We have had a few requests (and one defiant challenge) to look into the work of Karen Armstrong, author of several books including one we will survey in part here titled The History of God. This has taken us a while, because it seemed clear from the way Armstrong's work was cited by others (like Jonathan Kirsch) that her work was, well, more wind than heat. And it turns out that this is the case.

Do not expect any original research or argumentation from Armstrong. The findings of liberal Biblical scholarship and of the likes of the Jesus Seminar are taken as indisputable fact, and the argument progresses from there without skipping a beat. It's all in there to some degree: JEDP, the Jesus Seminar, dating Proverbs to the 3rd century BC without explanation or analysis, much less dealing with of competing views; a false interpretation of Ps. 82 (which happens to match one I refute by the Mormons in The Mormon Defenders), political correctness, and anachronism. In light of that most or all of what Armstrong assumes to be true about the Bible is refuted via links or material on this page, we merely refer readers to Encyclopedia index (see sidebar) and offer our usual Whitman's Sampler of bitter chocolates:

• It is clear from her introductory words that Armstrong grew up in a religiously strict environment and desired a touchy-feely religion, but is upset because, well, she didn't experience God the way she wanted -- what she got was a holy being; what she wanted was a health tonic. What she got what was the Bible; what she wanted was a Dilbert calendar.
• And by golly, she found one. Armstrong offers up a full slate of statements like these over many pages: "These myths were not intended to be taken literally, but were metaphorical attempts to describe a reality that was too complex and elusive to express any other way." [5] We want to ask: How does Armstrong know this? How does she know that Exodus or Enuma Elish were "not intended to be taken literally"? Has she interviewed any ancient people and asked? Of course not -- it's merely assumed that there was some unknown "too complex and elusive" reality that these folks were trying to describe, because otherwise we'd have to deal with the idea that they believed these things were actually true, and that's what leads to political incorrectness. No genre proofs, no interviews, just assumption based on Armstrong's preconceived view of the world, and that she herself would never have written such a thing to be taken literally. At any rate, it is clear that Armstrong also assumes that if you don't agree with this, you're not grown up yet.
• Recounting the salvation history of the Bible and the atonement, Armstrong complains, "there must have been an easier and more direct way to redeem mankind." [309] If there was, Armstrong does not lay it out; like some recent skeptics we have dealt with, she merely looks at scenario A-1, says, "God could have done better" and leaves it at that. At the back of such objections lies a presumption, "I know better than God and could have done it better" -- as if any person has the capacity to lay out a perfect alternate history and know there was a "better way." Not even Harry Turtledove claims that kind of genius. It's like the skeptics who say Abraham was a bad choice for God to make -- really? So who do they know who was a better choice? Do they have a list of names from the 18th century BC along with full resumes and character references? Such objections assume to possess omniscience in the service of declaring that omniscience bungled the job.
• The Trinity is a top subject for Armstrong. Though she knows about the Wisdom literature, she doesn't see the application to the Trinity, which she assumes is the product of Nicaea, along with the divinity of Jesus. The Trinity, she says, "only makes sense as a mystical or spiritual experience" [117], which I suppose would be true of someone who'd rather not do the relevant homework. The Trinity makes sense to me in light of the Wisdom tradition, and I'd say if you want a mystical or spiritual experience of equal quality to what Armstrong proposes, get up and spin yourself in circles until dizzy. But if you want to understand the Trinity, read the relevant literature.
• Political correctness extends only to certain persons: We are advised that Arius, the defender of the heretical view that Jesus was a created being and not eternal divinity, "passionately believed" what he taught, while Athanasius, who taught the eternal divinity of Christ, "managed to impose his theology" on others and was an unhappy camper. Armstrong's favoritism is about as subtle as Dan Rather's. Those who "passionately believe" what is wrong are just fine, because they have passion and that's what counts. Don't even think of condemning them!
• We are told that it was only at the end of the 2nd century that Christianity gained any converts intelligent enough to articulate its views [91]. Apparently Armstrong has not read Wayne Meeks' The First Urban Christians showing that Paul had more than the usual expected number of converts from the wealthy/literate Roman upper and middle class. She also doesn't read about the Romans, who she says had not "inherited the Greek hostility to Jews." Tell that to Tacitus, Celsus, and Lucian, and other Romans who referred to the Jews in derogatory terms. Armstrong's sociology is rather dismal for an Oxford teacher.
• The ancient pagans did not worship idols; the idols were "a focus that had helped people to concentrate on the transcendental element of human life." [112] Yes, I am sure that's what they had in mind when they sacrificed infants and had sex on the altars to explain to Baal that they needed some rain. Try that on your next date's father and mother, teenagers!(Armstrong is only half right anyway: the idols were intended to be focal points for the gods depicted to come down and be present.)
• Prophets who condemned false religion were doing so because they were full of insecurities, secretly knowing that their own god was as made up as that of others [50]. I hear a genetic fallacy in the room...
• Using JEDP parsing as a basis (a theory which Armstrong admits has been seriously disputed, but which she uses anyway, because no one has come up with anything better --- this is like saying we should use the garbage bag with only 8 gaping holes because we haven't found any with less!), Armstrong divides up the OT, then argues on the basis that those who wrote one part would not agree with the other parts written by other people (as on the subject of God's anthropomorphism -- apparently it never occurs to Armstrong that close and distant terms of relationship are not mutually exclusive over time).
• As needed, things like the denunciation of the Pharisees are declared "inauthentic" because they are offensive. (Never mind the ancient use of riposte.)

So, what more needs be said? Armstrong offers only another fortress of political correctness in the wasteland of postmodernity. I can see why certain people think her work the cat's meow, but from the looks of it, all she has is more begged questions to offer.