As every modern biblical scholar knows, the Bible has a history. Yet this history has rarely been told with the blend of erudition, comprehension, and honest assessment offered by John Barton, an Oxford scholar and Anglican priest in this magisterial study. Writing for both the academy and the public, Barton “tells the story of the Bible from its remote beginnings in folklore and myth to its reception and interpretation in the present day” (1). Throughout, he argues that “the Bible does not ‘map’ directly onto religious faith and practice, whether Jewish or Christian [. . .] There are no versions of either Christianity or Judaism that correspond point for point to the contents of the Bible” (2, 3). Barton's four-part organization reinforces his argument in both direct and indirect ways.

In Part 1, “The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible),” Barton surveys modern scholarly perspectives on such topics as the dating of the OT (generally, written in the eighth century BCE), the early history of Israel (“genuinely sketchy,” the product of myth and folk memory), and authorship (probably by an urban elite)—all in the context of examining the OT's literary genres of narrative, law and wisdom, along with poems and psalms. Barton's critical gaze reveals that portions of the OT contain “muddled stories” (48; e.g., Gen. 6–9); some are in “slightly garbled form” (56; e.g., Ezekiel and Nehemiah); others are fiction or novels (Ruth, Jonah, Esther, Daniel 1–6, Tobit, Judith); “even the Major Prophets are confused and muddled” (90); indeed, “the text of Isaiah is a muddle” (101); and “the Psalter is a mess” (128). Once modern scholarship has laid bare the long and complex history of composition and redaction, the issue becomes one of credulity in the traditional understanding of the Bible.

Questions about the New Testament (Part 2) and its historical reliability are just as unsettling, if not more so, than the OT. The dating of the New Testament books is uncertain and contested. As with efforts to determine the reliability of OT books, disagreements over the NT often correlate with the temperaments and personal convictions of scholars. Conservatives, for whom the Bible is divinely inspired, tend to assign early dates, whereas liberals veer toward later dating (both agree that Paul's “genuine” letters are the earliest). NT authorship presents difficulties like those of OT authorship. The Pastoral Letters, traditionally attributed to Paul but now rejected by modern scholars as non-Pauline, raise the issue of pseudonymity or forgery. Liberals may be less concerned about the matter, but for conservatives who are committed to the full inspiration of these texts, “the problem is acute” (186). The Gospels present their own set of challenges with the well-known Synoptic problem and major discrepancies among Gospel accounts. Additionally, “We do not know that any of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are genuinely original, that is, that he actually uttered them” (193); and yet, “it does not mean that the Gospels are fiction” (201).

Part 3 examines the process of canonization and the numerous biblical manuscripts that comprise the Bible. In both Judaism and Christianity, collections of materials came to operate as sacred Scripture over time; in neither tradition did a synod or council legislate the canon. After a brief survey of the canonization process in Judaism (in place by the end of the second century CE), Barton discusses at length the canonization process in Christianity. Early Christians included the OT because it confirmed prophetic testimony about Jesus; its true meaning was Christological. As for the NT, Barton challenges the popular idea that the choice of which writings were to be included or excluded in the NT canon was made arbitrarily by a cabal or those with power interests. In fact, “by the end of the second century the core was immensely stable” (269), and “by the middle of the third century there was something like what we mean by the Bible, and its unity was not controversial” (255). Athanasius's Easter Letter of 367 CE did not define the canon but simply confirmed the Church's continued use since the first century. But early canonicity does not establish veracity. The writings “could be [. . .] universally accepted as authoritative, yet still be inaccurate or fictitious” (283). Similarly, the study of biblical manuscripts (textual criticism) “can never get us back reliably to the original author, only to the earliest point of transmission of the text that can be reconstructed” (307).

In Part 4, Barton traces the multiple meanings of the Bible throughout history. Until the Reformation (and into the present for some Protestants), Jews and Christians stressed thematic elements that assumed that the Bible was a singular whole. Christians read their Bible as the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, whereas Jews read their Bible as the story of God's providential guidance. In both cases, making sense of the whole required imposing interpretative schemes on the biblical material. For example, the Hebrew Bible does not spell out the practices and beliefs of Orthodox Judaism, nor does the NT unequivocally support the doctrine of the Trinity.

In his concluding chapter, Barton attempts to reconcile the Oxford scholar with the Anglican believer, the critic with the cleric. How can one remain a faithful Christian and yet not shy away from the critical and troublesome issues surrounding the history and reliability of the Bible? First, Barton proposes that the Bible and faith are not one and the same. Second, a distinction must be drawn between essential and nonessential aspects in Christianity. Barton appeals to his own tradition expressed in the 39 Articles: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.” Some things, but not everything in Scripture, are necessary to salvation. Allegiance to Jesus Christ and the belief that God was in Christ are those “some things,” namely, where faith and the Bible overlap. However, the “exact descriptions of the doctrines that define the workings behind these tenets cannot be found in the Bible” (488). Barton attempts to strike a balance, though admittedly one that may shift according to the dictates of modern biblical scholarship (e.g., the authors of the 39 Articles believed that Scripture plainly taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but modern biblical scholars and theologians are unconvinced).

Neither Bible-believing conservatives nor Bible-skeptical liberals will be entirely satisfied with Barton's conclusions, but perhaps that can be counted to his credit. He has, in good Anglican fashion, chosen the via media. In an equally Anglican vein of catholicity, what we all could wish to see from his hands is a second volume: on the parallel story of the Bible beyond the West.