How the Bible Became Holy

by Michael L. Satlow

In this startling reinterpretation of biblical history, a leading scholar shows how the Bible became the sacred text it is today

In this sweeping narrative, Michael Satlow tells the fascinating story of how an ancient collection of obscure Israelite writings became the founding texts of both Judaism and Christianity, considered holy by followers of each faith. Drawing on cutting-edge historical and archeological research, he traces the story of how, when, and why Jews and Christians gradually granted authority to texts that had long lay dormant in a dusty temple archive. The Bible, Satlow maintains, was not the consecrated book it is now until quite late in its history.

He describes how elite scribes in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. began the process that led to the creation of several of our biblical texts. It was not until these were translated into Greek in Egypt in the second century B.C.E., however, that some Jews began to see them as culturally authoritative, comparable to Homer’s works in contemporary Greek society. Then, in the first century B.C.E. in Israel, political machinations resulted in the Sadducees assigning legal power to the writings. We see how the world Jesus was born into was largely biblically illiterate and how he knew very little about the texts upon which his apostles would base his spiritual leadership.

Synthesizing an enormous body of scholarly work, Satlow’s groundbreaking study offers provocative new assertions about commonly accepted interpretations of biblical history as well as a unique window into how two of the world’s great faiths came into being.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies, Jewish, Spirituality, Judaica

368 pages, Paperback

First published April 15, 2014

Reviews

[Justin Powell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Satlow is a scholar and professor who firmly lives in the post-Enlightenment era. This is not a book that the conservative, or fundamentalist will enjoy. Satlow breaks his story into three parts consisting of fifteen chapters. A majority of them are indeed on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Only three on the New Testament. The lack of development on New Testament/Christian texts was frustrating, as I know there is more to be said on that point, but he ends his story at the end of the third century.

What I did like the most was his weaving together the history that led up to what became "the Bible". The way Jews approached "scripture" has not always been the same, and the history of their interpretation(s) set the groundwork for the environment that Christianity would come in. This is extremely important if one is to truly understand how the Bible became holy and what would come to dominate the world, at least the Western world.

Also one of the best parts for me about this book is that it is all from a Jewish perspective. Even the chapters on Paul and his interpretation, and Jesus and his usage of Jewish scripture. To realize that these texts, Jewish and Christian, were not always considered holy and that it was a far, far later development would possibly be world shattering for the Christian fundamentalist mind. This kind of scholarly work undermines what is taught and rammed home in Sunday school classes.

Personally, I would recommend this to anyone who lacks a good understanding of Jewish history (OT history) and any conservative fundamentalist Christian who presupposes the Bible to have always been holy because the Bible says so. Satlow writes in a clear and concise way that makes the study easily accessible to those unfamiliar with biblical scholarship.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 2 out of 5]

My review and rating of this book my not be fair. The author is a religious studies scholar and his book is written from that perspective. Unfortunately, scholars have this proclivity for writing for other scholars and not the general reading public. As a member of that public group I have to say this book was a long way from being a page turner but if you have trouble sleeping this book could help you a great deal. Nevertheless, I manage to wade through to the end because the Bible's history is of interest to me and the book did provide a thoroughly researched and detailed recitation of that history as well as the history of the Jewish people. In fact, the history provided both of the Old Testament's origins and evolution along with the history of the Jews would probably be of great interest to my Jewish friends. What I come away with after reading this book is that the Bible is far from holy and is merely a creation of fallible humans over the course of centuries. The author clearly illustrates the genesis and evolution of writing and the production of documents and their expanding significance in human society. As a scholarly work this book probably deserves a higher rating but from my perspective as an ordinary reader this was a yawner.

[Steve Gross · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book suffers from all books that espouse a Documentary Hypothesis; namely, the lack of any evidence whatsoever. Everything is conjecture. On top of that, the author often contradicts himself in consecutive sentences. The writing is muddled. Stick to RE Friedman if you want a well-written story.

[Jim Fix · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short, but not breezy, history of the Bible's development. It looks like the author probably has provided the currently most accurate history available, but he certainly does not telegraph his points. It was often difficult to determine, "OK, where are we headed with all this?"

[Joe Stack · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting history of the formation of The Bible. Besides being a history of how authority based on oral tradition transitioned to that based on text, it’s also a history of how “words create communities.” To achieve this the author immerses the reader in the cultural, intellectual, ethnic, and political conflicts of the ancient Mideast.

There is lot of detailed facts and conjecture which at times makes for dry reading. Even so, the author’s discourse gives the reader a thorough understanding why the Bible’s “greatest legacy” is “the radically implausible notion that one can build a community, a religion, a culture, even a country around a text.”

For this reader, the Epilogue was the most fascinating chapter. Here, the author writes about the conflict between oracular and normative authority. For Christianity, this conflict “lead to the Reformation and the development of Protestantism.”

In his writing about the problem inherent in interpretating text, the author introduces the U.S. Constitution as an example of a text upon which a country is built and gives originalism as an example of the power and problem with interpreting text.

[Sophia]

a solid analysis of the history of what we today call the Bible. He spends most of his time on the Tanakh. As with any book that covers this topic, there is not a ton of evidence, so he stretches some evidence and makes a few leaps. But this would be a good introductory book for people who want an overview of the compilation of the (Christian) Bible, though Jewish readers will still get a lot out of it since the New Testament is covered pretty quickly.

[Maurizio Codogno · Rating 3 out of 5]

La Bibbia è un'opera strana, come sanno i pochi che l'hanno letta da cima a fondo. E data la sua importanza, sono stati tanti gli studiosi che hanno avanzato ipotesi più o meno fantasiose sull'origine dei testi. La tesi che Satlow porta in questo libro è che non solo i testi si sono coagulati in epoca molto tarda (circa il 150 aC), ma che c'è stata una lunghissima storia per farli diventare normativi e "divini", e non semplici resoconti. Alcune sue ipotesi, come l'avere i regni di Israele e Giuda sempre separati, le avevo trovate anche nel testo di Mario Liverani Oltre la Bibbia, che pure Satlow pare non conoscere; altre mi sembrano piuttosto campate in aria e attentamente ritagliate per corroborare la sua tesi, ma senza vere fondamenta. Ha molto più senso pensare che la Torah sia stata inventata da Giosia piuttosto che averla davvero dimenticata per cent'anni e poi ritrovata man mano da sacerdoti di varie epoche, il tutto senza però che avesse alcuno status normativo. Né ha senso pensare che una zona sempre contesa tra due popoli logorroici come egizi e assiro-babilonesi non avesse fonti scritte o che gli ellenisti traducessero la Bibbia in greco casualmente nel momento giusto.
Leggendo la traduzione di Massimo Scorsone mi sono chiesto perché mai chiami "apocrifi della Bibbia cattolica" i testi deuterocanonici (che comunque sono accettati anche dagli ortodossi), o parli di "Giovanni il Battezzatore" - e passi - e di "Gaio Plinio Secondo", confondendo il lettore poco attento.

[Alan Divack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stunningly provocative. I will never think about the evolution of the Tanakh, Pharissees or Sadducees the same way again. I don't know that I am convinced by all of his arguments (frankly I do not have the knowledge base with which to judge), but I will definitely consider them which I think about the composition and authority of the Bible. Very easy to read for lay people as well.

[Sue · Rating 2 out of 5]

Currently reading this, one chapter at a time, as part of a study group.

June 2015: What a relief that we're finally done with this book. We were disappointed. The author had too many speculations about ancient history, not backed up by data. And he didn't seem to actually answer his question, of when & how the Bible became viewed as "holy"!

[Carlos Vallarino · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magmificent book. keeps you entranced and pondering about all the new facts about the Scriptures one did not know.

[Pak455 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trudna to była dla mnie lektura. I czasem przywołująca pytania: skąd autor to wie?

Temat jest ciekawy -- oczywistym spostrzeżeniem jest (przynajmniej gdy się zna trochę krytyki biblijnej, czytało o tekstach z Qumran, czy różnicach między LXX, a tekstem masoreckim), że księgi biblijne nie były spisywane ze szczerym przeświadczeniem o własnej "świętości", rozumianej jako boski dyktat. Przepisujący pozwalali sobie na poprawki, zgadywanki, przeróbki, kolejne redakcje.

I to plus, że autor chce się nad tym pochylić, zarysować proces powstawania Biblii, od tych pierwocin po uznanie kanonu biblijnego.

Problemy widzę co najmniej dwa.

Pierwszy, to już wspomniane pytania, skąd autor to wie. Bo często komentuje "autorytet", ale na określenie, czy przepisane pismo zostało z uznaniem autorytetu, czy też jako jedno z wielu, w zasadzie brakuje źródeł. Autor szuka więc i np. znajduje u św. Pawła, czy w Ewangelii św. Marka, świadectwa, że Paweł, czy Jezus, szanowali Biblię, ale opierali się na jej ustnym wykładzie głównie -- podczas gdy później w synagogach, zwoje Tory stały się świętym przedmiotem. Ale tego jest mało i to niewyraźne.

Drugi problem, to objętość. To ogromny temat, a książka nie jest taka duża -- autor więc pomija wiele aspektów tworzenia Biblii. A przy tym, mimo swojej skromnej objętości, książka bywała dla mnie trudna w odbiorze i nudząca.

[Brad · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had just finished John Fugelsang's brilliant Separation of Church and Hate. Feeling like a biblical expert, I picked up this book, long unread on my shelf despite its acquisition a decade ago.

It's an academic read, a bit too heavy for someone with a passing, nay fleeting, interest in such things. This book probably both deserves and warrants a higher rating from an interested reader but, alas, I am not said reader. I blame Fugelsang for making me think I'm interested in the Bible when, as I already knew, I am most certainly not.

TLDR: the Bible didn't start out as a sacred book. It evolved its "holiness" status very gradually through centuries of political, social and economic forces that elevated certain texts and books over others.  The Bible is a cultural artifact, shaped by human decisions and choices through the gradual elevation of the written word over oral traditions. Because of course it is. And in this book is the supporting evidence, if you're interested in such things.

It's written for a non-technical audience. But, it turns out, you also need to be an interested one. Too deep in the weeds for my shallow surface self.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall informative and thought provoking, though there are a few gaps:

Satlow focuses on The Land of Israel and the Hellenic diaspora to the detriment of the eastern diaspora. There is little to no discussion of scribal activity (editing scriptural texts) among the exiles in Babylonia, and no mention of Zoroastrian influence during the Persian period. If synagogues were an invention of Egyptian Jews in the Hellenic period, how did earlier Jewish exilic communities in Mesopotamia and Persia organize themselves and their ritual life?

Likewise, I have no problem with Satlow's assertion that Rambam determined in the 12th Century C.E. that The Aleppo Codex is the authorized Hebrew text of The Hebrew Bible, but wasn't the decision as to which books should be included and which excluded in The Hebrew Bible taken by the Tannaim in the late First or early Second Century C.E.? Even if the latter is an undocumented inference isn't that worth mentioning?

[Andre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un testo impegnativo, soprattutto per uno non esperto della materia come me, ma molto interessante.
Con l'obiettivo di raccontare come la Bibbia abbia acquisto l’autorità che l’ha caratterizzata fino si giorni nostri, l’autore ripercorre in sufficiente dettaglio l’appassionante storia della Bibbia, di come i vari testi si siano formati e poi considerati a vario titolo importanti per le comunità ebraiche prima ed ebraico-cristiane o cristiane poi.

La maggior parte del testo si concentra su questo, per poi concludersi in un epilogo che tira le somme sul concetto di autorità di un testo in generale e su come esso si possa applicare alla Bibbia.

L’ho trovato nel complesso convincente ed illuminante, seppur un po’ faticoso rispetto ad altri saggi (ma trattasi di gusto personale).

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Satlow has a distinct tendency to assimilate Jewish practices into those of the reigning empire. First, Jewish scribes are supposed to have the same function as Babylonian scribes. Then, in the Hellenistic period, elite Jewish education is supposed to be modeled after Greek paideia. In the Roman period, he suggests (albeit to a much lesser extent than in previous periods) that synagogue worship might have been similar to a mystery cult. At least for the Babylonian and Hellenistic periods, an understanding of these practices of the reigning culture is crucial to his argument (eg. his claims that Hammurabi's code was not ever enforced, and was just meant to show Hammurabi's sense of justice), but I was annoyed to find that he doesn't provide citations for this material.

[Steve Bender · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book about gthe development of the written Bible, both Jewish and Christian. Really about how the authority of the written word came about. Lots of history that I didn't know about Palestine and the Jewish sects. I was lost though when he developed the differences between the Pharisees and the Saducees. I thought that the Saducees only accepted the Pentateuch, and the Pharisees accepted the history and prophets. He does not feel so. I found myself thinking more about that than following some of his arguments. Very informative.

[Ginny · Rating 3 out of 5]

My stars are based on my understanding of this book because I can’t rate it for it’s accuracy or intellect. In my mind, this book focuses on how Torah became the authoritative heart of Jewish learning, not how it became holy. Still, a great historical review of how scribes and priests and finally, rabbis shaped written and oral traditions.

[Matthew William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great Book! Narrative was engaging and information presented in an easily understood fashion.

[Andrew Pessin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An original way of telling the history of the Jewish people, in addition to what it's advertised to be (the story of how the various texts constituting the Bible came to have the diverse kinds of authority they eventually came to have). The history of the Jews and the history of the Bible are both tales readily available elsewhere, but they are generally surprisingly distinct: a book which treats one in depth rarely treats the other in depth. But in a very readable book that proceeds chronologically from the Northern Kingdom of Israel (922 BCE) to the codification of the Mishna (c. 220 CE), Satlow simultaneously does both, weaving them together in ways that mutually enlighten each other. One of the many important lessons the reader picks up is the utterly non-monolithic nature of both: the Jewish people then and now were spread out into many distinct communities with divergent practices and divergent texts and divergent attitudes towards texts. And though Satlow doesn't emphasize this point it all helps underscore just what an amazing achievement it was for the codification of both the people and the text eventually to occur ... that the Mishna/Talmud could come to have such a central role for the Jewish diaspora in the later centuries is nothing short of remarkable given the divergent histories preceding that time. (Central role, yes; though one with room, of course, for much subsequent divergence as well ...) Anyway, this book is a must read for anyone interested in the history of either the people or the Book ....

[Thom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This author set out to show how people went from a predominantly oral tradition (of one or many gods) to the primarily scripture driven churches of today. In this, he was completely successful.

Chapters are linear in history, each reflecting on the religious tradition and other events of the time frame. Relevant figures and events are mentioned in context, which can leave some sections sparse. Extensive end notes and bibliography can lead to more detail.

Things I learned include the three different versions of Hanukkah, the study of scriptural history by Alexandrian emigres, and the Rabbinic tradition that arose from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Like Zealot, this book also touched on the difference between Paul's direction and that of the Judeans. I plan to dig more into that eventually.

It did take me a bit longer than Zealot to read, and was not as accessible. Recommended to the Biblical scholar and other historians. 3½ stars.

[Denise Louise · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very different book than I expected based on the title. Instead of just relating how certain writing became part of the accepted canon, the author goes back to the beginning to dissect how these books even came to be written in the first place. The development of the Bible was closely tied to the history of Israel and Judah, so much of the book is about their history. For me, the book brought out the fact that the writings in the Bible were considered very differently by the first writers and readers than how people think of them now. Also, the religious beliefs and practices of the Jewish people, while thousands of years old, were never as a static and simple as I have been taught to understand based in the Bible stories. A good book to gain a new perspective.

[Chuck Knudsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this hoping to learn more about how the books of the Bible became canonized. This gets lightly touched upon, but it focuses instead on how the books came to be treated as holy works, instead of simply written stories. Interesting stuff.

Also, really, *really* dry and scholarly. Not a fun book to read.

[Karen Christensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite what I thought it would be, but interesting. What the author has to say will be fairly controversial (to say the least) to a lot of Christians, but I'm inclined to agree with much of what he says.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a terrible book. Satlow's historical narrative is pocked with probabilities and conjectures rather than conclusive historical proofs. I stubbornly prodded through his chapters, looking for some redeeming presentations and explanations, but found none. Do not waste your time reading this.

[Corey · Rating 1 out of 5]

I suppose this book is minimally entertaining if one believes that the only reason the Bible is as it is, is that rather than anything divinely inspired, some jokers managed to get their revisionism past the censors. Otherwise it's boring crap.

[Darryl Hall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I question some of his conclusions, especially in the period starting in 6 BCE to the end of the book in the second century, I think he has some valid positions that have to be considered.

[John Hanscom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, but a little dry, and an abrupt ending. I wish he had not stopped with specifics at the 5th or 6th Century.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of interesting information, but I am not convinced by all of the author's arguments and interpretations.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating biography of the Bible and its role in society.