points out that in the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan, literally “the satan”, was not the Devil but merely “ the adversary”, a kind of prosecutor in God’s court (see the book of Job, for example).

The film also includes non-animated interviews with well-respected biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), John J. Collins (Yale Divinity School), Ronald Hendel (University of California, Berkeley), Susan Niditch (Amherst College), and the late Hector Avalos (Iowa State University), who passed away not long after the film was made and to whom it is dedicated.

At regular intervals, a campy version of Jesus breaks into the story, arguing against Satan’s information. In actual fact, the “Jesus” in the film represents specifically Evangelical Christian views of the Bible, views with which the filmmaker clearly disagrees.

While the Satan character is depicted as knowledgeable and clever, aligned with the biblical scholars represented in the film, Jesus is portrayed as ridiculous, making irrational and even shocking arguments in order to maintain the biblical inerrancy which is a cornerstone of Evangelical theology (more on that below).

The Inspiration for Satan’s Guide to the Bible

In an email, director Zeke Piestrup acknowledged that he’s long been a fan of the work of Bart Ehrman. As an avid reader of Bart’s books (and those of other biblical scholars), he learned that while the conclusions of biblical scholars were taught in most seminaries, pastors rarely, if ever, passed on this information to their congregants.

Piestrup says that he wanted to explore this disconnect. As he says, the willful “ignoring of biblical scholars is why most of the 'standard stuff' taught in Christian seminaries and Catholic divinity schools has remained unknown for so long!” At the heart of this movie, then, is an audacious endeavor to unveil the layers of Biblical scholarship that typically remain confined to seminary halls and academic circles.

At the beginning of the film, several interviews with scholars suggest the reason for the disconnect. John J. Collins, for instance, states his opinion that pastors should tell the truth about biblical scholarship to the people in their churches and says they’re “falling down on the job.” Bart Ehrman notes that there is a practical reason for this: Many of those truths contradict the assertions of the Christian faith. If pastors told the truth they might lose members or be fired.

This is surely why Piestrup has Satan teaching a Sunday school class. What better setting could there be to provide scholarly knowledge about the Bible than the one place it is never discussed? He seems to agree with Collins that conveying this knowledge to the church should be part of a pastor’s duty.

In correspondence from Piestrup, the director says he believes the 'standard stuff,' widely acknowledged and taught within Christian seminaries and Catholic divinity schools, has remained obscured from public knowledge for far too long. Through Satan's Guide to the Bible, Piestrup and Johnson aim to bridge this gap, bringing these scholarly discussions to a wider audience.

Furthermore, Piestrup highlighted another significant motive behind the film: To communicate the idea that morality and goodness are not contingent upon adherence to any particular book, including the Bible. This notion challenges traditional belief systems and invites viewers to reflect on the essence of being good based on humanistic principles and the Golden Rule.

In essence, Satan’s Guide to the Bible isn’t just a film; it's a bold statement, a conduit for bringing long-held academic discussions into the public eye, and a platform for questioning and re-evaluating the foundations of traditional (conservative) Biblical interpretations.

The first half of the film focuses on the Hebrew Bible, and is further organized by themes, the first of which is “History.” Let’s dive in!

The Bible’s Accuracy on Historical Events

The Hebrew Bible contains an enormous number of narratives, most of which build on each other. For example, the creation story in Genesis builds up to the stories of the patriarchs which build to the story of the Exodus. Ergo, if even one of these stories is discredited as history, it might discredit all of them, or at least those that immediately follow.

The section of the film on Bible history begins, therefore, with what will surely be a shocking revelation to many: a large-scale Israelite exodus from Egypt never happened. Ronald Hendel notes that not only is there no archeological evidence for a large Israelite presence in Egypt, but in early Israelite settlements, there is absolutely no evidence of Egyptian influence.

We can confirm that this is indeed the scholarly consensus. Archeologist Israel Finkelstein, for instance, writes that there is a complete lack of archeological proof of Israelites ever living in Egypt. Additionally, he says the Sinai Peninsula has no material evidence that the Israelites occupied it for the entire 2nd millennium BCE.

This puts a major kink in the Hebrew Bible’s story. The Exodus is a defining event for the Jewish people and also for Christians. Perhaps this is why at this point in the film, Jesus interrupts Satan to argue for the concept of biblical inerrancy.

Again, Piestrup throughout this film argues specifically against Evangelical Christian beliefs about the Bible. Biblical inerrancy, the notion that everything in the Bible including the historical narratives is absolutely without error, is a major foundation of Evangelical theology. The film points out that this doctrine was detailed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a document formulated in 1978 at an Evangelical conference on the subject.

Part of the problem highlighted by the film, then, is that by sticking to this rigid definition of biblical inerrancy, Evangelicals are often forced to defend the morally and rationally indefensible. Case in point: the next part of the film talks about the story of God promising the land of Canaan to Abraham, ignoring the fact that indigenous people were already living there!

Evangelical biblical scholars are then shown bending over backwards to justify the divinely sanctioned mass murder of Canaanite men, women, and children that ensues. The scholars’ position is that the Canaanites were so wicked – engaging in incest, adultery, and child sacrifice – that they deserved to be killed. We’ll see this argument developed further in the section of the film on morals.

However, at this point in the film, another shocking truth about Israelite identity is revealed. If, as archeologists have proved, Israelites did not occupy or leave Egypt in order to conquer Canaan, where were they originally from? The surprising answer is that they were Canaanites themselves.

Ronald Hendel notes first that “Hebrew is a Canaanite language.” Indeed, linguists have confirmed this. Allen Ross writes that Hebrew is a subset of the Canaanite group of languages which are part of the Northwest Semitic language family. If this is the case, why would anyone have written the fictitious story of the Exodus followed by the violent conquest of Canaan?

John J. Collins answers in the film that “the peoples of the ancient Near East engaged in what might be called competitive historiography.” In other words, all Near Eastern civilizations wrote similar stories in order to prove that their heroes and/or gods were superior to those of neighboring societies.

The biblical authors, then, were simply conforming to what their time, place, and culture dictated. It was a common strategy of identity formation which all Near Eastern peoples employed. As Hendel says, “The story makes the people into the people.”

Hendel also notes that El, one of the names for God in the Hebrew Bible, was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. In fact, he points out that the name “Isra-el” incorporates the name El and means something like “El rules.” All of this leaves little doubt that the Israelites were a Canaanite people.

In addition, it seems that among Canaanites, the Israelites were historical latecomers. Hendel says that they only emerged as a distinct people in about 1200 BCE, much later than other Canaanite peoples. Amos Funkenstein suggests that Israel’s assertion that it was the chosen people may simply have been a compensation for its lateness on the historical scene.

Lest the children in the film Sunday school class think that all biblical scholars are simply militant, debunking atheists, Satan quotes several scholars who say that most biblical scholars identify as Christian. In fact, Hendel notes that biblical scholarship as a discipline was created by 19th-century Christians who were simply trying to delve deeper into the truths of the Bible in order to strengthen their own faith.

This section of Satan’s Guide to the Bible ends with Evangelical scholar Kevin Vanhoozer asserting that the absolute truth of the Bible will emerge “when right-minded readers read rightly.” In other words, only by starting from the premise of absolute biblical inerrancy can one read and understand the Bible correctly. Unfortunately, as the film points out, this forces readers either to ignore huge amounts of data or to make unwieldy and morally questionable arguments to maintain that stance.

This leads us into the section of the film on morality in the Hebrew Bible.

The Bible as the Source of Morality

Anyone who has read the Hebrew Bible knows its stories often contain what most of us would view as ethically inexcusable deeds, often explicitly sanctioned by God. How should a Christian and/or a scholar handle this? This is the implicit question of the morals section of Piestrup’s film.

We start off with scholar Amy Frykholm pointing out the disturbing ending of Psalm 137, a Psalm of lament for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!

One would hope that the thought of smashing children against rocks is abhorrent to most. Frykholm notes that for this reason, many Christians simply repress or ignore that passage and others like it, unable to cope with its implications about God.

However, she argues that by engaging with those disturbing parts of the Bible, “we can have a more empathetic experience,” understanding, for example, the fear and anger of an exiled people which might result in such a diatribe.

Of course, that line in Psalm 137 is in complete accord with the book of Joshua in which God commands the Israelites to kill every Canaanite man, woman, and child they encounter. The point seems to be that since the Israelites are God’s people, the welfare of any other people is unimportant. Hector Avalos sums it up succinctly: “There is a lot of genocide in the Bible.”

The fact that these violent episodes, based as they were on a non-existent exodus from Egypt, never actually happened, doesn’t make them less morally troubling. In Deuteronomy 7:2, for example, God says this to the Israelites who are about to enter Canaan:

and when the Lord your God gives [the Canaanites] over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy.

How do biblical inerrantists justify this? How could the God described as loving in other passages command such a thing?

Satan shows us some disturbing examples of rationalization among Evangelical scholars. Clay Jones, for example, says that because God knew the Canaanite children would grow up to sin like their parents, he was right to kill them. That is, God engages in preventive justice by murdering children.

In an even more extreme example, John Piper is heard to say, “It’s right for God to slaughter women and children any time he pleases.” This is a “might makes right” theology: since God is the strongest, he can do whatever he wants.

Finally, we see William Lane Craig saying that he believes that children automatically go to heaven so killing the Canaanite children was actually an act of mercy: “They were the recipients of an infinite good.”

For most of us, religious or not, these attitudes are detestable. And yet, as the film points out, if you start from a premise of absolute biblical inerrancy, you need to twist and turn your values to justify what is clearly unjustifiable.

For this reason, Hector Avalos says that in a moral sense, it doesn’t matter that these slaughters didn’t actually happen. The very idea of killing people to take their land or killing them because they are members of a different religion is repugnant.

At this point in the film, Satan introduces the idea of the Golden Rule. Although many think that Jesus invented this notion in Matthew 7:12, John J. Collins notes that it is actually present in some form in most religions, including those that came long before Christianity existed. If we use the Golden Rule as a guiding principle, says Satan, no Bible or guidebook is necessary.

Jesus jumps in at this point to argue that without the Bible, there are no morals, a common Evangelical position. He contends that the Bible is itself the measure of morality, an interesting idea given the violence against children in the passages we just saw.

Of course, there are plenty of other morally disturbing events in the Bible, making the Bible-as-moral-guide notion questionable. Collins notes, for example, that there is ample evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the Israelites practiced human sacrifice.

For example, 2 Chronicles 28 says that King Ahaz, a descendant of David, sacrificed his own sons. King Manasseh is said to sacrifice his own son in 2 Kings 21. Furthermore, in Judges 11 we see the disturbing story of Jephthah, an Israelite warrior about to go into battle.

As Susan Niditch notes in the video, victory in battle in the Hebrew Bible was integrally related to offerings made to God. Before entering the fray, therefore, Jephthah vows that if God grants him victory, he will sacrifice to God whatever or whoever comes out of the door of his house first when he returns home.

After his victory, he comes home and his daughter, his only child, comes out to greet him. While Jephthah is certainly not happy about this, he eventually fulfills his vow, burning her as a sacrifice to God.

All of this highlights what director Zeke Piestrup says is one of his main intended messages of the film.  “I don't think any ancient scriptures should be relevant in discussions on modern values,” said Piestrup.  Certainly, the Hebrew Bible episodes above make a strong argument for this.

The Old Testament vs New Testament God

Transitioning from the vivid and often controversial narratives of the Old Testament, such as the slaughter of the Canaanites, the film presents a moment of reflection among its young audience. The children, absorbing the discussions thus far, offer a common perception: “The Old Testament is filled with stories of a harsh and punishing God, whereas the New Testament reveals a God of love and kindness.”

This observation paves the way for a critical intervention by Hector Avalos to whose memory this movie is dedicated. Avalos suggests: “The Old Testament God may wish to kill you but it was only for your lifetime for the most part. If read literally, Jesus proposes torturing those he dislikes with an eternal fire. Thus, the violence is infinitely greater in both quantity and quality in the New Testament.”

Having navigated the intricate balance between entertainment and educational content in Satan's Guide to the Bible, let's now delve deeper into the scholarly realm. In the forthcoming section, we’ll scrutinize four specific claims made about the New Testament in the second part of the movie.

New Testament and Satan’s Guide to the Bible: Four Surprising Claims Made in the Movie

As the narrative shifts toward the New Testament, this sets the stage for several different claims made in the movie that are well-known among Biblical scholars - claims that may surprise lay people because they usually don’t hear about them from their pastors and priests. Let’s take a look at some of those assertions. 

#1 Paul Did Not Write All the New Testament Epistles Ascribed to Him

The discussion around the authorship of Paul's epistles, as highlighted in the movie through Bart D. Ehrman's insights, underscores a pivotal scholarly consensus: of the 13 letters attributed to Paul, only 7 are widely acknowledged by critical scholars as genuinely penned by him.

This conclusion, drawn from analyses of writing style, thematic content, and other textual clues, aligns with what is widely taught in academic circles - even among professors of faith. While some conservative voices argue that pseudepigraphy, or writing under another's name, was morally acceptable and commonplace in antiquity, rigorous studies by scholars like Wolfgang Speyer and Bart D. Ehrman have shown that to be wrong. 

#2 The New Testament Was Probably Not Written By Eyewitnesses

Next, the plot shifts to the figure of Jesus who declares that some of the NT authors were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. He calls them “the perfect journalists”. This assertion is then critically examined in the movie by Bart D. Ehrman who takes, as examples, the Gospel of John and the epistles attributed to the apostle Peter. 

Ehrman points out the improbability that these individuals, described in Acts 4:13 as uneducated, possessed the requisite literacy and scholarly education to author such sophisticated texts. This perspective aligns with the broader consensus among contemporary critical scholars, who argue that the New Testament documents were not penned by direct eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. 

Again, we have to agree with the consensus. The New Testament Gospels, for instance, were written by anonymous Christians living outside of Palestine. There isn’t anything in the Gospels that would make us believe they were written by the people who personally knew Jesus and followed him during his public ministry. 

This scholarly stance often clashes with more traditional views held within various religious communities. A striking personal anecdote underscores this divide: In a recent discussion with a young Catholic theologian whose master’s thesis was on the Shroud of Turin, we were surprised to hear him repeatedly assume the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of John.

Despite his advanced theological education, which covered modern scholarly consensus on the origin of the Gospels, he appeared to adhere to traditional assertions of eyewitness testimony. This anecdote again highlights the profound impact and value of Satan’s Guide to the Bible. To put it more bluntly, people really need to know what the Biblical scholars are saying! 

The movie further delves into the defensive stance taken by certain conservative circles, portraying critical scholarship as an attack by "earthly agents of dark spiritual forces" on the Bible. This narrative, echoed by evangelical figures like John MacArthur and Rick Warren, frames any scholarly critique of traditional biblical interpretations as a direct assault on Christianity itself.

Such a dichotomy not only stifles rational discourse and critical inquiry into biblical texts but also starkly divides the community into those purportedly ‘for' Jesus and Christianity and those 'against' it. The film's exploration of these reactions underscores the urgent need for open dialogue with respect for rational arguments (on both sides of the debate). 

#3 Jesus Was Wrong About the End

The final revelations that Satan shares with the children - following discussions on the Bible's errant history, its morally questionable narratives, and the contested claims of authorship and eyewitnesses - pertain to the life of Jesus. 

This segment represents the movie's climax, where the children are introduced to what critical scholars and historians have discerned about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Here, Satan aims to demonstrate that Jesus was "wrong about something," challenging the infallible image of Jesus with a critical examination of his actions and teachings.

The movie then presents Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, a perspective echoed by interviewed scholars Dale C. Allison Jr. and Bart D. Ehrman. They highlight instances where the historical Jesus informed his disciples that the end of the world was imminent and that the Kingdom of God would soon be established on Earth (e.g. Mk 9:1; Mt 10:23). 

Allison underscores the apparent non-fulfillment of these predictions, pointing out that the Kingdom didn’t arrive as Jesus had described, nor was the Son of Man seen coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). This narrative situates Jesus within a broader tradition of apocalyptic thought prevalent during his time. It was shared by figures like John the Baptist before Jesus and the Apostle Paul afterward, both of whom also anticipated an imminent end that didn’t materialize.

This interpretation, while broadly accepted among critical scholars, often poses a significant challenge to traditional belief systems. N.T. Wright, for instance, acknowledges the difficulty in reconciling Jesus' anticipated end of the world with historical reality, suggesting: “If Jesus expected the end of the world, then he was mistaken.”

To counter this, more conservative scholars such as Wright opt to reinterpret the concept of the Kingdom of Heaven, potentially distorting the original apocalyptic context anticipated by Jesus and his contemporaries, which envisioned a dramatic, tangible intervention by God and the establishment of a new world order shortly.

However, the film's treatment of Jesus' burial stirred some reservations. Satan's critique, emphasizing Paul's omission of the empty tomb, leans towards suggesting that Jesus was not buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb—a point that, in our view, oversimplifies a complex scholarly debate. 

#4 Jesus’ Burial is Rejected by Most Scholars

While it's accurate that Paul mentions Jesus' burial without referencing an empty tomb, the inference drawn in the movie might mislead viewers by implying a consensus on this matter among contemporary scholars. 

Unlike the issues related to the authorship of the New Testament Gospels or the apocalyptic framework of Jesus’ public ministry, the scholarly community remains divided here, with figures like Bart D. Ehrman doubting Jesus' burial story, whereas Dale C. Allison Jr. affirms its historicity.

This instance exemplifies a moment in the movie where a more nuanced presentation could have provided a clearer view of the debate surrounding the historical authenticity of Jesus’ burial. 

Satan’s Guide to Bible: Reactions and Reviews

The movie has ignited a spectrum of reactions that, frankly, isn't all that surprising given its contentious subject matter. It’s enough to note it has been viewed more than 1 million times on YouTube since it first came online three months ago.

On one side of the divide, the film has been embraced with open arms by those advocating for a fresh examination of the Bible and Christianity within contemporary American society. Websites like “Top Documentary Films” have praised the movie for presenting a new perspective, urging viewers to venture beyond conventional interpretations and explore the deeper intricacies of the text.

Similarly, the Freedom for the Religious Foundation has lauded Piestrup's work for its innovative approach to discussing the dense topic of Bible scholarship in an engaging and accessible manner.

Conversely, the film has stirred significant uproar within more conservative circles. While acknowledging that the movie's claims are recognized in Biblical scholarship, critics argue that there is a greater need for believers to familiarize themselves with Christian apologetics. By understanding the counter arguments provided by apologetic scholars, they assert that believers can address these provocative claims without compromising their faith.

Clarke Morladge critiqued the film for its satirical edge and for quoting revered Christian scholars out of context, thus presenting a skewed narrative. Another famous critic, Catholic apologist Trent Horn, offered his rebuttal in a film response.

Regarding the possible New Testament forgeries in the name of Paul, he suggested that the use of secretaries or disciples writing in tribute to Paul could account for stylistic differences, thus not undermining the letters' authenticity or the faith itself. To back up his claim, Horn quoted Tertullian who noted that some believers have written letters in the name of Paul out of love and respect.

However, Horn’s interpretation of Tertullian appears to be a misrepresentation of the early Christian author’s views, a point that, while intriguing, falls outside the scope of this review. For a more in-depth discussion on the topic, Bart Ehrman's study "Forgery and Counterforgery" offers a compelling exploration.

In a nutshell, the movie has sparked a plethora of reactions and controversies, clearly demarcating the line between those who view it as a necessary provocation and those who perceive it as an affront to their beliefs.

Personal Observations: A Short Review

Watching Satan’s Guide to the Bible was, in a word, enjoyable. The movie navigates its narrative with an engaging flow that captivates from beginning to end. What particularly stood out for me were the subtle injections of humor throughout the film, humor that resonates well with 21st-century sensibilities.

Hearing contemporary jokes from characters like Jesus and Satan added a refreshing layer to the viewing experience, making the film not only informative but genuinely entertaining. From the standpoint of someone simply looking for a good movie, this one hits the mark and comes highly recommended.

However, it's worth noting that reactions to the film can vary widely, especially among different religious communities. For instance, many of my (Marko) Catholic friends expressed dissatisfaction, primarily due to the plot's arrangement and the claims presented within.

This divergence in opinion often stems from conflating a movie's artistic merit with its commentary on sensitive topics like the Bible and Christianity. It's important to distinguish between evaluating a film's cinematic qualities — its plot, character development, soundtrack, and so on — and critiquing the validity of its thematic assertions.

Appreciating a film for its storytelling doesn’t preclude one from critically engaging with its underlying messages, and vice versa. Regardless of the quality of the historical claims it made, many still consider The Da Vince Code to be an excellent movie.

It’s not the case that the Satan’s Guide to the Bible film is filled with historical errors - far from it! The point we are trying to make is that one should be able to enjoy a good movie without always worrying about the specific claims related to history, Christianity, and the Bible.

From a scholarly viewpoint, the film strikes a commendable balance between Satan's enlightening dialogues with the children and insightful excerpts from interviews with various Biblical scholars. This interplay is further enriched by clips from evangelical conventions and lectures, offering a window into conservative approaches to the Bible.

Yet, the portrayal of Jesus as a staunch Bible-belt conservative does narrow the film's perspective, especially for viewers like myself (Marko), who were raised in Catholic traditions. This depiction, presumably aimed at resonating with the American evangelical audience, might not translate as well to viewers from other parts of the world, where religious landscapes differ markedly.

This narrowness of perspective is also reflected in the film’s failure to acknowledge other, non-literal forms of biblical interpretation, such as allegory, that have been present within Christianity for centuries.

Origen of Alexandria, for example, wrote in the 3rd century that some things in the Bible cannot be interpreted literally: "Who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?"

While the rigid Evangelical notion of biblical inerrancy highlighted in the film is indeed untenable, we should at least acknowledge that it is not the only form of scriptural interpretation Christians have used.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Satan’s Guide to the Bible is not only a cinematic journey through the complex tapestry of Biblical narratives but also a platform for stimulating deep reflections on the historical underpinnings of the Bible. Through its engaging narrative flow, humorous tones, and scholarly insights, the film succeeds in making critical Biblical scholarship accessible and intriguing to a broader audience.

So, whether you’re a skeptic, believer, or just curious about the conversations surrounding the Bible and Christianity, you should give it a chance! It’s a journey that promises to enlighten, challenge, and maybe even entertain. Let’s watch, question, and discuss together!