Even for those who are not practicing Jewish or Christian forms of faith, the Hebrew Bible still represents an extraordinary collection of resources regarding the heritage of ancient Israel. It makes complete sense as part of the ancient Near Eastern world, but no collection like it was preserved like it.

Jacob Wright sets forth his construction of how he imagined the text came together in its final form in Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and Its Origins.

The author begins by reconstructing the history presented in the pages of the Hebrew Bible, and then would go on to describe the processes which led to the formulation of the text.

The author’s primary thesis has a lot of merit: the Hebrew Bible, in the form in which we have received it, is primarily the work of exilic and postexilic Jewish people striving to make sense of what has happened to their nation, their God, and His covenant promises, and work to tell a story of a people of God and for God to endure as a nation without a state.

Well and good. But then we have a dizzying array of narratives suggested (The Family Story, the People’s History, the Palace History, the National Narrative, etc.), some from the northern Israelites, some from the southern Judahites, some of which reflecting substantive historical events, others imagining historical events, and the like.

The author’s investigation at many points is compelling, and he weaves together interesting ways of looking at the text and its development. But I must part ways with him in terms of the idea the Israelites were whole cloth inventing former narratives. I understand the historian’s skepticism about accepting the inspiration of a narrative, or even all the details of a historical narrative. But the one thing which has been pretty constant over the past couple of hundred years has been the vindication of the ancients in terms of at least a kernel of historical truths in the stories they would tell. Am I really to believe the Song of Deborah, which has some of the most ancient features in the Hebrew text, is a later, northern Israeliteish invention? Why would anyone invent an origin narrative in which one suggests one’s ancestors were slaves in another land, liberated only by their God, who would then punish that rebellious generation? Why would anyone invent the hot mess of stories found in Judges?

In this way the historical reconstruction by the author tells you a lot about the author as well. As an exercise in historical imagination, there’s a lot of good stuff here. But historical imagination is limited, and we always do well to maintain a posture of humility, being willing to believe that perhaps the ancients knew a little bit more about even that which was ancient to them than we do.

As someone who doesn’t adhere to any religion, I generally avoid religious literature unless it’s written from an academic or sociological perspective. In my experience, even supposedly academic works on religion often betray subtle biases reflective of the author’s background or beliefs. However, this book proved to be a notable exception.

Wright’s approach stands out for its rigorous scholarship and objective analysis. Unlike many works in this field, it maintains a consistently academic tone without veering into apologetics or criticism. The author’s ability to examine the Bible’s origins through a historical and socio-political lens, rather than a theological one, makes this book accessible and enlightening for readers of all backgrounds, religious or otherwise.

Jacob L. Wright’s “Why the Bible Began” presents an illuminating investigation into the origins of the biblical text. Wright, a renowned scholar in biblical studies and archaeology, examines the historical and socio-political factors that shaped the formation of the Bible.

The book presents that the Bible’s emergence was not isolated but intricately connected to its historical context. Wright analyzes the Bible’s role in the ancient Near Eastern world, arguing that its creation was closely tied to contemporary socio-political needs. He pays particular attention to the Babylonian Exile and the subsequent Persian period, demonstrating how these pivotal eras influenced the development of biblical texts.

Wright’s work challenges traditional views of biblical origins, offering readers a nuanced understanding of how historical circumstances and social dynamics contributed to the Bible’s composition. By contextualizing the Bible’s formation within its historical milieu, “Why the Bible Began” provides fresh insights into this foundational text’s genesis and evolution.

Some readers might find the academic nature of the book challenging, especially if they are not familiar with biblical scholarship or ancient Near Eastern history. Though, Wright tries to presents complex ideas in a clear and engaging manner.

This book does have moments of brilliance and chapters that do really get one to think. Two quick examples that come to mind are his chapter highlighting how the role and importance of women in the Bible is far beyond that of other contemporary literature, and his chapter highlighting the friendship and friction that existed between Israel's prophets and kings.

However, there is far more to be disappointed in with this book than to like. There is some great scholarship out there regarding the origins of scripture. Although this book pretends at that, I cannot call it mediocre, let alone great. Why? Five reasons come to mind. First and foremost, there is no room for God. The default assumption in this book is that God played no part in the creation of scripture. Beyond that, there is not even room for the miraculous. Any retelling of any miracle in scripture must have sprung from the "imagination" of the author. Even beyond that, there is barely even any room for the good. Anytime anyone is doing anything good, we must question their motives and/or doubt the veracity of the story.

The second reason dovetails off the first. For any pericope, Jacob Wright automatically assumes the worst. If there is any plausible reason to doubt its historicity, he will do so. If there is any convoluted reason to create questionable motives for its origin, he will take it. When Occam's Razor is convenient, he will lean back on it. When it produces the opposite of his desired result, he will ignore it.

The third reason I question the credibility of this book is Wright's selective use of facts. There are multiple times where he calls something into question that has been answered many times already by far better scholars than he or I. There are also commonly known archaeological finds that he has ignored because they do not fit into the narratives (peoples, priestly, palace, and national... it is his own version of JEDP) that he is trying to create.

Fourthly, Wright uses incredibly biased source material. At the end of each chapter, he has a bibliography of further reading. Try as hard as I might, cannot find a single article or source that was written by a conservative Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Even managing to spot a moderate is a rare find. He only is reading and quoting from sources that already confirm his biases. This is intellectually dishonest.

Finally, Wright tends to put the cart before the horse. His primary thesis is that nearly the entire Bible was written by exilic or post-exilic scribes and their purpose for writing was an effort of nation-building. I would agree that exilic scribes had a bigger role in compiling source material and that there was some level of editorial gloss, it is not nearly as much as he and many scholars from a few decades back (this thesis is tending to fall out of fashion) would claim. Even more, I would say that nation building was a side effect of their writing and compilation. It was an incredibly effective effect, but for the most part, I highly doubt that it was their intended purpose. This book didn't even begin to convince me otherwise.

For about a third of this book, I was doing a running commentary here on Goodreads. Although I continued to do so in the margins and in my notes, after a while I stopped adding it here. I think the little I did was more than enough to demonstrate how consistently shoddy the supposed scholarship in this book was...

(914)Many of the historical factors that shaped Israel's and Judah's formation find no mention in the Bible, while much of what is in the Bible portrays considerable detail far removed from history.
According to the Bible, the Hebrews are a people group already known to the Egyptians in the time of Joseph (Genesis 46:34). On the flip side, the invasion of the Apiru in the El Amarna tablets does fit fairly closely with a critical reading of the book of Joshua. God's promise to "drive the Canaanites out" before the Israelites would take the land does match the depopulation we know of as fact from the Bronze Age collapse. Also, both Joshua and Judges make it clear that the initial conquest was only partial at best. Both the historical narrative as we know it, and the biblical narrative as most scholars read it do not nearly line up with the narrative that Wright is trying to portray here in this chapter.

(1086)"The biblical account aligns these figures in a succession and assigns to each generation a different leader. Historically, however, many would have ruled at the same time, and some may have lived generations after Saul and David."
Any historical reading of Judges agrees that it is not a linear account. And the author presents no evidence either biblical or archaeological to validate his claim that some are post-Davidic. He simply states his speculation as fact for the purpose of sensationalism. That might work for Dan Brown, but this is supposed to be a work of history, not pseudohistorical fiction.

(1142)"These apologetic efforts present several serious problems and have therefore not convinced most scholars. It seems more reasonable to assume that Shishak, or his armies, never stepped foot in the Southern kingdom."
Those presenting alternate perspectives are labeled apologists while those agreeing are "most scholars" on a specific historical issue where there is nothing close to a consensus. This is then combined with an argument from silence. "The Assyrians recorded nothing of their defeat therefore it did not happen." Let's ignore the fact that most nations throughout most of history never recorded their defeats if it could at all be avoided as you yourself will later acknowledge a few chapters on.

(1483) "Although the palace history has these foreign kings harassing the Omride kingdom, it may be describing events that actually occurred during the reign of Jehu and his descendants."
Not only does this contradict the biblical record, it also contradicts the archaeological record that the author himself will refer to about six pages further down. So the author is contradicting himself for no other reason than to "discredit" the biblical account. This is what happens when a book is driven by agenda rather than fact.

(1571)"For the region of Samaria, archaeologists estimate that the Assyrians deported little more than 10-20% of the population."
There is no consensus on this. While all recognize that there was a deportation, numbers can vary from 5% to more than 50% depending on the source. Most legitimate scholars will shy away from numbers altogether since we simply do not have enough information. That it was enough to significantly alter the culture is not in question.

(1735)"They may have mentioned the king, but they may very well have omitted him, and if so, this would have been a highly unusual case for ancient West Asia."
This is already outdated. Hezekiah was not omitted. A fragment discovered in 2007 was finally deciphered in 2022. Hezekiah is credited with the pool of Siloam and the tunnel that today bears his name.

(1755)"Thus, while Judah was radically reduced in size, the population density around Jerusalem increased significantly, and this process of urbanization created the conditions of a more robust exchange of ideas that crystalized in the biblical writings."
It is true that the city grew rapidly in the time from Hezekiah to Josiah and the population center shifted northward and closer to what we know of as the Old City that can be seen today.

(1933)"Whatever his intentions may have been, it did not go well: Necho suspected him of a treasonous affair with Babylon and had him executed."
WHAT?!? This is absolutely not what happened to Josiah. He died in battle. Or possibly from the wounds sustained in battle, later on back home. The Egyptians record, the biblical record, and virtually every historian I have ever read from has said some version of this same thing. But... who knew? Everyone everywhere has always gotten it wrong. Fortunately, after nearly 2600 years of misinformation by everybody, Mr Wright is here to set the record straight.

(2071)"In the Twentieth Century, territorial states would re-emerge in the form of Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, but the fate of those states now hangs in the balance with several players reviving their ancient imperial ambitions."
As sad as the conflicts have been, ISIS, the Syrian civil war, and currently Hamas/Israel... nobody in their right mind truly believes any of these countries is going away anytime soon. I guess this author is not in his right mind.

(2218)"Scholars generally agree that the five laments could not have originated in the direct wake of 586 BC and that they were not written at the same time."
What scholars? This is a statement made without references or citations. Taking aside the fact that the book of Lamentations acts as a cohesive chiastic whole that suggests a single author at a single time, there are many scholars like Adele Berman, David Clines, and John Haynes who have written extensively on Lamentations and agree that it was all written shortly (within decades) after the fall. The fact that so much of the remainder of this book rests on this unsubstantiated (and I would argue faulty) premise does not bode well.

(2266) "It is possible that these conquered communities reflected on their fate in some literary form. Yet it is equally likely that they were eventually discouraged from speaking about the catastrophe, let alone fully admitting it and commemorating it."
What is even more likely is that the victors exaggerated the scope and effects of their victory as a means of a propaganda of fear against future potential enemies. The worst thing we can do is simply take the victor's word for it, but you seem to do so time and time again.

(2405) "This paean to Babylonian power provoked the authors of Genesis 1 to pen a counter vision."
The attempts to create contrasts and parallels between the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 are painful to behold, but I've got to give Wright credit. He takes a previously popular but largely debunked theory and does his best to work it for all its worth. The differences not just in content, but also in style, perspective, and worldview are so great that very few scholars today still cling to this idea. Beyond that, there is now serious question if the Chaldean Babylonians of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah were even aware of the Sumerian Babylonian creation myth of the Enuma Elish. It was, after all, written many (between 5-9 or more) centuries earlier by an entirely different language and culture who happened to inhabit the same land. The supreme god in the EE was only relegated to a local city deity by the exilic times. This is a problem many liberal scholars don't seem to get. While they recognize that the Bible evolved over time, they treat other ANE religions as static throughout history.

(2540) "When collecting, editing, and expanding older writings and creating new ones, many scribes would no longer be using Hebrew in their daily routines. It is really remarkable, then, that in their literary efforts, they sought to create continuity with the language of the oldest biblical writings"
If you think it through, this is actually a really good argument for why we should view the exilic and post-exilic scribes as compilers, and possibly editors of earlier writings and not necessarily as the writers themselves.

(2972)"All this is mere saber rattling for rhetorical effect."
This quote comes in the middle of a section talking about Ezra's recounting of the building of the Temple and Nehemiah's rebuilding of the wall (both of which he claims are semi-fictional accounts). He claims that the fear of violence and the threat of force are completely made up only for the purpose of lending these building accounts the gravity found in earlier war accounts like the Song of Deborah (which he claims they parallel). Anyone who has read even a cursory account of Persian history would know that the kingdom was far from stable, civil wars and local rivalries were rife and that especially Nehemiah's account gives a historically accurate glimpse of what provincial politics under Persian rule would have been like.

(3122)"Across the Bible's rich narrative tapestry, with its tales of lives both great and small, one activity is conspicuously absent: learning from books or teaching others about the past."
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read yet. The Psalms absolutely loaded with recountings of the past. Nearly every key prayer in the Old Testament is a recounting of the past. The Hebrew festivals were set up specifically to remember and celebrate what God had done in the past. Beyond all this, the Shemah, the very core of what it means to be Jewish, is a command to remember and to teach God's statutes from generation to generation. Yes, the author is right that Ezra and his contemporary scribes transitioned Israel from a cultic people of the Temple to a literate people of the book. But to say that there was no learning or teaching of the past prior to him is just plain dumb.

I tried numerous times to finish this book and couldn't (I even checked out a hard copy from the library to see if the formatting issues with the digital copy I received was the problem).. It wasn't that the book was interesting, it was in many ways. But it was a matter of the concentration and time commitment required to finish and get something out of the book. I am pretty well read when it comes to the Bible and theology but I am not an academic in this field. Let's say I am a knowledgable general reader. I found the flow of the book frustrating. It starts chapters with stories from the Bible and then jumps into scholarship and archeology, etc. It is constantly shifting from big picture to details. At the same time it is constantly referencing past and future chapters. I.e. As we have seen or which we will cover in chapter X. It is like the author is building an argument and constantly telling you the structure and process he is using to build the argument. It constantly interrupts the flow.

Despite the style of a book accessible to lay readers, I think this is a book that primarily will appeal to those in academia or familiar with the scholarly debates. I found I could understand the details and follow the argument but didn't feel like I was getting anywhere. 135 pages in (and having reread half a dozen chapters), I just decided it wasn't worth it.

As a graduate of Bible college, I find myself drawn to academic material that keeps me sharp while teaching me new things. This book fit the bill, almost too well! Wright takes the time to go in-depth in his explanations. I do wish he would provide footnotes for some of his sources rather than just saying something like "some say" to back up his claims. However, that's a particularly nerdy part of my brain. Overall, I would recommend this to anyone interested in going deeper into archaeology who is open to theories without blindly accepting them. There's strong food for thought here and plenty of intrigue.

Why the Bible Began by Jacob L. Wright is the kind of non fiction read that I feel I will approach several times before developing a full opinion of . The topic of why and how the Bible became what it is is fascinating and Wright brings an easy to digest writing style to the work of dissecting it . I will definitely be nabbing a physical copy as soon as I am able .

It is an interesting story that seeks to clarify how the narrative corpus of the Bible was formed. Often using archeological means, the story describes the elements of the biblical tale that are almost certain to have occurred and those with which a great deal of embellishments or outright lies were utilized. Often times this is done in the form of combining individual narrative from disparate peoples into one rendition so as to fabricate a United history that did not actually exist. The new rendering of Israeli and Jewish history is often an amalgamation of various real stories coupled with outlandish tenets so as to bolster the prestige and historical legacy of Israel and its people. It reconciles biblical assertions with historical truths in way that is both honest yet respectful of the reverence culturally shown to the preeminent Christian corpus. At times clunky and dense, the story is often bogged down by the jump from one historical fact to the other in a form not conducive to the rendering of a successful narrative story. While the story is interest enough, the execution did not engender positive sentiments.

Why The Bible Began does a great job looking at the history behind the Bible rather than the mythology and legend that raised many of us. Scholarly, but not dry and boring, Wright makes sense of the mix of narratives and motives that were pulled together in the most influential text ever constructed.

Thank you to NetGalley and Cambridge University Press for an ARC of this book.

The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is one of the foundational sacred scriptures for three (3) [Abrahamic] religions. Each tradition takes a slightly different approach to interpreting what it actually says (exegesis), but few commentaries explore why each story is told the way it is told … perhaps because of a presumption that because they were inspired by God, they did not actually change or evolve … a presumption that is no longer the general consensus of biblical scholars. In fact, there is a significant wing that promotes the exact opposite supported by recent discoveries of ancient versions of the text that appear to illustrate how they evolved over time for different jewish communities. Stepping into that academic line of questioning, Why the Bible Began begins with accepting this evolution as fact and then takes it one step further by suggesting that there was a specific purpose to the work of these historical redactors and a specific reason these changes endured (why the work).

Most biblical scholars are familiar with the document hypothesis … this appears to take a slightly different approach. It starts with the idea that there really never was a United Monarchy … in fact, the starting point very nearly aligns with the minimalists view of early Israel. As such, we start to see parts of what appears to be conflicting traditions woven together for a specific goal … to create the idea of a people define by belief and practice instead of by territory or ruler in order to help the community survive being under the heel of external conquerors. What I found interesting is how this was a concept that was mostly driven by circumstances … in other words, it was the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel that provided much of the skill and source material to weave together disparate traditions to make a unified national narrative. Then it was the subsequent fall of the Southern Judean Kingdom that forced the creation of a people narrative to united the community throughout all of the diaspora.

Over all, despite being more of an academic piece, it was well supported and very accessible if you are interested and open to this approach … it won’t work for everybody. There are a lot of references to assumptions that represent current research that make this more of a companion work that provides a solid overview with a deeper dive into the support to fully understand the why the author takes the stance that he does.

My spouse saw an excellent review about this book (New York Times??) and instantly wanted to read it. It took him a long time because he would read a little, look things up in the bible, talk to a clergy friend and several secular friends about what he read, and then read another section. He thought this was a fabulous book and asked me to order copies for several friends,

If you like to learn why we believe (or are told to believe but don't), this is an excellent choice. It was a little too deep for me, but was right up his alley.

In "Why the Bible Began," Jacob L. Wright argues that the Bible is the first documentary evidence of "a people" without land. I am not even close to being an authority on biblical studies, but anyone can see that is an essential addition to the literature. As well, Wright's voice is extremely pleasant and exudes enthusiasm.

**Received ebook for free from NetGalley in return for an honest review.
**Review first posted on Goodreads <https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5849401201>

Wright’s latest book takes a look at nearly every book of the (Hebrew) Bible and presents a cohesive theory as to when and why the Bible was written. In short, Wright posits that the entire enterprise was a systematic, post-exilic way of creating a single nation (Israelite, Israel, Judea, Jewish - or whatever moniker you prefer) by weaving various legends sourced from disparate tribes and kingdoms in the region of Israel/Judea into a single history. For example, he suggests that the patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - were initially three unrelated folk heroes (without taking a firm stand on the historicity of these characters and/or specific stories about them) who were eventually combined into a single family to make the history cohere.

While there are lots of gems throughout (the chapter towards the end on Esther was particularly interesting), I found the book to be somewhat difficult to read, with too much time spent teasing future chapters and saying what is going to be covered later rather than just presenting the current chapter.

In addition, while he ends each chapter with an extensive bibliography for further reading, too many points are presented as “scholars believe” or “many think” without presenting the evidence (textual, archeological, or otherwise) to back up a claim. As someone who has studied the Bible through both a traditional religious and academic lens for many years, many of these views that are presented as consensus would benefit from some more explicit discussion.

Overall, while I enjoyed parts of the book and found much in it that could align with traditional (Orthodox) Jewish theology, the gaps in explaining what has led to academic consensus on a variety of points throughout the book make it a difficult primer for those not already versed on all of the relevant issues.

If you have a read an academic text on the Hebrew Bible, you have probably read about the what, or the who, or the where, or when, or how. What I had never read about was the why. WHY did the Jewish people write the Hebrew Bible the way it is? What was going on historically that led to not only the writing of this anthology of texts, but for it to be compiled together in the way it is over hundreds of years.

In this way, Jacob Wright's Why the Bible Began is a thorough historical and theological examination of the Hebrew Bible, all to answer that elusive question: why. The short of it is that the Jewish people were looking to create an identify of peoplehood. Those living in the Davidic dynasty wrote from a Jewish identity in the monarchy. The Northerners who were separated from their southern counter-parts in Jerusalem, wrote from a Jewish identity based in the every day people. Others wrote from exile and so needed to think of their people as not place-bound.

Through four parts, Wright gives an intensely researched history of the region and culture, from the earliest moments of civilization in Mesopotamia, through the early Hellenistic period, and you slowly learn how the Hebrew Bible came down through the centuries to the present in the form it currently holds.

Written from an academic standpoint, but with chapters split into small pieces that can be slowly digested over a longer period of time, this book is one of the best books I have ever read relating to the Hebrew Bible. If you are interested in theology, history, or just this time period, this is one book you must check out!

In Why the Bible Began, Jacob L. Wright thoroughly and thoughtfully examines the Hebrew Bible to address the question, "What does it mean to be a people? Not a kingdom, city, clan, empire, or ethnicity, but a people." Through rigorous research, the author situates the conquered cities of Jerusalem and Judah within a larger cultural context and considers how and why the corpus of literature, now known best as the Old Testament, arose and persisted. He goes on to analyze its far-reaching impact on modern religion, theology, and politics.

This is, overall, quite a compelling and accessible volume with an excellent set of end notes to guide further study. I highly recommend it to anybody deeply interested in Biblical history, regardless of whether that interest is faith-based or secular.

Side note: Why the Bible Began reads well with David M. Carr's Holy Resilience: The Bible's Traumatic Origins (Yale University Press, 2014), overlapping somewhat but ultimately answering similar questions from a different angle and providing a much-needed complementary perspective. For the casual scholar, the two volumes together provide an excellent jumping-off point for a (re)consideration of the genesis and legacy of Hebrew scripture.

Jacob Wright, a Bible professor and author of several books focused on Biblical studies, has now authored "Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins." In this book, Wright argues that the Bible is good for more than just simply to be used as a "moral guide." He discusses the History of the Bible, the meaning found in ancient writings, and its origins. I appreciated that he wanted to get past the rote answer of "The Bible exists because God wanted to reveal divine truth to us."


This book is more academic than practical which made it a little difficult to read through at times. However, I can appreciate the time and effort Wright obviously put into authoring this book. For someone who's looking for something a little deeper than the typical Bible studies you find at the store, this will be your book! Thanks to NetGalley for the ARC. All opinions are my own.

Why the Bible Began is a fascinating book on a topic in which many people take great interest.

The book starts off with the history of Israel and Judah (including countries/regions surrounding the aforementioned countries). The remainder of the book goes into the explanation as to what is believed to be the origins of the Bible (I really should say Hebrew Bible) itself. The explanation, which of course is most of the book, goes into great detail as to the whens, whys, and how's that make the Bible a cohesive book about one people.

I do admit that the section on the history of Israel and Judah is lengthy and a bit complicated, but once through that section, I found the book much more fascinating and informative than I expected! In fact, I was surprised by what was presented, however, I see all points as valid and it does give food for thought. I know that many might disagree. Regardless, I highly recommend reading Why the Bible Began - I promise, it does not disappoint!

Jacob Wright's thought-provoking book, 'The Bible: A Blueprint for Hope and Restoration,' offers a captivating exploration of the extraordinary origins and enduring significance of the Bible. With meticulous research and insightful analysis, Wright unveils how a marginalized community transformed their profound loss into a powerful narrative of resilience and renewal. A must-read for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the Bible's profound impact on human history.

Thanks to NetGalley, the author, and the publisher for the digital advance copy of the book in exchange for my honest opinion.

My only negative comment is that on occasions this did feel a bit like being back at uni with my small brain struggling to take so much in. On the positive side, it was wonderfully informative and the detail was astounding. A huge book on understanding the history behind the bible.

From the rubble of the Babylonian invasion and the fall of Jerusalem, the people of Israel created a remarkable and enduring work of literature unequaled in the ancient world. In "Why the Bible Began," the author argues that the Jewish Bible created a national identity from experiences of trauma and diaspora. By carrying the history and wisdom of their forebears with them in written form, the people of Israel could remain a nation no matter where they lived.

This is a beautifully written, deeply researched, and easy to understand academic work. Because it's an academic work, it resorts to citations and "further reading" lists instead of comprehensive explanations. For instance, it claims that David was a Judean warlord rather than a king of a united Israel—but offers no support for this claim within the text. I understand that explanations like this are outside the scope of the book, and we're intended to consult other sources for this information. But as a reader, I found this practice frustrating. The book felt incomplete. Still, it's an engaging book and well worth reading.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

A deep, thoroughly researched, book that asks the question of WHY is there a bible? Amazingly detailed and matching other historical documents, artefacts and research to show the biblical narrative had corollaries marked in history, mostly exaggerated, that sought to create a document to define and unite one people beyond those of tribe, king and country. I will admit this book felt at time like I was reading a text book and the author too many times stated "we will cover ... in this chapter" or "in the preceding chapter" etc. you feel you are in a course instead or reading a book.