What do you think?
Rate this book
How We Got the Bible
Accessible account of how the Bible has been preserved and transmitted to today's generation. Now includes chapters on the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 28, 1962
About the author
Neil R. Lightfoot
16 books4 followersDr. Lightfoot is known for his books and scholarly articles. His books include: How We Got the Bible (3rd edition, revised and expanded), Lessons From the Parables, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, The Role of Women: New Testament Perspectives, and Everyone’s Guide to the Book of Hebrews. His videos and filmstrips include How We Got the Bible, Now That I Am a Christian, and Can We Believe the Bible? In addition, he has served as Greek-text editor and a translator of the The International Children’s Version (NT), The Word: The New Century Version (NT), and the The Everyday Bible.
Dr. Lightfoot held the B.A. and M.A. Degrees in Philosophy from Baylor University, and the Ph.D. degree in New Testament from Duke University. In 1978, he received the “Trustee’s Award, Outstanding Teacher of the Year", Abilene Christian University. In 1986, He was Senior Associate of Westminster College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England and also served as Distinguished Scholar in Residence.
Dr. Lightfoot held the B.A. and M.A. Degrees in Philosophy from Baylor University, and the Ph.D. degree in New Testament from Duke University. In 1978, he received the “Trustee’s Award, Outstanding Teacher of the Year", Abilene Christian University. In 1986, He was Senior Associate of Westminster College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England and also served as Distinguished Scholar in Residence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews
May 12, 2017
I was anticipating reading several different books covering the same topic, but this book offers such a detailed overview that I feel there is little need. I made over 300 notes and highlights, according to Google. It made me want to read other books to get the details on stories like the adventure of discovering the Siniatic codex in the 19th century, or Tyndale's martyrdom for helping make the Bible available in English. Lightfoot's work might also motivate you to learn koine Greek. I read this book as a 37 year old Christian, really I should have read it when I was 17 (although the most updated edition has the newest research). Since the Bible is of the utmost of importance to the believer, and the object that comes the most heavily under attack, this ought to be one of the first books a new Christian should read, or even a skeptical non-Christian who has misconceptions about forgeries and manuscript evidence. There is much more to this book, but here are some of my major takeaways:
Lightfoot first covers the progression of written text in the ancient world from tablets and pottery shards to papyrii, rolled forms, and codices. He explains the difference between the biblical uncials, miniscules, and papyrus fragments we have today. He gives a decent history of the most important complete manuscripts: Vatican (4th century), Siniatic, and Alexandrian (5th century), Ephraem palimpset manuscript, and Codex Bezae. He explains how they differ, how translators compare the various versions, and the intricacies of translating words that may be spelled the same in Greek or have one character difference. Many of these texts have only been made available since the late 1800s, with other fragments and papyrii discovered regularly, and Lightfoot explains how they certainly help modern translations be close to original autographs. Most fragments and manuscripts discovered can be placed in a "family tree" of manuscripts, even though no two manuscripts are exactly alike. There are still early manuscripts in Syriac, Armenian, and others being examined.
What is remarkable about the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is both the ubiquity of copies and how similar they are to one another, despite none being identical. While there may be more than 200,000 known scribal errors amongst the manuscripts and fragments, that is because there are over 20,000 such pieces including 5,300 manuscripts of a great many words and pages. There are no other works of history with nearly as many manuscript copies. That they are increasingly discovered of early dates and relatively distant places indicate the early writing of the originals. Arguments of 19th century for late dates of authorship have been undermined by the sheer number of discoveries and remarkable alikeness.
Lightfoot makes a comparison:
"The history of Thucydides, for example, which was written about 400 B.C., is available today on the basis of eight manuscripts, while the few books that remain of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) have survived on the margin of two manuscripts. Copies of Thucydides are thus about 1,300 years later than the date of their original composition, yet no effort is made to discount these copies in spite of such a wide interval of time."
There is also a look at the "apocryphal" books, what they are, how they have been used in church history and more. Evidence suggests strongly that Shepherd of Hermas and other books may have been used in early church worship services while not being considered authoritative, similar to how a pastor might read portions of an extrabiblical book to assist with a sermon today. I agree with Lightfoot that every Christian should read 1 Maccabees for help in understanding Palestinian geography and politics in Jesus' day. He explains clearly how the canon was formed and the reader can draw conclusions for himself about what did not happen, namely some group of men decided which books to keep and which to burn like skeptics might wrongly state.
The author gives a good treatment of how the Bible got to English. He details Jerome's Latin translation and its various issues and how that "official" version became the basis for other translations. How we got chapters and verses in the 12th century. How Tyndale was the first to translate the New Testament into English from available Greek manuscripts (Erasmus' third edition of the Greek). Lightfoot explains how earlier manuscript discoveries give strong evidence against the inclusion of a verse like 1 John 5:7, because only later manuscripts than ones mentioned above have that verse. Erasmus used what was available to him, as did Tyndale, as did later translators like the officially-sanctioned King James Version. Now we have even more available to us, and more non-koine Greek and Semitic-language finds and scholarship that have helped shed light on the meaning of koine-Greek words.
While I focus on the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint's history is also a remarkable story in itself. Lightfoot explains what we know about various schools of Jewish scribes and how they would meticulously count the letters in a manuscript copy and re-check it to count its accuracy. He demonstrates what's so great about the Dead Sea Scrolls in that they thus far show that between the thousand years of the first available Hebrew manuscript little has changed from the first century and before.
I live in a town with several King-James-Only churches. I was interested to learn of how some of the earliest Calvinist Pilgrims in America clung to the Geneval Bible rather than the King James. Lightfoot gives examples of translation problems in all of the English translations he examines, and does not single out the King James for criticism. But after reading of the methods of literary criticism and translation I am baffled at how anyone could claim a 17th century English text as the only authoritative one. Lightfoot encourages readers to check out the foreword in the KJV that is often not reprinted today, where the translators give their official statement as to why the translation was necessary and show that, logically, further updates and translations would always be necessary as languages change and more scholarship is done on more recent manuscript finds.
This is a five star book, highly recommend.
Lightfoot first covers the progression of written text in the ancient world from tablets and pottery shards to papyrii, rolled forms, and codices. He explains the difference between the biblical uncials, miniscules, and papyrus fragments we have today. He gives a decent history of the most important complete manuscripts: Vatican (4th century), Siniatic, and Alexandrian (5th century), Ephraem palimpset manuscript, and Codex Bezae. He explains how they differ, how translators compare the various versions, and the intricacies of translating words that may be spelled the same in Greek or have one character difference. Many of these texts have only been made available since the late 1800s, with other fragments and papyrii discovered regularly, and Lightfoot explains how they certainly help modern translations be close to original autographs. Most fragments and manuscripts discovered can be placed in a "family tree" of manuscripts, even though no two manuscripts are exactly alike. There are still early manuscripts in Syriac, Armenian, and others being examined.
What is remarkable about the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is both the ubiquity of copies and how similar they are to one another, despite none being identical. While there may be more than 200,000 known scribal errors amongst the manuscripts and fragments, that is because there are over 20,000 such pieces including 5,300 manuscripts of a great many words and pages. There are no other works of history with nearly as many manuscript copies. That they are increasingly discovered of early dates and relatively distant places indicate the early writing of the originals. Arguments of 19th century for late dates of authorship have been undermined by the sheer number of discoveries and remarkable alikeness.
Lightfoot makes a comparison:
"The history of Thucydides, for example, which was written about 400 B.C., is available today on the basis of eight manuscripts, while the few books that remain of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) have survived on the margin of two manuscripts. Copies of Thucydides are thus about 1,300 years later than the date of their original composition, yet no effort is made to discount these copies in spite of such a wide interval of time."
There is also a look at the "apocryphal" books, what they are, how they have been used in church history and more. Evidence suggests strongly that Shepherd of Hermas and other books may have been used in early church worship services while not being considered authoritative, similar to how a pastor might read portions of an extrabiblical book to assist with a sermon today. I agree with Lightfoot that every Christian should read 1 Maccabees for help in understanding Palestinian geography and politics in Jesus' day. He explains clearly how the canon was formed and the reader can draw conclusions for himself about what did not happen, namely some group of men decided which books to keep and which to burn like skeptics might wrongly state.
The author gives a good treatment of how the Bible got to English. He details Jerome's Latin translation and its various issues and how that "official" version became the basis for other translations. How we got chapters and verses in the 12th century. How Tyndale was the first to translate the New Testament into English from available Greek manuscripts (Erasmus' third edition of the Greek). Lightfoot explains how earlier manuscript discoveries give strong evidence against the inclusion of a verse like 1 John 5:7, because only later manuscripts than ones mentioned above have that verse. Erasmus used what was available to him, as did Tyndale, as did later translators like the officially-sanctioned King James Version. Now we have even more available to us, and more non-koine Greek and Semitic-language finds and scholarship that have helped shed light on the meaning of koine-Greek words.
While I focus on the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint's history is also a remarkable story in itself. Lightfoot explains what we know about various schools of Jewish scribes and how they would meticulously count the letters in a manuscript copy and re-check it to count its accuracy. He demonstrates what's so great about the Dead Sea Scrolls in that they thus far show that between the thousand years of the first available Hebrew manuscript little has changed from the first century and before.
I live in a town with several King-James-Only churches. I was interested to learn of how some of the earliest Calvinist Pilgrims in America clung to the Geneval Bible rather than the King James. Lightfoot gives examples of translation problems in all of the English translations he examines, and does not single out the King James for criticism. But after reading of the methods of literary criticism and translation I am baffled at how anyone could claim a 17th century English text as the only authoritative one. Lightfoot encourages readers to check out the foreword in the KJV that is often not reprinted today, where the translators give their official statement as to why the translation was necessary and show that, logically, further updates and translations would always be necessary as languages change and more scholarship is done on more recent manuscript finds.
This is a five star book, highly recommend.
August 18, 2011
"How We Got the Bible" is by no means a comprehensive look at the origins of the Bible. Instead, it is a sort of primer in text history -- where did the oldest extant manuscripts come from and how have they been translated into English. In this, Lightfoot presents a readable and fairly interesting introduction to a very technical field. Nowhere, however, does Lightfoot address the most basic of authorship questions except to reproduce traditional arguments for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The Documentary Hypothesis is not mentioned nor is the ancient debate over the authorship of Hebrews, to say nothing of now-centuries-old Modern era questions over the Pauline Letters, etc. If you are interested in the standard Conservative Evangelical line for laypersons, guaranteed not to ruffle any feathers, then this is the book for you. If you are looking for the best in current scholarship from both liberal and conservative viewpoints, seek elsewhere. Lightfoot's adherence to the Conservative Evangelical party line is particularly egregious in his treatment of the Deuterocanonical books, in which he resorts to distortion of historical fact and good New Testament scholarship as well as reversal of his own earlier stress of the Septuagint as an important source in order to discredit any use of these often worthy books.
July 17, 2021
In the front flap of the edition I read is glued a a six cent United States postage stamp depicting a view of Earth from the moon and commemorating Apollo 8. Also printed on the stamp are the words, “In the beginning God...” Next to the stamp, my father-in-law wrote, “Stamp purchased May, 1969.” It is hard to imagine such a stamp being issued today.
The edition is part of my father-in-law’s library inherited by my husband. Anyway, over the past few weeks, I’ve read a chapter a day to my son. It addresses an important question. How do we know the Bible we read today contains the inspired words of God? Neil Lightfoot provides a well-documented but not overly detailed answer to this question by describing the ancient manuscripts still in existence, methods of Textual Criticism used to address variances, and how the canon was established among other things. It is a book I’m glad to have studied.
The edition is part of my father-in-law’s library inherited by my husband. Anyway, over the past few weeks, I’ve read a chapter a day to my son. It addresses an important question. How do we know the Bible we read today contains the inspired words of God? Neil Lightfoot provides a well-documented but not overly detailed answer to this question by describing the ancient manuscripts still in existence, methods of Textual Criticism used to address variances, and how the canon was established among other things. It is a book I’m glad to have studied.
September 9, 2016
An excellent introduction to the topic that lives up to the title of the book; Lightfoot delves into the facets of Bible history with just the right amount of exploration, and provides helpful summaries after each chapter. A 500 page treatise this is not, so look elsewhere for an exhaustive volume on the subject.
May 10, 2021
In this book, Lightfoot traces the broad path that the scriptures took to get to the point where we can hold them in our hands today. He first describes the process of making books in the ancient world and an overview of how different scriptures came to be. Then he takes several chapters to discuss different manuscripts that we have of the New Testament, noting their importance and how they have influenced modern translations. He devotes an entire chapter to the story of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript due to its interesting drama. He then briefly discusses different ancient versions of the New Testament.
After discussing the manuscripts, Lightfoot then dives into textual criticism and the textual variants of the Greek manuscripts. It is definitely a 10,000-foot overview without a lot of detail, but textual criticism isn't the book's main premise. He does deal with a few significant textual variants but maintains a hard stance that they are not all that important overall, which has some merit to it (though I might nuance it a bit differently).
After dealing with the New Testament, Lightfoot then goes on to discuss sources and manuscripts of the Old Testament. I think his bias begins to really come out here, not allowing much room for different versions of the Hebrew Bible before the first century. He relies heavily on Josephus to prove that the OT canon was close in the 1st century, though I think this is probably overstating the evidence. He only briefly mentions the possibility of different Hebrew versions before the Masoretes, which I thought deserved more attention. I also would have a different take, if slightly, on the Septuagint and its importance.
After the Old Testament, Lightfoot discusses the canonization process mostly for the New Testament, already having asserted that the OT canon was closed before the first century. His bias really comes out in this section, glossing over important discussions and debates over the canon in the first three centuries. He seems to only highlight the evidence that supports the modern canon, just briefly noting differences before the fourth century. His bias unsurprisingly continues when he discusses the Apocrypha, looking at it more critically than he would a book with canonical status. Criticism isn't bad, I just think it was a bit uneven.
I found his discussion on the development of the English bible pretty good, though when he gets into modern translations there are a few assertions he makes due to his own presuppositions. But it was a good overview of the development process and I appreciated that he didn't condemn any version outright. Rather, he often commented on their respective strengths.
Finally, Lightfoot ends with a brief discussion on inspiration and authority of the scriptures, which I found quite lacking. But it was clear that we have pretty different views on inspiration, so that shouldn't have been surprising. Further, inspiration wasn't the topic of this book, so he could be excused for his brevity. However, he also could have left it out.
I found Lightfoot's treatment of this subject decent for the length of the book. I wish he hadn't glossed over certain problems (it does us no good to gloss over them) and I definitely would have nuanced things a bit differently. But it's a good book to start.
After discussing the manuscripts, Lightfoot then dives into textual criticism and the textual variants of the Greek manuscripts. It is definitely a 10,000-foot overview without a lot of detail, but textual criticism isn't the book's main premise. He does deal with a few significant textual variants but maintains a hard stance that they are not all that important overall, which has some merit to it (though I might nuance it a bit differently).
After dealing with the New Testament, Lightfoot then goes on to discuss sources and manuscripts of the Old Testament. I think his bias begins to really come out here, not allowing much room for different versions of the Hebrew Bible before the first century. He relies heavily on Josephus to prove that the OT canon was close in the 1st century, though I think this is probably overstating the evidence. He only briefly mentions the possibility of different Hebrew versions before the Masoretes, which I thought deserved more attention. I also would have a different take, if slightly, on the Septuagint and its importance.
After the Old Testament, Lightfoot discusses the canonization process mostly for the New Testament, already having asserted that the OT canon was closed before the first century. His bias really comes out in this section, glossing over important discussions and debates over the canon in the first three centuries. He seems to only highlight the evidence that supports the modern canon, just briefly noting differences before the fourth century. His bias unsurprisingly continues when he discusses the Apocrypha, looking at it more critically than he would a book with canonical status. Criticism isn't bad, I just think it was a bit uneven.
I found his discussion on the development of the English bible pretty good, though when he gets into modern translations there are a few assertions he makes due to his own presuppositions. But it was a good overview of the development process and I appreciated that he didn't condemn any version outright. Rather, he often commented on their respective strengths.
Finally, Lightfoot ends with a brief discussion on inspiration and authority of the scriptures, which I found quite lacking. But it was clear that we have pretty different views on inspiration, so that shouldn't have been surprising. Further, inspiration wasn't the topic of this book, so he could be excused for his brevity. However, he also could have left it out.
I found Lightfoot's treatment of this subject decent for the length of the book. I wish he hadn't glossed over certain problems (it does us no good to gloss over them) and I definitely would have nuanced things a bit differently. But it's a good book to start.
September 15, 2022
I've been using this book for a Wednesday auditorium class, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. The biggest downside is that some of the information is a little outdated. This is especially true concerning numbers of manuscripts and information about new translations, but that is not a fault of the book, which was last updated nearly 20 years ago. I do wish there was more information about a wider variety of new translations in chapter 17. Lightfoot focuses mainly on the KJV, ASV, RSV, and NRSV. Everything else is relegated to the "Other Translations" subsection. Since the information in this chapter is outdated, anyone using this book in a church setting will need to do their homework on those other translations with additional sources anyway, so it all evens out.
March 13, 2023
I thought this was a wonderful book. It is a great introduction on how we got the Bible. Some of the things that it talks about are some of the manuscript evidence about the oldest dating of writings, and how it is possible for people at the time of Moses to have written the Pentateuch. What I really enjoyed was learning about the different types of material that the Bible was written on throughout the years.
The author throughout the book showed many different manuscript finds throughout the years that show that we can trust the Bible to this present day. He shows a good overview of why the books that are in the Bible today should be accepted as scripture. The author talks about the apocrypha, and why Christians reject the apocrypha, giving good reasons for doing so. One of the reasons being is that the apostles, or Jesus never quote from them.
I also liked how the author goes briefly into discussing the different translations of the Bible and why we need them. This is a great book to start with to learn about the trustworthiness of the Bible!
The author throughout the book showed many different manuscript finds throughout the years that show that we can trust the Bible to this present day. He shows a good overview of why the books that are in the Bible today should be accepted as scripture. The author talks about the apocrypha, and why Christians reject the apocrypha, giving good reasons for doing so. One of the reasons being is that the apostles, or Jesus never quote from them.
I also liked how the author goes briefly into discussing the different translations of the Bible and why we need them. This is a great book to start with to learn about the trustworthiness of the Bible!
September 1, 2022
I found this book to be an exceptional, concise, introduction for the history of the Bible. If you're looking to go thoroughly in depth on this topic, this might not be the book for you. But if you're looking for an overall understanding of the process by which we got the Bible this is the book for you!
Shelved as 'couldn-t-finish'
September 19, 2021Partial read—got a bit dry and repetitive a few chapters in.
November 11, 2017
Some critics of the Bible have challenged its authority on the basis of errors of transmission. In How We Got The Bible, Neil Lightfoot refutes the claim that we cannot trust the present-day Bible because of the errors of transmission. Lightfoot supports the present-day Bible by establishing it based on historical findings. In reading Lightfoot, there are five principle concepts that shaped my understanding of how we got the Bible.
First, I learned how meticulously the scribes recorded the Old and New Testament documents. Scribes were such an important part of God’s plan to preserve his Word, and I learned that many scribes devoted their whole lives to copying the text. One particular people, the Massorites, dating back to 500 A.D. made it their sole purpose to guard the text. They developed a number system to help eliminate scribal errors and they meticulously copied the text without adding anything to it. Reading about the scribes encouraged my faith in the means that God used preserved His word.
Second, I learned about two different types of text called Uncials and Miniscules. Of the Uncial documents I found it fascinating that we have three that are near complete copies of the Bible that date back to the fourth century A.D. That we have documents dating to 4rd century A.D. within two centuries of the original authorship of the New Testament is very encouraging because there is less time in between the original authorship and the text, making it less prone to translation errors.
Third, I learned about textual criticism and variations in the copies of the Bible. Particularly, most of the variations within texts are trivial and bear no consequence on the meaning of the text. There are very few errors that are consequential and not easily resolved between the oldest texts. However, even with these few errors, we can be confident that the verses omitted or added do not significantly contribute or take away from the main message of the gospel. Textual criticism was new to me and I was encouraged to learn that variations that bear significance on the Bible are inconsequential and should not be viewed as a “stumbling block to the faith.”
Fourth, I learned that the books of the Canon were largely uncontested in the time they were written. It was encouraging that historians like Josephus supported the books included in the canon. Also, the books that were not included in the canon of the New Testament were either not written in the time of the apostles, or did not claim to be part of God’s inspired word. I commonly thought that the canon was determined later but this book helped me realize that they were established long before those meetings took place.
Last, I learned about the sacrifice of WilliamTyndale for the translation of the Bible into English from the early Greek and Hebrew documents. His work, which caused him life-long persecution and ultimately his life, made me much more grateful for the access that I have to God’s inspired word. Overall, Lightfoot’s book encouraged my faith in God’s sovereignty over the preservation of His Word throughout time.
First, I learned how meticulously the scribes recorded the Old and New Testament documents. Scribes were such an important part of God’s plan to preserve his Word, and I learned that many scribes devoted their whole lives to copying the text. One particular people, the Massorites, dating back to 500 A.D. made it their sole purpose to guard the text. They developed a number system to help eliminate scribal errors and they meticulously copied the text without adding anything to it. Reading about the scribes encouraged my faith in the means that God used preserved His word.
Second, I learned about two different types of text called Uncials and Miniscules. Of the Uncial documents I found it fascinating that we have three that are near complete copies of the Bible that date back to the fourth century A.D. That we have documents dating to 4rd century A.D. within two centuries of the original authorship of the New Testament is very encouraging because there is less time in between the original authorship and the text, making it less prone to translation errors.
Third, I learned about textual criticism and variations in the copies of the Bible. Particularly, most of the variations within texts are trivial and bear no consequence on the meaning of the text. There are very few errors that are consequential and not easily resolved between the oldest texts. However, even with these few errors, we can be confident that the verses omitted or added do not significantly contribute or take away from the main message of the gospel. Textual criticism was new to me and I was encouraged to learn that variations that bear significance on the Bible are inconsequential and should not be viewed as a “stumbling block to the faith.”
Fourth, I learned that the books of the Canon were largely uncontested in the time they were written. It was encouraging that historians like Josephus supported the books included in the canon. Also, the books that were not included in the canon of the New Testament were either not written in the time of the apostles, or did not claim to be part of God’s inspired word. I commonly thought that the canon was determined later but this book helped me realize that they were established long before those meetings took place.
Last, I learned about the sacrifice of WilliamTyndale for the translation of the Bible into English from the early Greek and Hebrew documents. His work, which caused him life-long persecution and ultimately his life, made me much more grateful for the access that I have to God’s inspired word. Overall, Lightfoot’s book encouraged my faith in God’s sovereignty over the preservation of His Word throughout time.
September 7, 2017
I actually obtained the soft cover, which I'm sure can't be that different then the hard cover... Each chapter has a lil bit of Summary and discussion. Its a small book that gets you going in the right direction of how the pages of Old and New Testaments came together. (I have now been reading The First Three thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCuloch which ranges back to the Hebrew Bible and covers the three divergent paths of the Christian Faith... )
In How We Got the Bible you'll read about the original languages the Bible was written. Manuscripts of the New Testament fall into two major divisions, the uncials and the cursives orminuscles. You'll learn about the Sinaitic Manuscript, the three groups of text- Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine. In addition to the Greek manuscripts there's also the Syriac, the Latin, and the Coptic. Restoring the New Testament Text. The Aleppo Codexand the Liningrad codex are regarded as the best Hebrew manuscripts. The Bible owns its authority to no individual or group, no church council made the cannon of scripture. All the cannons in the Bible are distinctly divinely inspired by God. Matthew 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written,' "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
In How We Got the Bible you'll read about the original languages the Bible was written. Manuscripts of the New Testament fall into two major divisions, the uncials and the cursives orminuscles. You'll learn about the Sinaitic Manuscript, the three groups of text- Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine. In addition to the Greek manuscripts there's also the Syriac, the Latin, and the Coptic. Restoring the New Testament Text. The Aleppo Codexand the Liningrad codex are regarded as the best Hebrew manuscripts. The Bible owns its authority to no individual or group, no church council made the cannon of scripture. All the cannons in the Bible are distinctly divinely inspired by God. Matthew 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written,' "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
January 5, 2008
This is a well organized, simply written overview of the history of the Bible itself. The author surveys existing Bible manuscripts, discusses how the books of the Bible became cannon, and compares the various English translations. It is the clearest, most complete information I have yet found on this subject. It is also free of secular prejudice, and the author does not start from non-traditionalists assumptions, as most modern Biblical scholars do. Indeed, the book seems to be written from an orthodox perspective. That does not mean the author overlooks uncomfortable variations in the manuscripts, but it does mean that he does not exaggerate them. Each chapter comes complete with a summary of primary points and a series of reading comprehension type questions which can be used for self-review (I wouldn't recommend them for group study, as they are not likely to spur discussion). The book is not "entertaining" reading by any stretch of the imagination, but it is highly informative.
May 22, 2017
This book provides an excellent introduction to the history of the Bible. In many respects, it is a more approachable summary of FF Bruce books such as the Canon of Scripture and The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable. So, if you have already read those types of books, then this one will not add anything new. But, if you haven’t then this book is a much better introduction to the topic.
August 7, 2012
If you're looking for a simple and concise history of the bible, look no further. It's length prohibits it from really diving into the subject; however, it's informative and overall a good read.
March 3, 2012
I wrote this review for a friend of mine that insisted I read the book -
March 2012
How We Got the Bible – Lightfoot
Page #9 - preface
Lightfoot’s book was originally written in 1963, changed and rewritten in 1988 and in this edition of 2003 – “I have completely rewritten almost everything in the book”. That statement sounds just like I feel about the content of the bible. Approximately 70 AD, the bible listed the ‘facts’ as the scribes thought they happened in the biblical events decades earlier. Not one word of today’s bible has an ‘original’ document. As in Lightfoot’s book, the bible has been changing ‘the facts’ for over 2,000 years. But wait a minute – FACTS never change. For what is supposed to be the divine word of god there is sure a never ending amount of ambiguity. The simple fact that the supposed word of god was only written in one language, when there were hundreds of distinct languages at the time, is absurd. God, having left it up to humans to interpret the meaning is absurd. The fact that dozens of writings were presented for inclusion in the original bible but were actually rejected is absurd. God did not assemble the bible, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, did.
After 2,000 years there are billions of people on this planet, including Lee B%=$tt, that carry this huge burden of knowledge about the path to god. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Pentecostals, Hindus, Jews, Evangelicals, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Scientologists and hundreds and even thousands of other belief systems and denominations don’t know the truth but Lee B%=$tt knows the truth. One of my favorite quotes from Stephen Roberts says it best – “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” I do not understand how anyone can understand that fact and not comprehend how utterly ridiculous it sounds when someone professes a belief in god(s). Is that irony or absurdity?
One would think the “word of god” would be written on an indestructible everlasting medium that could stand the test of time. But alas, it wasn’t and the reason it wasn’t – god didn’t write it. The bible is not the word of some god but the words of man. The “word of god” was actually written by many different tribes across many decades and rewritten over centuries on seven different media. The author, Lightfoot, explains that leather was the best method for preservation. To be the word and work of god, one could easily surmise that god would have ‘inspired’ all the humans to use this ‘best practice’ of leather (codex). More irony!
Chapter 2
“It is impossible to say how or when or under what circumstances the bible had its origin”. If the author can say that I can easily, confidently and ironically say – the bible having been inspired and created by god and now 2,000 years later less than 1/3 of the planet profess to be Christian and a small percentage of those actually know what the bible says and an even smaller percentage of those actually know the TRUE meaning and Lee B%=$tt is one of them. Why, after 2,000 years, is the percentage of the humans on this planet that get to go to heaven so horribly small?
T W O T H O U S A N D S Y E A R S ! ! !
One thing that is so irritating is that many people interpret the bible and claim to have the true interpretation. I don’t need Lee B%=$tt’s interpretation or Lightfoot’s interpretation or the interpretation of anyone. The holy bible can’t be god inspired or written by god if different people read it and walk away with entirely different concepts. The true work of a god would not require one person to interpret for another person. The Old Testament was written 1,500 years prior to the New Testament I have a problem with that. More irony – why did god wait 1,500 years unless his first plan didn’t work, and in that case, the writings are not from god because gods don’t make mistakes.
Page#24
The NT was written by “inspired men” decades after Jesus’ death. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but derived from letters copied by “inspired men”.
The Koran is just as holy as the bible and I dare say there are many, many other cultures that hold their teachings to be just as sacred and god inspired as the bible.
Page#33
Saying that god wrote the words of the NT are about the only difference I see in Lightfoot’s book compared to other bible scholars that write from a non-religious view. The vast majority of this book I have no problem with. If god planned and wrote or inspired the writing of the bible, he did a very poor job seeing that god is all knowing all powerful.
Page#36
The oldest bible that exists was written in 300AD. This is 10 generations of people, making dozens of copies, from hearsay, translations and biases. Writings supposedly of god, by god, inspired by god of extremely important historical events that were the basis for Christianity were not even written down for multiple generations. This is absurd and a very bad plan.
Page#58
Lesser known copies are not duplicates of well known copies. Extra text added, altered or omitted. The same would be true if you could compare the best liked copies with documents written at the time these events took place but that is impossible since it is most unlikely that these godly events ever happened.
Page#65
“Something is always lost by way of translation”. At this point Lightfoot has only shown where the copies of the copies of the copies came from and nothing about the originals. Why? My answer – there are no originals.
Conclusion:
MY VIEW: the original books were but illusions of a spiritual god but evolved into a human figure of Jesus. Author correctly relates the origins of the bible but where did inspiration for the bible come from? ANSWER - previous thousands of years of myth from prior religions – that’s where. Christianity was born from “one ups-man-ship” in contest with other religions. Waiting 5+ decades before you record history then you can say anything you want whether true or not. Every word of mouth, every writing, letter, and book led to a bigger and better religion to outdo the other religions. The Council of Nicaea was the beginning of the end and Christianity has been splintering ever since and now has 30,000+ denominations. Everyone wants their viewpoint to be “the true path” to god. To me, the bible has no more historical or spiritual value than the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Mithras or Socrates.
For every book written saying god is the authentic inspiration of the bible there is a book saying just the opposite. I chose the logical and rational approach of non-belief. No books or intermediaries are necessary for any REAL god to know me
Here’s some more irony on a side note: The Christian god missed a great marketing opportunity to have the days of the week named after some of his icons and rituals rather than having the dimwitted pagans use their god’s names from prior religious mythology.
March 2012
How We Got the Bible – Lightfoot
Page #9 - preface
Lightfoot’s book was originally written in 1963, changed and rewritten in 1988 and in this edition of 2003 – “I have completely rewritten almost everything in the book”. That statement sounds just like I feel about the content of the bible. Approximately 70 AD, the bible listed the ‘facts’ as the scribes thought they happened in the biblical events decades earlier. Not one word of today’s bible has an ‘original’ document. As in Lightfoot’s book, the bible has been changing ‘the facts’ for over 2,000 years. But wait a minute – FACTS never change. For what is supposed to be the divine word of god there is sure a never ending amount of ambiguity. The simple fact that the supposed word of god was only written in one language, when there were hundreds of distinct languages at the time, is absurd. God, having left it up to humans to interpret the meaning is absurd. The fact that dozens of writings were presented for inclusion in the original bible but were actually rejected is absurd. God did not assemble the bible, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, did.
After 2,000 years there are billions of people on this planet, including Lee B%=$tt, that carry this huge burden of knowledge about the path to god. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Pentecostals, Hindus, Jews, Evangelicals, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Scientologists and hundreds and even thousands of other belief systems and denominations don’t know the truth but Lee B%=$tt knows the truth. One of my favorite quotes from Stephen Roberts says it best – “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” I do not understand how anyone can understand that fact and not comprehend how utterly ridiculous it sounds when someone professes a belief in god(s). Is that irony or absurdity?
One would think the “word of god” would be written on an indestructible everlasting medium that could stand the test of time. But alas, it wasn’t and the reason it wasn’t – god didn’t write it. The bible is not the word of some god but the words of man. The “word of god” was actually written by many different tribes across many decades and rewritten over centuries on seven different media. The author, Lightfoot, explains that leather was the best method for preservation. To be the word and work of god, one could easily surmise that god would have ‘inspired’ all the humans to use this ‘best practice’ of leather (codex). More irony!
Chapter 2
“It is impossible to say how or when or under what circumstances the bible had its origin”. If the author can say that I can easily, confidently and ironically say – the bible having been inspired and created by god and now 2,000 years later less than 1/3 of the planet profess to be Christian and a small percentage of those actually know what the bible says and an even smaller percentage of those actually know the TRUE meaning and Lee B%=$tt is one of them. Why, after 2,000 years, is the percentage of the humans on this planet that get to go to heaven so horribly small?
T W O T H O U S A N D S Y E A R S ! ! !
One thing that is so irritating is that many people interpret the bible and claim to have the true interpretation. I don’t need Lee B%=$tt’s interpretation or Lightfoot’s interpretation or the interpretation of anyone. The holy bible can’t be god inspired or written by god if different people read it and walk away with entirely different concepts. The true work of a god would not require one person to interpret for another person. The Old Testament was written 1,500 years prior to the New Testament I have a problem with that. More irony – why did god wait 1,500 years unless his first plan didn’t work, and in that case, the writings are not from god because gods don’t make mistakes.
Page#24
The NT was written by “inspired men” decades after Jesus’ death. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but derived from letters copied by “inspired men”.
The Koran is just as holy as the bible and I dare say there are many, many other cultures that hold their teachings to be just as sacred and god inspired as the bible.
Page#33
Saying that god wrote the words of the NT are about the only difference I see in Lightfoot’s book compared to other bible scholars that write from a non-religious view. The vast majority of this book I have no problem with. If god planned and wrote or inspired the writing of the bible, he did a very poor job seeing that god is all knowing all powerful.
Page#36
The oldest bible that exists was written in 300AD. This is 10 generations of people, making dozens of copies, from hearsay, translations and biases. Writings supposedly of god, by god, inspired by god of extremely important historical events that were the basis for Christianity were not even written down for multiple generations. This is absurd and a very bad plan.
Page#58
Lesser known copies are not duplicates of well known copies. Extra text added, altered or omitted. The same would be true if you could compare the best liked copies with documents written at the time these events took place but that is impossible since it is most unlikely that these godly events ever happened.
Page#65
“Something is always lost by way of translation”. At this point Lightfoot has only shown where the copies of the copies of the copies came from and nothing about the originals. Why? My answer – there are no originals.
Conclusion:
MY VIEW: the original books were but illusions of a spiritual god but evolved into a human figure of Jesus. Author correctly relates the origins of the bible but where did inspiration for the bible come from? ANSWER - previous thousands of years of myth from prior religions – that’s where. Christianity was born from “one ups-man-ship” in contest with other religions. Waiting 5+ decades before you record history then you can say anything you want whether true or not. Every word of mouth, every writing, letter, and book led to a bigger and better religion to outdo the other religions. The Council of Nicaea was the beginning of the end and Christianity has been splintering ever since and now has 30,000+ denominations. Everyone wants their viewpoint to be “the true path” to god. To me, the bible has no more historical or spiritual value than the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Mithras or Socrates.
For every book written saying god is the authentic inspiration of the bible there is a book saying just the opposite. I chose the logical and rational approach of non-belief. No books or intermediaries are necessary for any REAL god to know me
Here’s some more irony on a side note: The Christian god missed a great marketing opportunity to have the days of the week named after some of his icons and rituals rather than having the dimwitted pagans use their god’s names from prior religious mythology.
December 18, 2017
El tema de los lenguajes originales y traducciones de la Biblia siempre se maneja aparte. Y puede ser tan académico y complejo como cualquier otro.
Para lectores cristianos comunes (como su servidor), este es el tipo de lecturas que recomiendo. El libro guarda un buen equilibrio entre explicar claramente, sin caer en lo simplista ni tampoco en lo técnico.
La verdad, aprendí mucho leyendo este libro. Te deja un panorama muy claro de todo el proceso desde la escritura, preservación y traducción desde los escritos originales hasta las versiones modernas. Explica lo relacionado con los diversos manuscritos que existen, de manera ordenada y clara.
Además, este libro tiene el "plus" de que agrega 2 capítulos sobre las versiones en español, en particular la Reina Valera.
Creo que cualquier cristiano debería conocer las nociones explicadas en este libro. Por lo mismo, recomiendo su lectura a todo el sector cristiano.
Para lectores cristianos comunes (como su servidor), este es el tipo de lecturas que recomiendo. El libro guarda un buen equilibrio entre explicar claramente, sin caer en lo simplista ni tampoco en lo técnico.
La verdad, aprendí mucho leyendo este libro. Te deja un panorama muy claro de todo el proceso desde la escritura, preservación y traducción desde los escritos originales hasta las versiones modernas. Explica lo relacionado con los diversos manuscritos que existen, de manera ordenada y clara.
Además, este libro tiene el "plus" de que agrega 2 capítulos sobre las versiones en español, en particular la Reina Valera.
Creo que cualquier cristiano debería conocer las nociones explicadas en este libro. Por lo mismo, recomiendo su lectura a todo el sector cristiano.
September 14, 2022
To my shame, this is a relatively new topic of study for me. I was raised in a conservative, KJV-only atmosphere and only within the past couple of years have I decide to study both sides of the argument. (This book is not directly about the KJV issue, but it does offer a lot of information that was helpful to me in my study.) That being said, I have found that there are hateful accusations and arrogance from scholars on either side of the argument. I think both attitudes do more harm than good, which is why I greatly appreciate the humble approach of this author as evidenced in the preface.
The book contains a wealth of information that at times reads like a textbook and is somewhat difficult for my "peanut butter on the bottom shelf" mind to absorb; however, I value it as great reference material and will keep it on hand for further study. Each topic is divided into manageable chapters with summaries and discussion questions at the end.
The book contains a wealth of information that at times reads like a textbook and is somewhat difficult for my "peanut butter on the bottom shelf" mind to absorb; however, I value it as great reference material and will keep it on hand for further study. Each topic is divided into manageable chapters with summaries and discussion questions at the end.
October 16, 2021
An excellent read. This book was recommended to me as a good introduction to the history of the biblical canon and textual documents. I had such a great time reading this book and I learned so much. This book is thorough, well-organized, and provides lots of citations for further reading and study. I also like the structure of the book. It includes a summary section and discussion questions for each chapter. I recommend that for each chapter, readers will benefit from reading through the summary and discussion questions first before reading the rest of the chapter. Keep in mind though that this is a freshman-level kind of book. It's an excellent overview but don't expect to get into the nitty gritty details about any particular topic. But it's a really good book and it's a great place to start when diving in to studying biblical canon.
July 14, 2022
A very fascinating overview of how the actual text of the Bible came to us. This is not a book about authorship of the varying books of the Bible, or the history of the events within them, but the history of our earliest physical manuscripts and scraps that contain the words of our Bible. As I was reading, I often had to stop and Google pictures of the earliest copies. Which I think is the exact point of this survey book, to make the reader want to further explore the earliest remnants of Christianity.
(I deducted a point from my rating because the author is unabashedly Protestant. Which wasn't distracting for me, being one myself and all, but I can see how it would be annoying for those outside the Protestant view of Christianity.)
(I deducted a point from my rating because the author is unabashedly Protestant. Which wasn't distracting for me, being one myself and all, but I can see how it would be annoying for those outside the Protestant view of Christianity.)
January 20, 2019
This book is filled with a lot of useful and very interesting information. It tells us everything! However, for me, I found it very easy to let my mind wander when reading it. The author is very deep and causes one to think deeply. This is a good thing, but I found it very hard to concentrate on what I was reading. I would like to read through this book again someday in a very quiet place with no distractions and no sense of tiredness - fully alert. It took me, wow, a long time to get through it. Nevertheless, it is jam-packed full of information that is very good for the intense and interesting story of how we got God's Word and where it is at today.
September 26, 2016
As there is much I have to criticize about this book, and much to find fault with in its presuppositions and assumptions regarding textual criticism, it is worthwhile to comment at least on some aspects in which this book is worthwhile and areas where the author can be praised. The author takes the Bible seriously and his scholarship, such as it is, as a means of bolstering in his readers faith in the veracity of the Bible. Despite wading ultimately unsuccessfully in textual criticism because of his own biases, the author is correct in noting the small area under debate between various textual traditions and the absence of any substantial points of doctrine in those debated areas, and the fact that the large number of variants to be found relates to the fact that there are simply so many copies of the Bible to begin with, and so many examples of human frailty to be found in the collection and transmission of biblical truth through the copying of texts in widely separated areas of the Mediterranean basin. The book also manages to present a viewpoint that is within the line of the contemporary consensus regarding the Westcott-Hort text, a certain hostility towards the Byzantine text tradition most notably upheld in the Textus Receptus, and in a bias for the untrustworthy Alexandrian tradition [1], and therefore although the book manages to present a view that strongly defends the importance of the Bible, it fares badly as far as its own specific comments within its study of the Bible.
The slightly more than 200 pages of this book are divided into eighteen mercifully short chapters. The author begins by talking about the making of ancient books as scrolls or codices and the birth of the Bible, specifically the New Testament but also the trifold division of the Hebrew scriptures, before moving immediately into trouble in talking about the manuscripts of the New Testament, the Sinaitic manuscript and others, and manuscripts of special interest to the author--mostly of the Alexandrian textual family. The author discusses the text of the New Testament, the significance of textual variations, or more usually the lack thereof, the task of restoring the New Testament text for someone of his ilk, the importance of manuscripts from the sand, where the accidents of nature appear to have preserved unrepresentative and dubious texts of many kinds, the text of the Old Testament, ancient versions, questions of canonicity, the apocryphal books, the English Bible to 1611, and recent translations. The author closes with a statement that the Bible will not pass away, a fair statement of fact, although mercifully this author's words will pass away without very much notice or fanfare at some point in the future.
In reading this book, it is clear that the author has a particular viewpoint whose defense requires a certain amount of inconsistency in approach. The author comes from a part of the Hellenistic Christian world that desires to reject the authority of the Catholic Church, partly by criticizing the English translations based on the Vulgate and partly based on critiquing the Alexandrian textual tradition that led to the writing of the apocrypha that were accepted by Catholics despite lacking factual truth or genuine biblical basis. Yet while rejecting the Alexandrian textual tradition as far as the Old Testament is concerned, the author wishes to defend that same tradition against both the pre-Vulgate Western texts as well as the Syriac texts that form the basis of the Byzantine text and ultimately of the textus receptus that forms the basis of the King James Version and other related Bibles. The author is clearly here a supporter of the RSV, NRSV, NIV, and other related families, and his efforts at supporting a particular textual family are certainly open and transparent, but far from accurate. It remains, though, for there to be a recent solid M-text apparatus that would serve as a counter to the current one trumpeted by the author, though.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
The slightly more than 200 pages of this book are divided into eighteen mercifully short chapters. The author begins by talking about the making of ancient books as scrolls or codices and the birth of the Bible, specifically the New Testament but also the trifold division of the Hebrew scriptures, before moving immediately into trouble in talking about the manuscripts of the New Testament, the Sinaitic manuscript and others, and manuscripts of special interest to the author--mostly of the Alexandrian textual family. The author discusses the text of the New Testament, the significance of textual variations, or more usually the lack thereof, the task of restoring the New Testament text for someone of his ilk, the importance of manuscripts from the sand, where the accidents of nature appear to have preserved unrepresentative and dubious texts of many kinds, the text of the Old Testament, ancient versions, questions of canonicity, the apocryphal books, the English Bible to 1611, and recent translations. The author closes with a statement that the Bible will not pass away, a fair statement of fact, although mercifully this author's words will pass away without very much notice or fanfare at some point in the future.
In reading this book, it is clear that the author has a particular viewpoint whose defense requires a certain amount of inconsistency in approach. The author comes from a part of the Hellenistic Christian world that desires to reject the authority of the Catholic Church, partly by criticizing the English translations based on the Vulgate and partly based on critiquing the Alexandrian textual tradition that led to the writing of the apocrypha that were accepted by Catholics despite lacking factual truth or genuine biblical basis. Yet while rejecting the Alexandrian textual tradition as far as the Old Testament is concerned, the author wishes to defend that same tradition against both the pre-Vulgate Western texts as well as the Syriac texts that form the basis of the Byzantine text and ultimately of the textus receptus that forms the basis of the King James Version and other related Bibles. The author is clearly here a supporter of the RSV, NRSV, NIV, and other related families, and his efforts at supporting a particular textual family are certainly open and transparent, but far from accurate. It remains, though, for there to be a recent solid M-text apparatus that would serve as a counter to the current one trumpeted by the author, though.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
May 18, 2017
This was a very helpful book in understanding the process of canonization. Written to be understood by the layperson, it provides an excellent introduction to textual criticism and manuscript history. Lightfoot covers both NT and OT textual history, emphasizing textual reliability and diversity of manuscripts. Also helpful is the review of English translations from Wycliff to the NIV. In doing so, Lightfoot gives manuscript history for each as well as strengths and weaknesses of each translation.
February 7, 2023
Written more like a textbook with questions for discussion at the end of each chapter and an overview of the book at the end. I learned a lot about the validity of the texts and how much the bible of today has been translated, re-translated, and revised over the centuries. Lightfoot, while a man of faith, shows how the words of God have changed from generation to generation, but the inspiration, history, and traditions remain steadfast. Interesting information for use in a class on religious studies.
October 8, 2019
Although very informational, this was an extremely interesting book that I found uniquely useful. Lightfoot explains how Biblical text was originally recorded, how it was preserved, what manuscripts are still in existence, how the Bible was translated from the original language to Latin and eventually to English, and so much more. This textbook can benefit classrooms of Biblical scholars as well as the curious reader. I highly recommend it and will be keeping it for reference.
August 14, 2022
Very good book if you are writing a research paper on the subject. About half way through I went from reading the chapters to reading chapter summaries. I bust was not interested in swimming around such a narrow subject. What I recall the most was after pages of discussion the author claims the Bible was written on leather. Wasn't good timing for me to read this book. It would be a wonderful book for a church group to read at a pace of a chapter a week and then discuss it.
February 10, 2017
Nope. This book is not for me. I'm not a believer and I expected an objective/scientific point of view. This is not that kind of book. It's subjective in a lot of things and the author skims over some critical points. Seems like the author is moving through a minefield of ideas and is trying not to step on a mine.
Wouldn't suggest this book to anyone.
Wouldn't suggest this book to anyone.
February 16, 2017
Kind of dry but worth reading to get a summary of the myriad of sources authenticating the Bible...was recommended by a friend last summer and I was even more interested when I discovered that the author was from my alma mater...helped me have respect and awe for the intricate process of translation and how God's word endures
May 13, 2018
Protestant bias
I would have thought that by the 3rd edition Dr. Lightfoot would have eliminated his biases. Many times he refers to "our Bible" when comparing the Protestant Canon to the Hebrew Bible canon or the Roman Catholic canon. There is much to admire about his scholarship, however.
I would have thought that by the 3rd edition Dr. Lightfoot would have eliminated his biases. Many times he refers to "our Bible" when comparing the Protestant Canon to the Hebrew Bible canon or the Roman Catholic canon. There is much to admire about his scholarship, however.
May 6, 2020
This was a very successful, sufficient, and satisfying introduction to lower Biblical criticism. It spurred interest in the original Greek and Hebrew for me and offered great affirmation of the Christian message’s legitimacy and longevity, given the Bible’s wonderful translation/transcription history. Well written, easy to read, and thorough.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews