What do you think?
Rate this book
The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
287 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1963
32 people are currently reading
134 people want to read
About the author
F.F. Bruce
252 books134 followersFrederick Fyvie Bruce FBA was a Biblical scholar who supported the historical reliability of the New Testament. His first book, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 29, 2007
Lots and lots of details about the creation, preservation, and transmission of the text of the Bible. There's way more to it than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bruce, an internationally known Bible scholar, knows this stuff backwards and forwards (helpful if you're reading both Hebrew and Greek). Had its slow patches for me, but worth getting through.
October 1, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS AND SPEECHES BY THE FAMED SCHOLAR
Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910-1990) was a Biblical scholar who taught at a variety of universities, and was editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1950 book, “This volume gathers together a number of articles written and papers read at various times on the transmission of the Bible. It is intended for non-specialists like those who have read them or heard them in their earlier forms, and who have frequently expressed a desire to have them in this form… I have tried to bear in mind the questions which are most frequently asked about these matters, and to answer them to the best of my ability. I hope that the volume may thus prove interesting and useful to the many who, without aiming at any specialist knowledge of Biblical learning, would welcome a handbook dealing with these questions.”
He points out, “Much of the vivid, concrete and forthright character of our English Old Testament is really a carrying over into English of something of the genius of the Hebrew tongue. Biblical Hebrew does not deal with abstractions but with the facts of experience. It is the right sort of language for the record of the self-revelation of a God who does not make Himself known by philosophical propositions but by controlling and intervening in the course of human history. Hebrew is not afraid to use daring anthropomorphisms when speaking of God. If God imparts to men the knowledge of Himself, he chooses to do so most effectively in terms of human life and human language.” (Pg. 45)
He observes, “a writer like Luke… commanded a good, idiomatic Greek style. Even in the English translation it is difficult to miss the transition in style which takes place between the fourth and fifth verses of his Gospel. From the fifth verse of his first chapter to the end of his second chapter we might be reading a continuation of the Old Testament, so reminiscent is the style of his nativity narratives of the characteristic phraseology of the Old Testament. Some scholars have supposed that for these nativity narratives Luke was dependent on a Hebrew document. This is possible---indeed, it seems to the writer more likely---but it is also possible that Luke was simply composing deliberately in ‘Septuagint’ style because he judged that most appropriate for the subject-matter of these two chapters.” (Pg. 71)
He notes, “It is sometimes claimed that the criterion which the early Christians applied in deciding whether a book was to be regarded as canonical or not was that of apostolic authorship. Now, it is certain that apostolic authorship counted for very much. It was for this reason that such a flood of apocryphal literature appears in the second century bearing the names of various apostles… And there is no example of a certainly apostolic writing being refused canonical recognition…
"But apostolic authorship, though an important factor, was not the only ground of canonicity. It is probably a mistake to think that we owe the presence of the Epistle to the Hebrews in our Bibles entirely to the happy accident that it was popularly ascribed to Paul. For, after all, two of the Gospels bear the names of men who were not apostles, and yet that did not stand in the way of accepting Mark and Luke as equally inspired with Matthew and John.” (Pg. 110)
Like all collections of diverse essays, this one is admittedly somewhat “uneven.” But Bruce’s scholarship is of the highest grade as always, and his explanations for a “popular” audience will be of help to many or most persons seriously studying the Bible.
Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910-1990) was a Biblical scholar who taught at a variety of universities, and was editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1950 book, “This volume gathers together a number of articles written and papers read at various times on the transmission of the Bible. It is intended for non-specialists like those who have read them or heard them in their earlier forms, and who have frequently expressed a desire to have them in this form… I have tried to bear in mind the questions which are most frequently asked about these matters, and to answer them to the best of my ability. I hope that the volume may thus prove interesting and useful to the many who, without aiming at any specialist knowledge of Biblical learning, would welcome a handbook dealing with these questions.”
He points out, “Much of the vivid, concrete and forthright character of our English Old Testament is really a carrying over into English of something of the genius of the Hebrew tongue. Biblical Hebrew does not deal with abstractions but with the facts of experience. It is the right sort of language for the record of the self-revelation of a God who does not make Himself known by philosophical propositions but by controlling and intervening in the course of human history. Hebrew is not afraid to use daring anthropomorphisms when speaking of God. If God imparts to men the knowledge of Himself, he chooses to do so most effectively in terms of human life and human language.” (Pg. 45)
He observes, “a writer like Luke… commanded a good, idiomatic Greek style. Even in the English translation it is difficult to miss the transition in style which takes place between the fourth and fifth verses of his Gospel. From the fifth verse of his first chapter to the end of his second chapter we might be reading a continuation of the Old Testament, so reminiscent is the style of his nativity narratives of the characteristic phraseology of the Old Testament. Some scholars have supposed that for these nativity narratives Luke was dependent on a Hebrew document. This is possible---indeed, it seems to the writer more likely---but it is also possible that Luke was simply composing deliberately in ‘Septuagint’ style because he judged that most appropriate for the subject-matter of these two chapters.” (Pg. 71)
He notes, “It is sometimes claimed that the criterion which the early Christians applied in deciding whether a book was to be regarded as canonical or not was that of apostolic authorship. Now, it is certain that apostolic authorship counted for very much. It was for this reason that such a flood of apocryphal literature appears in the second century bearing the names of various apostles… And there is no example of a certainly apostolic writing being refused canonical recognition…
"But apostolic authorship, though an important factor, was not the only ground of canonicity. It is probably a mistake to think that we owe the presence of the Epistle to the Hebrews in our Bibles entirely to the happy accident that it was popularly ascribed to Paul. For, after all, two of the Gospels bear the names of men who were not apostles, and yet that did not stand in the way of accepting Mark and Luke as equally inspired with Matthew and John.” (Pg. 110)
Like all collections of diverse essays, this one is admittedly somewhat “uneven.” But Bruce’s scholarship is of the highest grade as always, and his explanations for a “popular” audience will be of help to many or most persons seriously studying the Bible.
September 26, 2017
I read this when I was in High School, back in the 70s. It was well written and explained the origins Bible's canon, and of the new translations then coming out. I understand that he produced a revised edition in 1984, and has written The Canon of Scripture in 1989. He is truly an expert on the subject.
August 29, 2017
I skimmed most of the book stopping on chapters I was interested in: "The Form of the Bible" and "The Cannon of Scripture". This seems like an exhaustive text; there's way more in the book than a layman would need for a good understanding on where the Bible came from. Good read.
January 10, 2021
A little dated, but still exhaustive and expert analysis of the history and transmission of the Biblical text. A definite "hall of fame" entry in the field of New Testament studies.
August 1, 2021
Read many years ago . .. a good study of original Bible documents
did-not-finish
May 15, 2022I was reading this as an ebook through my library, but I couldn't finish it before it got returned. When I went to borrow it again, they no longer carried it. My budget won't allow me to purchase it at present, so it's a temporary DNF with the hopes of finishing someday.
February 16, 2015
An excellent book by an excellent author who is an expert in his field. He is an erudite scholar and all of his books are great! This one is no exception!
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews