The Making of the Bible: From the First Fragments to Sacred Scripture

by Konrad Schmid, Jens Schröter, Peter Lewis (Translator)

The authoritative new account of the Bible’s origins, illuminating the 1,600-year tradition that shaped the Christian and Jewish holy books as millions know them today.

The Bible as we know it today is best understood as a process, one that begins in the tenth century BCE. In this revelatory account, a world-renowned scholar of Hebrew scripture joins a foremost authority on the New Testament to write a new biography of the Book of Books, reconstructing Jewish and Christian scriptural histories, as well as the underappreciated contest between them, from which the Bible arose.

Recent scholarship has overturned popular assumptions about Israel’s past, suggesting, for instance, that the five books of the Torah were written not by Moses but during the reign of Josiah centuries later. The sources of the Gospels are also under scrutiny. Konrad Schmid and Jens Schröter reveal the long, transformative journeys of these and other texts en route to inclusion in the holy books. The New Testament, the authors show, did not develop in the wake of an Old Testament set in stone. Rather the two evolved in parallel, in conversation with each other, ensuring a continuing mutual influence of Jewish and Christian traditions. Indeed, Schmid and Schröter argue that Judaism might not have survived had it not been reshaped in competition with early Christianity.

A remarkable synthesis of the latest Old and New Testament scholarship, The Making of the Bible is the most comprehensive history yet told of the world’s best-known literature, revealing its buried lessons and secrets.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Biblical Studies, Judaism, Audiobook

440 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 19, 2019

Reviews

[Aradhana Mathews · Rating 3 out of 5]

Growing up in a Christian community, my understanding of the origins of the Bible was vague at best. We were told that this was the unquestionable word of God, and from the way we were taught, one might imagine that the Bible simply dropped from the heavens one day, complete in all of its glory.

Sometimes we forget that the Bible too, is a historical work of literature, and it was not always in the form that it currently is today – it wasn’t even originally a book! This book dives into the search for answers to questions such as – where did the Bible come from? What even is the ‘Bible’? Were there fragments of the Bible that were left out of today’s version? What did they say? And who chose what was worthy to keep and what was to be discarded?

It turns out, the ‘unquestionable’ Bible did in fact undergo a lot of questioning and criticism through the centuries. And while I found this book to be an interesting and insightful read – I particularly enjoyed the analysis of famous works of art inspired by the Bible at the end of the book – I must say it isn’t for everyone. For starters, you need to have a working knowledge of the Bible to really understand the book, and it is structured in a more academic way, rather than as a story that you could read to pass the time. However, it is clearly a well-researched book, and if you are curious about the deep histories of Christianity, give this a read.

[Roger DeBlanck · Rating 4 out of 5]

The word “Bible” actually signifies a collection, and the word derives from the Greek biblia meaning “books.” Therefore, we should understand the Bible as a slowly developed compilation of texts that came into creation as a process over time, not as a sudden creation that remained static throughout time. Because the Bible developed in so many diverse and different forms and arrangements, what we have and know as its sacred Scripture(s) were never something homogenous or perfectly revealed and preserved. Rather, the Bible was assembled and modified as it evolved.

That said, coauthors Konrad Schmid and Jens Schroter, each an elite scholar in his own right, offer impressive and comprehensive research about the Bible’s origins and development. Their skillful work tends more towards an academic text, indeed, focused for those doing erudite studies of the Bible and how it gradually came into existence as a single book over time.

[Dr. Tobias Christian Fischer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Die Entstehung der Bibel ist wissenswert, da es viele Übertragungswpunkte für andere Communities und Industrien gibt. Die Bibel ist ein Produkt, was durch verschiedene Gruppen weiter getragen wurde und dahinter steckt eine (un-) bewusste Marketing-Strategie, an der sich andere eine Scheibe abschneiden können.

[David Garnett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Two Bible scholars, one Jewish and one Christian, remind us that the Bible did not fall to earth like a rock from heaven but came together slowly in very human ways over 1,600 years.

[Axel W · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tyvärr en besvikelse… präglas av en stark och ev tysk ovilja att spekulera om saker och ting. Jag förstår att vi inte kan veta vem som skrev Markusevangeliet men vafan dra till med nåt!

[Trenton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very interesting and illuminating book. Many fundamental Christians seem to have an attitude as if God himself handed a black leather-bound gold-gilt-edged book down to us. There is actually a long history of evolution and selection by religious leaders, and, indeed, there are different bibles - Lutheran, other Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox, for examples.

There is no reason to assume the canon we have today was inevitable. There were other viable non-heretical choices. It may be that some choices were made based on personalities, conflicts and politics. "Some of the texts of the Apostolic Fathers, especially the Shepherd of Hermas, were highly regarded, and it was by no means a foregone conclusion that they would not be included in the final canon. The Codex Sinaiticus includes the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Codex Alexandrinus contains the First and Second Letters of Clement." ... "Many other papyri containing Jesus traditions have also survived, but in many cases they are so fragmentary that we don't have many details. But we can surmise the Jesus tradition was far more extensive than just the four gospels. Some works have been lost including Gospel according to the Hebrews and Gospel according to the Egyptians. These were referenced by early theologians including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome and Eusebius."

Ester was once not included in the earliest group of accepted texts.

We have no original manuscripts. The oldest NT texts are fragments from the second century.

Certain books of the Bible attained importance as they became fundamental to the self-conception of Jews and Christians.

In the 360s the Council of Laodicea produced decrees listing approved scriptures, a canon.

In antiquity some texts were written pseudepigraphically. Examples from the Bible include Proverbs and Song of Songs, as well as the later book of Wisdom, which was written in Greek. Some of the letters of Paul are pseudonymous, as are the letters bearing the names of Peter, John, James and Jude. Hebrews does not even state an author in the text itself, and, interestingly, Hebrews is not included in the Muratorian Fragment

"Only the Pharisees survived the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. As a result, the Pharisees had a decisive influence on the development of Rabbinic Judaism, and their view of what constituted the authoritative texts of Judaism prevailed. There is storng evidence that the Sadducees and the Essenes took a different view of what should be seen as Holy Writ."

Some of the oldest scriptures are thought to have started as stories that evolved into holy writ.

"The Bible itself acknowledges and names several texts that are lost today, such as the book of the Wars of YHWH (Numbers 21:14), the book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the Book of the Song (1 Kings 8:53 in the Septuagint), and the books of the Annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19), and the Annals of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29).!” Even though some of these titles may be fictitious, they are surely not all invented. We do not know why these scriptures no longer exist. It may be that they were eliminated because they did not harmonize with the fundamental theological beliefs of post-exile Judaism."

In many cases writers of the New Testament quote from the Septuagint instead of Hebrew texts of the Old Testament. And in quite a few instances the New Testament quotes from sources outside our canon including the Book of Enoch, Sirach and the Jewish book Wisdom of Solomon.

The two letters to Timothy and one to Titus are pseudepigraphic letters of Paul written around 120 AD.

Probably only seven of the thirteen letters of Paul were actually written by him.

My main criticism of the book is that assertions are sometimes made without giving the reader the evidence or explanation. I think the reason for this is such statements have superscript references to a thick section in the back listing many books and academic journals to back up the claim. That is fine for academics, but the lay reader is not going to chase down those references.

[Michael Holm · Rating 4 out of 5]

'The Making of the Bible' describes the variations of Judean-Christian bibles and the authorship of the various books of the Torah, Old Testament and New Testament. There is a description of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek writing and a look at some remnants of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They discuss the history of the Hebrew people called Israel, beginning in about 1200 BC in Canaan. The Genesis and Exodus stories are suspect so confidence begins with the books of the prophets and the history of the monarchial period of Saul, David and Solomon. Israel split into two kingdoms after Solomon - the ten tribes of Northern Israel and two tribes of Judah. Assyria conquered Northern Israel in 722 BC and occupied it, driving many into Judah where the First Temple stood in Jerusalem. The J and E accounts of Genesis and Exodus began to be written before the Assyrian occupation. King Josiah in Judah was responsible for having oral traditions recorded into scripts. In 587 BC Babylonia conquered Judah and removed many leaders to Babylonia (the Babylonian Exile). The Israelites absorbed monotheism and laws from the Babylonians which are evidenced in the Priestly accounts and the major prophets. In 537 BC the Persians conquered the Babylonian and released the Israelites to return to Jerusalem. Ezra edited and compiled the books of the Torah, weaving the three accounts into the narrative we have today. Apparently Judean religion evolved from Yahweh as a cultic god among many others in the region worshipped with sacrifices in the temple to a 'book' religion in which God was the only god or at least the dominant god. The religious tradition evolved from animal sacrifices in the temple to a set of laws called Judaism that had a divine sanction. So there is evidence that the Hebrews absorbed religious ideas from the cultures around them including the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks (Hellenism). Judaism refers to the religion as practiced independently of a state and enable the survival of this religion after the Diaspora (dispersion into multiple countries).

They also describe the formation of the New Testament: the authorship of the Gospels and the Pauline letters. Paul's letters began about 50 AD. The books of the canonized New Testament were written by 150 AD by various authors, none of which were members of the original 12 apostles. The Torah was not yet finalized during Jesus' ministry and there is some discussion of which scriptures Jesus was familiar.

They describe the transcriptions and translations of biblical writings - how handwritten copies were made. Apparently comparison of medieval copies of biblical scripture to the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 showed that medieval bibles had only very minor differences and that handwritten copying had remained faithful to the oldest manuscripts.

This volume and 'Who Wrote the Bible?' by Richard Friedman refreshed my knowledge of the history of the bible as well as Hebrew history. Biblical scholars do not all believe the Genesis and Exodus stories to be factual, but perhaps mythical, the remnants of oral traditions. It is very uncertain to what extent the priests who compiled these stories were 'creative'. The J, E and P accounts are similar but not identical. A political struggle between the priests descended from Zadok and the priests descended from Aaron probably influenced the cant of the accounts. Eventually the Aaronite priests gained ascendancy during and after the Babylonian Exile. So human. Yahweh (Elohim, God) himself, or at least human conception of Yahweh evolved. Schmid bridles at the characterization of changes in theology as evolution. However, my impression of this history is that the authors are sympathetic to and share faith in Judaism and Christianity.

Konrad Schmid is professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at the University of Zurich. Jens Schroeter is Professor of New Testament and Ancient Christian Apocrypha at Humboldt University in Berlin. Highly recommended for anyone seeking to understand the origin of the bibles of Judaism and Christianity.

[Ans Schapendonk · Rating 1 out of 5]

Arme Professoren, erst jetzt, wo auch sie von der universellen Lauthelix erfahren haben, versuchen nun auch die Theologen 'Klarheit' zu schaffen. Sie haben alle etwas gemeinsam: Quellen werden nie genannt. The universal soundhelix of the prehistoric midwives stolen by famous scientists. (P)rove of plagiarism (2022). Deutschsprachigen wird auffallen dass diese '(p)rove' (Beweis) sich auch auf 'rove' bzw. 'Rauben' bezieht, denn V > B und Vokale helixen alfabetisch, aber vor allem: Wörter werden von hinten länger und lösen sich von vorne auf (genau das Gegenteil von dem was Jakob Grimm behauptete, weshalb die Weltgeschichte verstümmelt wurde). Mit der Lauthelix, ein universelles Muster, können wir die Zeit (das ist die 4. Dimension bzw. die 5. Naturkraft) sichtbar machen. Aus STAR helixte (s)TORA > (t)ORAKEL (i.c. Lauthelix der Priesterinnen, weshalb kein Mann sie ernst nahm), neben TORA > TUAS GLOS (die zweite Schrift, denn die der Frauen wurde nicht mitgezählt, während diese Mama's dennoch die ersten Mathemathikerinnen waren, die Hexen eben, weil deren Namen von Hexameter abgeleitet ist). Da man bei der Permutation auch von rechts nach links lesen muss, helixt aus ORAK / KARO (Mathe halt: Kubus) auch KORAN (dieses hellere a ist der zweiten Oktav), das helixt in KWINTESSENCE, das letzte Buch, das erneut aus den Sternkonstellationen abgeleitet wird: die grosse Mutter Natur (Auriga (Kopf), Gemini (Baby auf dem Rücken), Taurus (Arme mit Fischnetz), Orion (gebärmutter) und Cetus (Teich, Walfisch bzw. der Knabe). Auch der Islam deren Kirche helixt letztendlich nur in Mutter Natur, denn laut der Lauthelix helixt MOSCHEE in MUSCHI (Vokale helixen alphabetisch) und genau so sehen die Türme (Eierstöcke) und Hohlraum (Gebärmutter) auch aus. Religion wurde von den DOGMA's (Männer und Söhne) gemacht, währen die MADOG's die Naturwissenschaft meinten. Diese Hebammen, auf Französch LES FEMMES SAGE brachten dennoch eine Botschaft, denn aus FEMMES SAGE helixt (fem)MESSAGE, und die lautet Nächstenliebe. Um die zu lernen, bringt uns die Zukunft einen grossen Haufen Elend (das Letzte Urteil). Um die zu meistern, braucht der Mensch die Nächstenliebe. Und erst dann, Herr Schmid, ist das Ebenbild erreicht, dann sind wir jedoch keine Menschen mehr! Wirklich toll, wie gut Sie und ihre Kollegen, vor allem aus Deutschland (Leipzig, sprich: RESONANZ), meine Bücher gelesen haben. Quellenangabe fehlte leider, aber was soll's! Männer haben SIEBEN Beine (XY), Frauen haben ACHT (XX), was SIEBENACHT entspricht: die jüdische Festtradition, aber letztendlich weibliche Mathematik (die dobbelte Banane) und eben auch die haben Sie - wie die Tora- und Bibeltexte -immer noch nicht verstanden.

[Abdul Alhazred · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good overview of the Bible from the first jewish sources to the gospels and beyond. It brings up both textual criticism topics and religious syncretic issues such as the hebrews adopting Babylonian myths and ideas and rebranding them as their own (the flood myth directly and the original henotheistic worldview indirectly). We get enough bearing on the ongoing changes to judaism that affects the era of Jesus and John the Baptist to make better sense of them contextually, and finally analysis of what scribes have done with the lost original sources over time (additions, false authorship, mashing sources together and so on). It covers all this from a refreshingly neutral point of view and while you don't have to suffer through any attempts at theological harmonization it's also not taking an ultra-skeptical approach.

This doesn't cover everything, nor does it take any one topic to granular level, but it does cover more aspects than are usually found in any one book making it a fantastic introduction and a choice for "if you're only going to read one book on this".

Alternatives/more: The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood fun book specifically about the Ark tablet and flood mythology which will sound very familiar.
Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles Over Authentication lecture based course focusing on what became the NT, what was chosen and why - as well as what was left out.
Understanding the Old Testament another lecture series on the OT specifically that expands on some of the ground covered here.

Still missing a great book specifically on early Judaism as a polytheistic religion before it morphs to henotheism and finally monotheism, and the influence from Babylonian religion and Zoroastrian influence in particular. Recommendations welcome.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is .... alright. It isn't bad. It was disappointing.

It's a look at how the scriptures were written, collected, selected, and became the Bible as we know it. You had fragments and scrolls that were compiled and edited and assembled by the Hebrew. They still hadn't really been fully codified by the time of Christ - but they were at least kinda codified. The Laws of Moses were cleraly set. The prophets were largely established. Many of the other books had been figured on. But people were still iffy on things like Esther or some of the odder books. One thing making it hard to have a modern cofiied Bible is that you had scrolls, not one printed text. Printing technology meant it was a series of separate scrolls, not one authoritative book, so who's to say which scrolls are THE scrolls?

Then came Christianity, and we get the story of how they came up with their compilition. This is mostly stuff I'd heard before.

Why just three stars? It's a close class. It's more 3.5, but I did find it disappointing. For example, he notes how many of the Paul letters in the New Testamant are believed by scholars to not be by Paul. OK, good point - I've read that before, and read the reasons before why scholars think that. Well, good thing I'd already read why, because this book does't really cover it that much. For that matter, he notes how much of the Old Testament is believed to come from the era of the Second Temple. Oh, really? Most of what I know of that comes from Richard Elliot Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" which places it around the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Hey - maybe Friedman is wrong and this book is right - but dammit Friedman explained why he thinks what he thinks. This book, again, just asserts. Bit of a theme in this book. I'm also surprised how little attention is given to including the Book of Reveltation, as that's always been one of the more controversial Bible inclusions.

So it's not bad - but underexplained. Thus I round down to three stars.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted a survey to get the best available ideas about who wrote what parts of the bible and how they came to be agreed upon. This book is workable for that purpose.

The authors create a sense that the canonization process is never inevitable and never finished. I think that the various "paths not taken" are interesting- what if the Samaritans (distinguished from early Jews in that their "temple cult" was based on a different hill as the "exclusive site of worship chosen by God"), Essenes, or Sadduccees had become predominant instead of the Pharisees? What if the early Pauline Church fathers had been unsuccessful in their conscious, deliberate competition against Marcionism, or a different heresy?

It's a platitude that the bible contradicts itself, but I always thought that that was because it was the work of a bunch of different authors stitched together, and so contradictions were as accidental as they were inevitable. This is not the case. Later authors often explicitly disagreed with earlier authors for clear-cut reasons of changing politics; for example, the changing attitudes towards institutionalized monarchy before and during the period of Assyrian rule. What's even more interesting (as the book points out) is that the invention of the concept of "divine law" meant that these contradictions necessarily had to be dressed up as exegeses.

Another dynamic that sticks out is schismogenesis, the "reciprocal demarcation and differentiation" that motivated various stages of self-definition in religious groups. For one clear example, "It may well be that, as Chris­tian­ity grew ever stronger and expanded, a desire to assert a clear religious identity prompted Judaism to develop the Mishnah and the Talmud".

[Jc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like with Vearncombe et al.’s book (After Jesus Before Christianity, 2021), I fluctuated between awarding 3 or 4 stars. My reasons, however, are quite different. TMOTB does have enough detail for a more scholarly audience to critique, it is thoroughly referenced, and has a good, usable index. My problem is that for a relatively academic-level work, the authors are often a bit too stuck in their particular religious viewpoints. This often interferes with their ability to present the data in an unbiased way so that a more in-depth discussion can occur. Too bad, as much of the information, and much of the debate points, are both fascinating and worthy of presentation. So, mixed feelings, but reading this together with Vearncombe’s volume (plus maybe Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” and Litwa’s “Found Christianities” [to be reviewed later]) will certainly help the interested non-professional scholar get a feeling for the developing varieties of christ-related beliefs/cults of the first few 100 years CE.

[Mmetevelis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a useful summary of the construction of the Bible which utilizes primary source documents and current scholarship. It covers the earliest origins of the Hebrew Script and provides a concise summary of the history of Biblical interpretation at the end. The sections on the interrelationship of Christians and Jews in the first century offered an interesting look on the ways that both communities developed in relationship to one another.

Billed as an introduction for an education reader this falls a little short. This read at times as more encyclopedic than as a continuous thread about textual development. But still worth the read as the overall thesis is a necessary one - that the Bible is a book made up of diverse texts from different authors and its meaning is always under construction. Also that the process of creating "canon" has usually been an open ended one.

[Vic Lauterbach · Rating 5 out of 5]

This very detailed scripture study examines how the written Bible came into being and explores several new (to me at least) themes including the close relationship between the existing body of Hebrew scripture and the emerging canon of Christian scripture during the first two centuries A. D. (or C.E. if you prefer) . Mr. Schmid does an excellent job developing his thesis that the Hebrew Bible as we know it today evolved along with the Christian Bible, and the two owe much to each other. The level of detail and analysis here is very high and this book is more of a reference work than a narrative you can fully absorb by reading it once from cover to cover. It belongs on your shelf next to a good Bible concordance (such as The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible [2010 edition]). Highly recommended to anyone interested in scriptural exegesis.

[Marae · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would give this book somewhere between 4 and 5 stars. It is perfect for someone who has the time to really dive into what the documentary hypothesis, Septuagint, ANE literature, diversity of the New Testament and early church is all about. The strong point of this book is probably the lack of bias in here, as many books on Biblical history obviously have an apologetic or highly skeptical slant. It makes no mockery of religious belief or events while also pointing out the contradictions and diversities in the texts. Overall, it gives an incredible overview not just of the historical perspectives of the old and new testament and other religious literature but also how the Bible was compiled and the philosophical shifts in history that has shaped how it is interpreted throughout different communities.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was recommended this book from the academic Bible subreddit. If you're coming from a traditional Christian subgroup, this book may be eye-opening. But, If you are already semi-well versed in academic Christianity (i.e. the Septuagint, the Documentary Hypothesis, etc.), then there might not be a lot of new information. I suppose my big issue is that it's just dull. I really had a hard time focusing on its content. And it's a long read. I couldn't wait to finish it so I can move on to a different book in my stack.

There's nothing incorrect with the information presented here, as far as I know, but I would never give this book to a typical Evangelical friend.

One thing I appreciated was that the authors were charitable towards believers and non-believers. I could not detect any biases.

[David H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book on the origins of the Bible, which also made me realize that I really need to study up on the elements of the Hebrew Bible, as most of my religious readings have been on early Christianity which necessarily focused on the New Testament. I felt like I learned a lot, though I feel like this would benefit from a reread with my eyes (I listened to the audiobook), as I kept having to relisten to certain discussions more than once. I liked learning how messy and inconsistent different views of what "the Bible" is, as well as learning just how late the Hebrew Bible was actually constructed, and how some of the Jewish elements were in reaction to the rise of Christianity.

[Vijay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book interesting although esoteric also. A collection of books and scriptures is what makes a bible. That it has many different versions and is translated into many languages unlike the holy Quran which is only in Arabic.

Greek and Hellenistic are the origins of the bible. Apparently the Talmud is also different from the Old Testament.

Torah, cannons, Deuteronomy and aprophycal are given meanings to me that I couldn't fathom in the past. I'm not a Christian but being the text of the most popular religion, one should understand how it came to be.

Good interesting read.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really excellent book on this subject, including the latest in detailed scholarship but presented in an accessible manner for the general reader. Since it was originally written in German as "Die Entstehung der Bibel: Von den ersten Texten zu den heiligen Schriften," special thanks are due to the translator Peter Lewis who rendered the text into highly readable idiomatic English.

[Landon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was not a BAD work by any means and did teach me much, the reason I give it three stars, though, is because of its view that the OT and NT are not in continuity and the higher criticism that is steeped in the text. It did teach me much, and I do recommend this to Christians who are more mature in the Faith, but would not to a new convert.

[Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a history of the bible, I think this book is excellent and well-rounded. It takes into account the Jewish perspective as well, which I did not know about from the mainly Christian books I had read on this topic.

[Julian Bacon · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was really looking forward to this book, and was hoping to gain many new insights of the composition of the Bible - I don’t think they delivered.

It would have been nice to have a recap overview of their views

[Nancy Fondriest · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this deep dive into Biblical history! A note to other readers: A strong knowledge base is needed to fully appreciate this book.

I debated between 3 and 4 stars and finally decided on 3 as I think the book would be accessible to more readers with further editing.

[Mercedes · Rating 3 out of 5]

What the fuck was that?

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned a lot from this but it's a pretty strange book -- it's marketed really to non-specialists but some big chunks of it are really in the weeds.

[Michael Conway · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little too much on scripture analysis but still connect the dots from Jewish scripture to today's Bible versions.

[Kathryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book, but a lot more detail than I needed to know.

[Conor · Rating 3 out of 5]

it's tries to cover a lot at a high level. it never really lands for me.

there are other books (see John Barton), that do the same job better.

[David Malcolm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book which gives history to the "how" the Bible was collected. A bit difficult to read as the back says it best "An erudite history". Felt a little like a textbook but the facts it shares are quite relevant

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first half of this book, covering the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially how and when they came together, was wonderful. The critical role played by Josiah is especially well done. Others have recently written about the history of Yahweh/OT scripture: Barton, Kugel, Hendel, Romer, and Wright (etc.). This book is as good as those--right there with Romer on the "fascinating," scale. I wonder what Evangelical scholars make of these books? Very few reviews are available. I suppose the notion that the Israelite religion evolved from an Mid-East milieu, with multiple gods into monotheism is challenging. So is the idea that Jews didn't worship Yahweh alone until sometime after the Babylonian captivity, and that Yahweh had a consort before then . . . etc., etc., are hard to digest. But compared to the Evangelical scholars I've read, this is much more plausible. Really enjoyed this book.