A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths
- Downloads：4658
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-07 05:51:07
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：John Barton
- ISBN：0141978503
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
WINNER OF THE 2019 DUFF COOPER PRIZE
A SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER
'With emotional and psychological insight， Barton unlocks this sleeping giant of our culture。 In the process， he has produced a masterpiece。'
The Bible is the central book of Western culture。 For the two faiths which hold it sacred， it is the bedrock of their religion， a singular authority on what to believe and how to live。 For non-believers too， it has a commanding status: it is one of the great works of world literature， woven to an unparalleled degree into our language and thought。
This book tells the story of the Bible， explaining how it came to be constructed and how it has been understood， from its remote beginnings down to the present。 John Barton describes how the narratives， laws， proverbs， prophecies， poems and letters which comprise the Bible were written and when， what we know - and what we cannot know - about their authors and what they might have meant， as well as how these extraordinarily disparate writings relate to each other。 His incisive readings shed new light on even the most familiar passages， exposing not only the sources and traditions behind them， but also the busy hands of the scribes and editors who assembled and reshaped them。 Untangling the process by which some texts which were regarded as holy， became canonical and were included， and others didn't， Barton demonstrates that the Bible is not the fixed text it is often perceived to be， but the result of a long and intriguing evolution。
Tracing its dissemination， translation and interpretation in Judaism and Christianity from Antiquity to the rise of modern biblical scholarship， Barton elucidates how meaning has both been drawn from the Bible and imposed upon it。 Part of the book's originality is to illuminate the gap between religion and scripture， the ways in which neither maps exactly onto the other， and how religious thinkers from Augustine to Luther and Spinoza have reckoned with this。 Barton shows that if we are to regard the Bible as 'authoritative'， it cannot be as believers have so often done in the past。
A SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER
'With emotional and psychological insight， Barton unlocks this sleeping giant of our culture。 In the process， he has produced a masterpiece。'
The Bible is the central book of Western culture。 For the two faiths which hold it sacred， it is the bedrock of their religion， a singular authority on what to believe and how to live。 For non-believers too， it has a commanding status: it is one of the great works of world literature， woven to an unparalleled degree into our language and thought。
This book tells the story of the Bible， explaining how it came to be constructed and how it has been understood， from its remote beginnings down to the present。 John Barton describes how the narratives， laws， proverbs， prophecies， poems and letters which comprise the Bible were written and when， what we know - and what we cannot know - about their authors and what they might have meant， as well as how these extraordinarily disparate writings relate to each other。 His incisive readings shed new light on even the most familiar passages， exposing not only the sources and traditions behind them， but also the busy hands of the scribes and editors who assembled and reshaped them。 Untangling the process by which some texts which were regarded as holy， became canonical and were included， and others didn't， Barton demonstrates that the Bible is not the fixed text it is often perceived to be， but the result of a long and intriguing evolution。
Tracing its dissemination， translation and interpretation in Judaism and Christianity from Antiquity to the rise of modern biblical scholarship， Barton elucidates how meaning has both been drawn from the Bible and imposed upon it。 Part of the book's originality is to illuminate the gap between religion and scripture， the ways in which neither maps exactly onto the other， and how religious thinkers from Augustine to Luther and Spinoza have reckoned with this。 Barton shows that if we are to regard the Bible as 'authoritative'， it cannot be as believers have so often done in the past。
Reviews
Dan Smart
，
Tremendous book that breaks down how scholars view each book of the Bible， but for a non-scholarly audience。 And where scholars have disputes， he is careful to lay out all sides of the issue。To get the most out of this book， you should have an intermediate level of knowledge of the Bible; that is， you should have read through the Bible and have a basic understanding of the stories。 Can't recommend highly enough。 Tremendous book that breaks down how scholars view each book of the Bible， but for a non-scholarly audience。 And where scholars have disputes， he is careful to lay out all sides of the issue。To get the most out of this book， you should have an intermediate level of knowledge of the Bible; that is， you should have read through the Bible and have a basic understanding of the stories。 Can't recommend highly enough。 。。。more
Chris Turner
，
This is very well constructed analysis of the formation of the singular book known as the Bible， the ways it has been read and interpreted and the effect these texts have had on Judaism and Christianity。 The arguments are clear and evidence for those opinions is given for almost all cases。 It is thoroughly fascinating and very well balanced。There were only two criticisms which prevented me giving it the full 5 stars。 Firstly， the author's own biases were not clearly identified。 When reading a bo This is very well constructed analysis of the formation of the singular book known as the Bible， the ways it has been read and interpreted and the effect these texts have had on Judaism and Christianity。 The arguments are clear and evidence for those opinions is given for almost all cases。 It is thoroughly fascinating and very well balanced。There were only two criticisms which prevented me giving it the full 5 stars。 Firstly， the author's own biases were not clearly identified。 When reading a book stating that people's beliefs can affect their interpretation， it seems an oversight to not confess one's own leanings for greater transparency。The only other criticism it more a stylistic one。 The chapters were written more like independent articles than as part of one continuous argument or narrative。 This is surely a boon for those who only use this as a reference， but for those who like me read it cover to cover， there is a bit of repetition that is not needed if you have read the previous chapters。All in all though， this was a thoroughly engaging work which gives great insight into a book that has great cultural significance。 。。。more
DouglasStorms
，
the stuff that's good is very good， the stuff that is bad is unbearably boring。 it's about a 80/20 split of the two， hence the four stars the stuff that's good is very good， the stuff that is bad is unbearably boring。 it's about a 80/20 split of the two， hence the four stars 。。。more
Toby
，
The "Bible"， depending on how we might define it， has been around for 2500 years， give or take the odd century。 How a "history" of the Bible is written in a single volume will depend very much upon who is writing it and what their area of expertise is。 A historian， a cultural commentator and a theologian will inevitably emphasise different aspects of the book's history。 Inevitably much will be left out。John Barton is a noted and distinguished Old Testament Scholar and it therefore comes as no su The "Bible"， depending on how we might define it， has been around for 2500 years， give or take the odd century。 How a "history" of the Bible is written in a single volume will depend very much upon who is writing it and what their area of expertise is。 A historian， a cultural commentator and a theologian will inevitably emphasise different aspects of the book's history。 Inevitably much will be left out。John Barton is a noted and distinguished Old Testament Scholar and it therefore comes as no surprise that a third of the book focuses on the specific writing of the Scriptures and how the canon was developed。 Post-Reformation developments， by contrast， are whipped through and there really is very little about how the Bible has been received and used through the centuries。 If there was this would be a multi-volume work。John Barton is also a priest （although he has never been in parish ministry） and was president of Modern Church "An international society promoting liberal Christian theology。" There is a perspective that this book is coming from which no more invalidates it than any other informed view， but colours it nonetheless。For anyone approaching the Bible with a Koran-like view that the words were dictated from on high into a complete and polished book， Barton's critique will contain numerous and salutary （shocking？） corrections。 Moses certainly didn't write the Pentateuch and quite possibly never existed （or at least there is no extra-Biblical evidence to say that he did）。 The Old Testament writings were written and gathered together over a very long period of time， only reaching anything like their final form in the years following the Exile。 Possibly they were only written at that late a time。 Daniel and Esther were certainly written much later。 The New Testament contains much pseudepigrapha （or forgeries and Barton， quoting Ehrman， frequently calls them）。 Jesus spoke in Aramaic so the words recorded in the gospels are at best translations， if not later fabrications。 Some of the books barely got in the canon whilst others perhaps should have been admitted but were left out （although Barton has no truck with fashionable attempts to admit the gospels of Thomas and Judas into respectability）。Much of what Barton writes is well established Biblical criticism and is taught in most seminaries （and I enjoyed his quote of Harnack's that he had bleached his students white with criticism but in ministry they became discoloured） but it comes very much from one side of the argument。 Liberal， and indeed atheist， writers are quoted frequently; conservatives less so， if at all。 He ruefully notes that those engaging in the modern Historical Jesus Quest are all Christians （and therefore， the implication is， too skewed in their views to be objective）。 Bart Ehrman is referred to in the text more， I think， than any other contemporary writer but his atheism presumably frees him from any charge of bias。I have two main concerns with Barton's approach。 The first is his lack of reference to Biblical scholars on the other side of the debate。 A glance in the bibliography refers to one major work each by Bauckham， Wright and Dunn and none whatsoever by that most prolific of Old Testament scholars， Brueggemann。 Reading this book you could be forgiven for missing that N。T。 Wright's multi-volume Christian Origins and the Question of God， Dunn's three volume Christianity in the Making or Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses had been published over the past twenty years。 Does this matter？ Well yes it does when a supposedly even-handed treatment of the origins of the New Testament ignores a huge corpus of scholarly work that takes a more conservative approach to dating and reliability that Barton's own position。 Craig Keener's vast commentary on Acts is also omitted which is a pity given that it adopts a more traditional view that Luke and Acts were written by the same author， and probably before the end of the First Century。 This is not to say that these writers are correct and that Barton is way off beam with his dating， but it does tilt the argument of the book in one clear direction。 Similarly with the Psalms， Brueggemann argues that there is little or no order to the psalter， declaring it to be similar to a poetry anthology （which assumes that poetry anthologies have no order）。 But by doing so he ignores Brueggemann's work on the Psalms which does see an order of orientation-disorientation-reorientation， which I find quite convincing。My second concern is the way that Barton sets up opposing positions and forces us to choose， when alternatives may be available。 For instance we are asked either to accept that the epistle of James and the epistles of Paul are contradictory in their view of faith and works， or that Paul and James "really mean" what the other is saying。 The latter view is presented as untenable and so we are shepherded into the contradiction。 And yet a third view is that both James and Paul are talking about very different things: James is talking about works of kindness and mercy， without which faith is dead whilst Paul is talking about the boundary works of the law - circumcision， sabbath-keeping， food laws （covenantal nomism） which he believes have been rendered obsolete by the coming of the Spirit。 This third view seems to me the more obvious one， and is supported by the New Perspective on Paul， so why is not given as an option？ Similarly with the gospel birth narratives we are asked to choose between the gospel writers being faithful eyewitnesses who believed that they were recording accurate history， or simple story tellers fabricating something they knew to be untrue。 The option that they did believe what they were writing， based on other sources （which may， or may not， be reliable） is not presented to us。 All this makes it a frustrating read， and it troubles me that having been written by a Christian priest， this book may be seen as the "official" view of educated Christians， when it is only one view。Those arguments aside the book is an impressive read and clearly contains within it a lifetime of scholarship。 I would have liked to have seen something of how Barton's own faith reconciles itself with a book that he clearly sees as unInspired （if not uninspiring） with little to say to modern questions of faith and ethics。 。。。more
Chris Jaffe
，
Good book and well-done， but I didn't retain much from it。 Maybe I've already read enough similar material from Bart Ehrman et al， but this mostly felt like familiar ground to me， albiet with a more singular focus on the title。 It's interesting reading how much more importance the Reformation placed on the Bible， and how despite that it's beliefs weren't as religiously grounded as Luther & friends liked to indicate。 The notion that faith is the road to salvation is arguably more or less a Luther Good book and well-done， but I didn't retain much from it。 Maybe I've already read enough similar material from Bart Ehrman et al， but this mostly felt like familiar ground to me， albiet with a more singular focus on the title。 It's interesting reading how much more importance the Reformation placed on the Bible， and how despite that it's beliefs weren't as religiously grounded as Luther & friends liked to indicate。 The notion that faith is the road to salvation is arguably more or less a Luther contruct。 And those who make the Bible central to their faith -- well， oddly enough that's more an interpretation of faith than a clear， direct theme from the Bible itself。I want to give this book 4 stars because I figure it's probably worth it， but I can't tell you much that I got from it， so I can't give it that many stars。 。。。more
Sølvi Goard
，
At twenty one hours this is a pretty hefty audiobook。 I learnt a lot， though I couldn't say that I was particularly moved by anything。 This is a fairly dry book， that feels like it's taking a centrist position on many things。 But it's definitely thorough。 At twenty one hours this is a pretty hefty audiobook。 I learnt a lot， though I couldn't say that I was particularly moved by anything。 This is a fairly dry book， that feels like it's taking a centrist position on many things。 But it's definitely thorough。 。。。more
Hamish Downie
，
Live changing book
MR G J HUTCHINGS
，
I am from the UK and brought up in that culture， but without a very strong religious background。 However， the ideas relating to the Christian religion are all around me: from Paradise Lost to The Da Vinci Code， weddings to funerals。 This book just explains the background to the bible: what we know about how it was written， and it has been interpreted along with the issues surrounding that interpretation。It is well and clearly written， as well as shedding a great deal of light of one of the major I am from the UK and brought up in that culture， but without a very strong religious background。 However， the ideas relating to the Christian religion are all around me: from Paradise Lost to The Da Vinci Code， weddings to funerals。 This book just explains the background to the bible: what we know about how it was written， and it has been interpreted along with the issues surrounding that interpretation。It is well and clearly written， as well as shedding a great deal of light of one of the major influences on Western culture。I’ve read three or four other books on the history of the bible （I’m quite old so it doesn’t mean a great interest） and this is by far the most enlightening。Recommended。 。。。more
Andrew Louis
，
500+ pages of "we don't actually know" can make for frustrating reading but it's not the author's fault。 500+ pages of "we don't actually know" can make for frustrating reading but it's not the author's fault。 。。。more
Samuel Banfield
，
Lots of interesting stuff， but quite a dry book which made it hard work to get through some bits。
Mr。 Steven Thomson
，
Although some parts nearly sent me to sleep， the vast majority was very interesting and made me want to know some more on the subject。 Too many people dismiss the Bible as some piece of nonsense， and at the other extreme there are more than a few nutters out there that see it as a source of absolute truth。 I am therefore grateful that the author provided a very well-balanced account。
Daniel Franklin
，
It was so dry and boring。 I lost interest after 160 pages。 Too much gibberish stories that didn't add relevancy and was going in circles。 Next。 It was so dry and boring。 I lost interest after 160 pages。 Too much gibberish stories that didn't add relevancy and was going in circles。 Next。 。。。more
Rohini Musa
，
Such an interesting read！ So much information about this authoritative text - answers all the why’s and the why nots！ Helps comprehend a lot of the concepts and dogmas。 I enjoyed this book。
Jordan Beamer
，
“Starting from the Bible， one would not predict the Christian Church or Judaism as we see them today; starting from modern Judaism or Christianity， one could not reconstruct the Bible…One cannot derive modern Jewish or Christian monotheism simply and solely from the biblical text: they rest on centuries of philosophical reflection in both religions” （471）。
Richard Howard
，
This is a superb book in that it manages to walk that tricky line between scholarship and readability。 It uses the latest historical discoveries about the Bible's origins but carefully considers all other historical sources and traditions too。It is even-handed and fair-minded， which may well fail to please both fundamentalists and new-atheists。 The author explains clearly what the Bible is and what it isn't; what is does say and what it doesn't; what it can be used for and what it can't He also This is a superb book in that it manages to walk that tricky line between scholarship and readability。 It uses the latest historical discoveries about the Bible's origins but carefully considers all other historical sources and traditions too。It is even-handed and fair-minded， which may well fail to please both fundamentalists and new-atheists。 The author explains clearly what the Bible is and what it isn't; what is does say and what it doesn't; what it can be used for and what it can't He also makes clear the distinction between what is scripture and what is tradition。 （Along the way pointing out that reading many parts of the Bible without some form of guidance is really very difficult。）I am of neither the Jewish nor Christian faith but， after reading this excellent book， I feel I understand each a lot better and without the prejudices I once had。 。。。more
Andrew
，
Was listening to this as BBC Radio 4 Book Of the Week but missed the cut off date。
Cooch
，
An excellent history of the bibleThis is easily the best book of its type that I have read。 Detailed， profound and yet very readable， it is open and wears any small bias that it has on its sleeve。 It is an important book。
Larkin H
，
There are many more unanswered questions than certainties about the Bible’s history， its authors， their sources， etc。 but its power and its presence in the last 2000+ years of human life cannot be questioned。 This is a dense book but it is a brilliant work。 Barton is incredibly thorough， too much so at times for amateurs of biblical history， but the amount of information available in these 400+ pages is astonishing。 Reading the Bible itself is an important prerequisite （I wouldn’t recommend this There are many more unanswered questions than certainties about the Bible’s history， its authors， their sources， etc。 but its power and its presence in the last 2000+ years of human life cannot be questioned。 This is a dense book but it is a brilliant work。 Barton is incredibly thorough， too much so at times for amateurs of biblical history， but the amount of information available in these 400+ pages is astonishing。 Reading the Bible itself is an important prerequisite （I wouldn’t recommend this book if you don’t have a decent grasp of the books） but Barton cites countless passages from the canonical books as well as newer and/or lost/suppressed writings。 At times he is critical and at times he is as much in awe of the Bible’s lasting power。 Barton brings the Bible to life in historical， anthropological， and linguistic ways that should be considered a great scholastic accomplishment。 。。。more
Kyle Evens
，
This would be a good starter book for an undergraduate level survey。 Maybe that was its purpose。 For me it seemed a survey of what I already knew。 At the same time it is sufficiently focused on theology and literary criticism vis-a-vis the Bible that I question whether a complete layperson would get engaged in the material as presented。
Noelle
，
I have NOT read the book， but I have read a review of it， and assuming that the reviewer has accurately represented the book’s arguments in their review， I believe that the points of refutation I am offering will be relevant as a response to Barton’s claims （and/or the reviewer’s arguments）。Firstly， the Bible is not， as claimed， “a set of instructions on Jewish and Christian practice”， which seems to be a strawman argument put up by the author for the convenience of tearing it down。 Anyone with I have NOT read the book， but I have read a review of it， and assuming that the reviewer has accurately represented the book’s arguments in their review， I believe that the points of refutation I am offering will be relevant as a response to Barton’s claims （and/or the reviewer’s arguments）。Firstly， the Bible is not， as claimed， “a set of instructions on Jewish and Christian practice”， which seems to be a strawman argument put up by the author for the convenience of tearing it down。 Anyone with a decent amount of Bible knowledge would know that the Bible is not just a list of dos and don'ts - whoever holds this view does not know the Bible very well。 The Bible covers multiple genres， including 1） History / Narratives， 2） Instruction / Commands， 3） Christian teachings （eg。 the nature of Christ， the Holy Spirit， judgement and salvation etc）， 4） Prophecy， 5） Wisdom Literature and 6） Apocalyptic Literature。 Many times， these genres overlap， in the same chapter/verse or in succession。 So， does the Bible contain instructions on Christian practice？ Does it have commands and laws？ Absolutely。 But is that all there is to it ie。 as the author seems to imply， can the Bible be simply reduced to this one exclusive genre？ Obviously not。 The author also makes the inaccurate and uninformed claim that “most of it is narrative”。 I don’t have the space to break down all the books in the Bible by theme （available upon request）， but if we do the simple Math we see that 17 out of 39 books （43。6%） in the OT and only 5 out of 27 books （18。5%） in the NT are Historical / Narrative。 Is it then fair to say that “most of it is narrative”？In literature and fables， we have no problems identifying the “moral of the story” or our takeaways from it （many examples can be found on this very platform， for instance？） and even take the extra step of applying it to our lives。 But suddenly， when it comes to the Bible， “it is hard to extract concrete prescriptions from narrative text”。 Hang on， is this a problem with the Bible or the reader’s ability and/or willingness to interpret the text？ Could it be an issue of spiritual blindness （2 Corinthians 4:4）？ In 1 Corinthians 10:1-11， Paul describes historical narratives that happened and were recorded in the Torah and then goes on to say that “now all these things happened to them as examples， and they were written for our admonition”。 The implication is that we should be able to learn things and draw lessons from historical narratives in the Bible！Next， is it true that “early Christians viewed only the former as important， and would quote the sayings of Jesus in the NT but not the text of the NT itself”？ An early church father， Irenaeus， in the year 180 refuted those who claim there are more than 4 gospels， while another church father， Origen， in the year 228， called the gospels “these four”， showing that early Christians viewed the gospels as a whole and not in their constituent parts。 More on this later。 Meanwhile， I will digress a little to Progressive Christianity， which I believe that Barton is an adherent of。 The first characteristic of PC is a lowered view of the Scripture， which is not viewed as God-inspired， inerrant and authoritative。 This contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16-17， and if God really means what He says since He cannot lie （Numbers 23:19， Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18）， it is a fallacy to divide the gospels into “the sayings of Jesus” and “other narratives”。 Another characteristic is pitting the Bible against itself， by saying that “the sayings of Jesus” are more important than other portions， or pointing out supposed contradictions within the text。 Firstly， a minor correction in the statement “the book of James in the OT” - James is in the NT。 That aside， I would like to point out that now we have a satisfactory， logical， deeply exegetical and consistent understanding of the Bible。 Two points:1） Having difficulty reconciling “contradictory” portions of Scripture does not make the Scripture inconsistent。 There is the possibility （which the author seems to have overlooked） that the reader may be missing some crucial facts or have a misunderstanding of existing known facts。 To quote theologian Wayne Grudem， in every one of those ‘problem texts’， “upon close inspection of the text a plausible solution has become evident” and “all of them have reasonable solutions that are readily available in the academic commentaries”。 There are also ministries which have come up with reasonable and satisfactory explanations for these ‘problems’: https://defendinginerrancy。com/bible-。。。。 Thus could it be that Barton （or the reviewer） has not made the requisite effort to truly understand what the Scripture is saying and how the contradictions could be reconciled？ It’s certainly a lot easier to dismiss supposed contradictions as contradictions。 2） Having different viewpoints with other people on the same portion of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is therefore errant。 As students of Literature， we know that the author’s intention can easily be misinterpreted。 Likewise， the intention of the Bible’s author is also subject to misinterpretation。 So what is the correct interpretation？ While interpretations are subjective， truth is objective。 The correct interpretation is the one closest to the truth， which can be evaluated by evidence - contextual evidence in the rest of the text。Therefore everything must be understood in context。 Subordination does not necessitate inferiority or inequality， for instance。 As a general Bible interpretation principle， “obscure” texts should be interpreted with our understanding of clear texts。 There are texts that are explicit about the Goodhood of Christ the Son eg。 John 1。 Marring clear texts with obscure ones is poor hermeneutic （in fact， if done with intent， could even be malicious）。 As for the supposed incongruity of the gospels about the number of trips Jesus made to Jerusalem - could this be a non-problem？ Could it be that the mentions of the other trips were simply excluded from the other gospels？ Note that his trips to Jerusalem were specified for their purpose eg。 to celebrate one of the Jewish annual holy days。 May I also point out that accusations of the inconsistency of the gospels are not new - they have been present since the 2nd century。 Yet， Clement of Alexandria， an early church father， asserted that “although the expressions may vary slightly in each Gospel， they all show identical agreement in meaning”， showing that the early church did seriously consider and reconcile the differences between the gospels （I will expound more on this below）The argument about the doctrine of the trinity receiving “only two mentions in the entire NT” is also a poor one。 It is fallacious to look just for the specific word “trinity” or just exclusive instance where the trinity is mentioned and conclude based on that whether the trinity is a Biblical doctrine or not。 There are many other references that affirm the eternal Godhood of Christ the Son， the Holy Spirit and the oneness of God， which may not be neatly packaged as a “trinity” doctrine。 This requires the hard work of meticulously reading and studying the Scriptures and piecing them together。 A resource dealing with this: https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=p0cLK。。。。 Another troubling claim is that non-scipturality is “not an indictment of Christianity”。 The view that Barton is trying to propagate is highly problematic because it suggests that God is a liar when He says that His Word is true （Revelation 21:5 and 22:6） and truth （John 17:17）。 How could this reasonably be a non-indictment of Christianity？ Another minor factual error: “at the time of the writing of the NT c。 2nd century AD” - the NT was written and completed in the 1st century。 And in response to the claim that “non-scripturality was seen as a strength”， 2 Peter 3:16-18 denounces this in strong terms: “the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” and it being “the error of lawless people”。 It also points to studying， understanding and obeying the Scriptures as the way to “grow in the grace and knowledge” of Jesus。 In Romans 16:17 Paul references “divisions and offenses， contrary to the doctrine which you learned”。 It is reasonable to conclude that based on the very same principles of Christianity that Barton purports to adhere to， deviating from canonical doctrine ie。 what is written in Scripture， is undesirable and thus non-scripturality is NOT a strength。 The argument that early Christians supposedly had the belief that “Jesus’s sayings” were more important than “other writings” is also flawed。 This is evident in Origen’s rejection of “the gospel according to the Hebrews”， an early work purporting to contain sayings of Jesus not recorded in the four Gospels。 Adding on the 2 quotes above that assert how there are ONLY 4 gospels， we see that the early church fathers were critical thinkers who did not believe that Jesus’s sayings were more important than the writings of the OT - otherwise they would have been susceptible to apocryphal books such as the aforementioned one precisely because Jesus’s sayings were not captured in those books。 In fact they were so confident of the consistency of the Scriptures that they could use it as a litmus test to determine whether “lost texts” should be part of the canon （FYI， none of them made it）。 Liberal claims to reject Scripture as inspired， inerrant， infallible， and authoritative are thus untenable and problematic。“Christians tend to strongly allegorise the OT” - is this a fair representation of most Christians？ It appears that the author of the book （or the reviewer？） is not above making sweeping statements。 May I suggest a modified hypothesis: Christians who do not practice proper exegesis tend to strongly allegorise the OT。 Using the very same example of the book of Psalms， there are commentaries that practise responsible Scripture reading and proper hermeneutics。 Simply doing a quick search of commentaries on Psalms 137:8-9， in particular， will yield multiple commentaries that talk about the literal Babylon and its judgement （so I am actually quite curious about what kind of commentaries Barton is delving into that talk about Babylon = devil， its infants = seeds of sin， the rock = Jesus）。 Of course， bearing in mind that the Bible does use symbolism - so it's important to know when to read the text literally and/or allegorically。 I thus conclude my review of the book’s review - if anything is clear， it’s that Barton is not， as he purports， a “Christian”。 The book， if I were to take the review as a faithful representation of it， contains fallacious logic and beliefs that are not Christian。 Though of course this isn’t new - there have been attacks on the Word ever since the serpent in Eden said to Eve， “Did God really say that you must not eat from any tree in the garden？” ¯\_（ツ）_/¯ 。。。more
Deborah Brunt
，
A broad survey of the biblical texts from compilation through interpretation and translation。 Where it lacks in depth it compensates in breadth。 A long read but in many places fascinating and fun。 A beneficial read for anyone wanting a historical-critical overview of the bible while striving to remain faithful to their faith tradition。
Tajei
，
If ever you have interacted with a theologically motivated argument in support of a certain position， you will probably have come across a biblical citation as evidence for the claim。 One thing you might notice in that is how oblique these biblical references tend to be。 For instance， the entire institution of the papacy and the overwhelming power it wields are based on the single following line:"And I tell you， you are Peter， and on this rock I will build my church， and the gates of Hades will If ever you have interacted with a theologically motivated argument in support of a certain position， you will probably have come across a biblical citation as evidence for the claim。 One thing you might notice in that is how oblique these biblical references tend to be。 For instance， the entire institution of the papacy and the overwhelming power it wields are based on the single following line:"And I tell you， you are Peter， and on this rock I will build my church， and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it。" （Matthew 16:18）The Catholic interpretation is that the church and papacy are the "rock" Jesus describes， hence legitimating its power in the practice of Christian believers。 While this is a possible allegorical interpretation of the passage， it does not really strike us as the most likely meaning of the text nor its intended message。 This is the phenomenon that this book seeks to explain， by way of detour through the entirety of biblical history and interpretation。The first problem the author accounts for is the problem of genre。 The Bible， despite being seen as a set of instructions on Jewish and Christian practice， is not a list of laws。 Most of it is narrative， concerning the travails of Israel and the prophets （Old Testament） or Jesus （New）。 In the best cases， it is hard to extract concrete prescriptions from narrative text， and this problem is compounded in the Bible's multiplicity of narratives。 The NT presents particular problems in this regard。 It is easy to forget that the NT is kind of a frame narrative: one level are the recorded sayings of Jesus， and another is the prose description of the events given by the author。 There is evidence， the author argues， that early Christians viewed only the former as important， and would quote the sayings of Jesus in the NT but not the text of the NT itself （sort of like a History SBQ where the author of an interview is the person being quoted not the one who conducted the interview）。 The modern churches， however， have canonised both of these narrative levels， which is an interesting departure from early Christian practice。The second problem is that the Bible is not an entirely rigorously self-consistent text。 The most famous example of this is in the question of how a believer is saved: whether through faith alone （Luther and subsequent Protestants） or through faith and good works （Catholics）。 The book of James in the OT seems to endorse the Catholic position， whereas Paul's letters to the Romans in the NT argue for the Protestant stand。 Similarly， the various letters of Paul seem to offer different views on the question of the trinity which is now central to Christian belief: in contrast to the orthodox trinitarian position， some letters show a subordationist tendency， which holds that Christ the Son is subordinate to God the Father， while others express an adoptionist view， which suggests that Jesus of Nazareth did not become the son of God until the point of crucifixion。 The clearest example of this incongruity is the four canonic gospels accepted by all Christian denominations。 The gospels of Mark， Matthew， Luke and John all claim to be authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus， but differ in clear and important ways （John， for instance， claims that Jesus made multiple trips to Jerusalem where the prior three account for only one）。These two problems lead the author to claim that Christianity is not exclusively a scriptural religion。 There are many key church doctrines that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible， or are found in such a tangential way as to seem suspect。 The doctrine of the trinity， for instance — which holds that God is one entity in three co-equal persons: the Father， Son and Holy Spirit — receives only two mentions in the entire NT （in Matthew and John）， and both are widely agreed to be subsequent additions by medieval authors not present in the original text。The author's argument on non-scripturality， however， is importantly not an indictment of Christianity （or Judaism）。 Plenty of religions are non-scriptural， finding basis for their faiths in tradition and custom， rather than （solely） in holy texts。 The author merely argues that Christianity needs to recognise itself as such。 In fact， at the time of the writing of the NT （c。 2nd century AD）， non-scripturality was seen as a strength， and it was believed that Jesus' sayings were more important than the writings of the OT precisely because they were not captured in those books。 Fundamentalist claims to practise Christianity sola scriptura （according to scripture alone） are thus untenable and problematic。One other section of the book I found interesting discussed the differences between Jewish and Christian approaches to the OT。 Often， it is thought that the two faiths agree on the OT， with Christianity simply "adding on" the NT， but this view is highly misleading。 For one， Jews tend to see the OT as a historical record， which documents the life and times of the Israelite kingdoms and prophets， thus forming the national literature of Israel。 In contrast， Christians tend to strongly allegorise the OT。 One particularly striking example is from the Book of Psalms:"Daughter Babylon， doomed to destruction， happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us。 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks。" （Psalms 137:8-9） This， quite clearly， is a denunciation of Babylon by the Israelites （between whom there was strong enmity because of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem） and Judaism regards it as such。 Christian writers， however， have never quite been comfortable with the implication of infanticide the Psalm suggests， and thus read it in an allegoric mode。 To Christians， Babylon represents the Devil， and its infants， the seeds of sin， which must be dashed against the rock （Jesus） before they grow in evil。 This highly metaphorical reading of the OT is carried through several other places， replacing the rather more literal Jewish interpretation。Jews and Christians also differ on the overall meaning of the OT and which parts they emphasise。 Some key Christian stories， such as that of Adam and Eve， are present in the Jewish Hebrew Bible， but not given nearly the same level of importance （hence why Judaism does not preach the doctrine of original sin which Christianity derives from this story）。 Similarly， Christians tend to see the OT as a prediction of the coming of Jesus which the NT fulfils， while Jews see the messianic prophecies as remaining unfulfilled。 Christians likewise see the OT as having an overall thematic message — of sin， hope and redemption — while Jews do not read any overall meaning from the text。 Finally， while Judaism sees the books of the OT as being part of a clear hierarchy， with the Torah （the first five books） as primary， the books known as the Prophets as secondary， and the Writings as tertiary， Christians make no such distinctions and see the whole of the OT as equally important。 Functionally， then， the Hebrew Bible and Christian OT might as well be seen as separate works in the way they are interpreted。If that very long and slightly meandering review sort of obscured the point， this is a very good book which I would highly recommend。 。。。more
Ryan Ward
，
A comprehensive and informative survey of the origins and uses of the Bible throughout history。 A bit dry and esoteric at times， but a very useful source for future reference。
Jacob
，
Other reviewers have noted that this book is not for Biblical fundamentalists， but it should also be noted that it's not for people who dismiss the Bible entirely， either。 Barton， an Anglican priest and theologian， strives for a classically Anglican "via media" interpretation of the Bible， in which he concludes that the most plausible way to treat the Bible as a believer is to "accept [it] 。 。 。 as a crucial yet not infallible document of the Christian faith" （489）。 I frankly couldn't agree more Other reviewers have noted that this book is not for Biblical fundamentalists， but it should also be noted that it's not for people who dismiss the Bible entirely， either。 Barton， an Anglican priest and theologian， strives for a classically Anglican "via media" interpretation of the Bible， in which he concludes that the most plausible way to treat the Bible as a believer is to "accept [it] 。 。 。 as a crucial yet not infallible document of the Christian faith" （489）。 I frankly couldn't agree more， as the Bible seems to often become hijacked by people who either purport its inerrancy or those who dismiss religion altogether。But don't get the idea from my review that this book is a 500-page promotion of Anglican scriptural exegesis—not at all。 The most valuable aspect of Barton's book is his careful tracing of the history of the Bible。 Other volumes that do so tend to focus only on the composition and production of the Bible over millennia; this one does so as well， but also provides a history of the ways the Bible has been read and interpreted。 Barton gives a fair analysis of all hermeneutics， both Jewish and Christian， and readily acknowledges that the way societies and religions perceive the Bible is as much informed by their own context as the original writers were。 However， the most satisfying conclusions for me in the book were indeed the ones where he outlines the problems of relying on a fundamentalist interpretation of the text。 This comes principally in the introduction and conclusion， both of which I'll be referring to frequently in the future。 "[P]roblems arise when people insist that the Bible and the faith [they belong to] are simply coterminous，" he writes （487）， and adds significantly that any religion that sees its organization represented explicitly in the Bible is doing so from "forced interpretation" （486）。 The Bible is important for all religions that subscribe to it by providing "a control and check （485）， "[f]reeing" it "from the control of religious authorities，" while also upholding it as a standard of faith。 Again， this is a typically Anglican approach， but one that seems to strike the right balance between infallibility and dismissal。I come from a high-demand religious background that values scripture only as it is interpreted by current ecclesiastical authorities。 Whatever past authorities have said becomes irrelevant as soon as a new pronouncement by a current authority is made。 This has engendered an environment of confusion and mistrust， as today's dogma is tomorrow's heresy and vice-versa。 While I'm no opponent of updating church practices to better accord with a changing world （within reason）， this practice has allowed the church of my youth to become subject to the whims of whomever happens to be at the helm。 In his conclusion， Barton is particularly adamant against this viewpoint， as it tends to base a religion on what the group "happen[s] to believe or do at the moment，" removing "any criterion against which to measure their beliefs" （485）。 Thus seeing the Bible along with tradition and reason—an Anglican maxim which Barton nonchalantly throws out at one point （487）—helps prevent the Bible in some degree from being pirated in favor of a "totalitarian delusion" （488）。This book took me almost exactly two years to read （shy by a single day if I account for Leap Year 2020）， so it's not something that most people can digest in a few days。 I marked and highlighted this book more than any other book I ever have except the Bible itself （my tradition emphasizes marking scripture for deeper study）， and I have come away with more insight about the history of the Bible than I have reading any other written on a similar subject。 I highly recommend it for anyone who has both the interest in the subject as well as the patience for reading in the long-haul。 。。。more
Jack O'Rourke
，
Well balanced， pretty comprehensive tour of the history of the Bible， from the very beginning writings， through the Pentateuch and Old Testament of the early Jews， and on through the selection and adoption of the Christian gospels， which together with the Old Testament comprised the new Christian Bible。 It's interesting to read of the historical process， and the way the Jews approach the understanding of the Old Testament， and the way Christians read the identical documents as a foretelling of t Well balanced， pretty comprehensive tour of the history of the Bible， from the very beginning writings， through the Pentateuch and Old Testament of the early Jews， and on through the selection and adoption of the Christian gospels， which together with the Old Testament comprised the new Christian Bible。 It's interesting to read of the historical process， and the way the Jews approach the understanding of the Old Testament， and the way Christians read the identical documents as a foretelling of the events of the New Testament。 The author closes with an insightful summary of the present working state of belief of the two faiths in the Biblical testament。 。。。more
Alex L
，
Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in knowing how both the Bible books came together and how the interpretation of the Bible has changed over time
Iina
，
Looooong but good！I listened to this on audio — at double speed — and still spent a good couple of weeks getting through this。 Granted， this may not be the sexiest of topics…As for the book itself， I really enjoyed it， but it wasn’t the exact angle I thought。 I was under the impression this would cover things like the various councils/meetings/whatever who once upon a time quarrelled over what to include in the Bible and what not， but this focused more on the various books within the Bible， thei Looooong but good！I listened to this on audio — at double speed — and still spent a good couple of weeks getting through this。 Granted， this may not be the sexiest of topics…As for the book itself， I really enjoyed it， but it wasn’t the exact angle I thought。 I was under the impression this would cover things like the various councils/meetings/whatever who once upon a time quarrelled over what to include in the Bible and what not， but this focused more on the various books within the Bible， their history， the different interpretations of the books Judaism and Christianity share， translations， etc… so slightly different， perhaps better， angle。Fundamentalists: get mad， you won’t agree with most or any of this book。Everyone else （if interested）: would recommend。 。。。more
Joanna
，
This is a fascinating book which does exactly what it says。 An astonishing amount of information is packed in， but I found it very easy to read。 The author is clearly Anglican， as is shown by the prominence of Richard Hooker， but the book comes across as a fair survey 0f the development of the Bible as both Jewish and Christian religious texts。 The further reading section， done by chapter， is very helpful and my wishlist has grown！
Stephen Huntley
，
Very engaging， factual， erudite and intelligent deep dive into the topic。 It leans toward the academic and there is a lot to digest。 The author is always even handed， doesn’t assume the reader has any particular faith， introduces his own opinions in a very reasoned and understated but logical manner while giving a fair airing to all views， and everything he says makes sense。 He comes across as an intellectual that is extremely knowledgable， unpresumptious and with a talent for communicating what Very engaging， factual， erudite and intelligent deep dive into the topic。 It leans toward the academic and there is a lot to digest。 The author is always even handed， doesn’t assume the reader has any particular faith， introduces his own opinions in a very reasoned and understated but logical manner while giving a fair airing to all views， and everything he says makes sense。 He comes across as an intellectual that is extremely knowledgable， unpresumptious and with a talent for communicating what he knows。 。。。more
Marco G
，