How did the books of the Bible come to be recognized as Holy Scripture? Who decided what the shape of the canon should be? What were the criteria that influenced these decisions? If you don't know the answers to these important questions, you can! And there is no better book to read than this scholarly classic by F.F. Bruce.

In this text, F.F. Bruce takes his reader through a historical summation of the Canon of Scripture. In other words, he looks at the various time frames - from the 2nd century church Fathers to the Reformation and on into the modern period (the age of printing) - and discusses the views of various thinkers, theologians, etc. and how they responded to certain assertions about the Canon of Scripture, etc. For instance, in the Reformation, Bruce examines why Luther thought that the Book of James should be omitted from the Canon.

The last few chapters deal with the Criteria of the Canon; what it took to put the Canon together, how it actually occurred, why certain books were chosen and others not, etc. Bruce also examines the differences between the Roman Catholic view and the Protestant view of the Canon, he discusses criticism and interpretation within the Christian Church (as well as from those outside) in reference to the Canon.

Finally Bruce examines the "secret" gospel of Mark, what it is, what is the controversy surrounding it, its historical roots, etc. This is an interesting chapter and has a bit of apologetic value to it. Overall, this is a great basic text for anyone interested in the Canon of the Scriptures, how the Bible was put together, how it has been viewed over the centuries and how interpreting the Bible is possible and the need for good interpretation, criticism, Biblical inerrancy, etc.

Bruce is a great biblical scholar, and The Canon of Scripture is an excellent book. He deals with the historicity/veracity of both the Old and New Testament documents and why our Bible can be trusted today. Not a book to be skimmed, Bruce concentrates on early church history, showing the background of how our Bible came to be, all the way through the age of printing. His conclusion and 2 appendices are also very valuable. I might suggest "From God to Us" by Geisler/Nix as well as Bruce's "Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?" as additional sources. I am glad to have read this book and have a better understanding of textual criticism.

This is required reading for well-rounded New Testament readers. Most of it is chronological, as opposed to topical, but the index is pretty good. There is a lot of good material here and Bruce does a good job of balancing views from different historians and sources.

2000 years back is a little far to think. But Bruce brings it
much to life and is a known reliable New Testament scholar. If
you must know, he was a Plymouth Brethren. H.L. Ellison is also.
I also like Bruce's commentaries on Acts and Hebrews.

Bruce has written books explicitly on the reliability of documents and so forth, but this is much more relevant to
me personally. What was it like? is what I'm after.

***NOTE***: Searching on Bruce's name in amazon.com gives
tons of other stuff somehow, so the best way to focus on
his works is to find one of them and then do the "all works
by same author" search from that book.

I thought I knew something about the history of the Church - until I read this book.

It is MUST reading for ANY and ALL Christians. You'll know why the late F.F. Bruce is so widely quoted and so authoritatively referred to if you do.

Flavio F. Lima - ( livifla@bol.com.br ) - The only thing that I don't liked was the little words of the Old Testament in it. However, this famous Dictionary is my guide when I need to understand the true meaning of the greek words. Yes every Bible student must have it in your personal library. It is an excellent reference work !

An Excellent work which is if Aid to all Bible Students. The Paper is not of as nice quality as I would like, but Durable non the less. However the content and description should make this book one of the top of the list for any serious student.

Vine's Expository Dictionary gives excellent word pictures and meanings of the original languages found in the Word of God. It is a resource book that every preacher should have for preparing sermons for their local body of believers. Nothing helps make the Scripture come alive for listeners like a clearer understanding of what the writers of the books of the Bible were trying to present through their choice of certain words in the Greek and Hebrew languages. This book opens the door of understanding of the original languages of the Bible.

This book reads like a novel. The Late F.F. Bruce had the ability to make any subject he wrote on lively and entertaining. It may be surprising to some that he does not think very highly of the NASB, stating that the RSV does what the NASB translators tried to do, but did it "better". The review of lesser-know 20th century translations is most excellent, but there is the error when mentioning the lectures in England by Colet on Paul's letters. Daniell in his masterful biography of Tyndale puts this false information to rest! If you read this book and Daniell's great work, you'll know more about the history of the English Bible than 98% of the typical pew-sitters out there! Highly recommended to all!

I found this book to be thorough and fair in its coverage of the Bible's English evolution. The writing style is accessible, fresh and even compelling. At times I found the book positively entertaining (it's a history book--and I'm NO historian). This book offers a fascinating glimpse at the lives and works of those who were often martyred because they believed that the Bible needed to be accessible to the individual (in English not Latin et al). As Tyndale said in his preface to the 1530 edition, "it hath but one simple literal sense whose light the owls cannot abide." Whether or not that's true, his passion comes across in F.F. Bruce's book.

Since I started seminary, I've enjoyed F.F. Bruce's commentaries. Having started a study of the letter to the Colossians, I've consulted this commentary extensively. His insight and text critical footnotes help the reader to get a better grasp of the content and meaning of this letter. Highly recommended.

Morris' exegetical work is phenomenal! He paints vivid pictures of not only the Thessalonians themselves, but also the extent of Paul's thoughts and devotion toward these young and dynamic believers. This commentary proved not only useful and thought provoking, but accessible and lucid. Every serious student of the scriptures must attain a copy. Morris has once again hit a grand-slam.

F.F. Bruce's History of the Bible in English is probably still the best book on its theme. Bruce traces the history of the Bible in English from Anglo-Saxon paraphrases through Wycliffe, Tyndale, King James, up to the 1970s. He gives informative, yet relatively concise, histories of each translation and how and why they were made. The book was originally published in 1961 to coincide with the release of the New Testament of the New English Bible, then a second edition came out in 1970 to coincide with the publication of the full New English Bible. The third edition appends a chapter with brief summaries of the versions of the 1970s -- NIV, NASB, Living Bible, and Good News Bible chief among them. His treatment is scholarly, yet utterly readable, and packed with information. Now 25 years old, the third edition is getting a bit dated, but it is still the best book on the versions it covers. (Oxford University Press USA used to publish this book in the US, but it has now gone out of print.)

Great book filled with informative information, photos and drawings on life in Bible times. Follows the journey of our Lord and shows how the land may have looked then and how it is today. Easy to read. great childrens refernce book

This book deals with the question of whether the events recorded in it are historical (i.e. did they actually happen)? As such, the primary focus of the book is on the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and Acts (tells the first 30 or so years of Christianity). This book does not address the existence of God, evolution or other apologetic topics; it deals specifically with the New Testament from the perspective of a historian.

Bruce starts the book with an Introduction, which shows that Christianity depends on certain historical events; it is not an ethical system or a metaphysical system first. It is the Gospel; that Jesus was born, did and said certain things, died and was resurrected.

Often when one reads about the evidence for the New Testament, it is very general. In this book, that is not the case. For example, in the chapter, "The Writings of Luke," Bruce mentions how Luke knew specific titles of Roman officials and why this is significant. Bruce also examines the Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) evidence regarding early Christianity and Jesus. He cites Tacitus, Suetonius and a letter of Pliny the Younger. In the chapter on Early Jewish Writings, Bruce examines what little the Talmud says about Jesus and then goes into more depth about Flavius Josephus; Bruce investigates the idea that Christians have edited Josephus. The chapter, "More Archaeological Evidence," was probably the most interesting chapter for me in this book. It discusses specific finds that have a bearing on the New Testament and I had not previously encountered most of them in other apologetic works. Bruce does note one of the difficulties of finding New Testament Jerusalem sites. The Romans destroyed the city in 70 A.D. and a pagan city was rebuilt in its place in 135 A.D.; so it is surprising that anything is found.

Bruce also discusses the evidence regarding what happened in Acts 14:12 where the people of Lystra wrongly think that Paul and Barnabus are the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes. Bruce discusses the background to this and puts this curious event in its proper historical context. At the close of the chapter, Bruce very briefly looks at the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" and says it shows Gnostic influence but that the reader should look to other works for a discussion and evaluation.

Bruce, of course, deals with the Gospels at great length. I found this section the most difficult to go through; it just seemed very boring to read about the textual history of the Gospels. He does cover the Synoptic Problem and the Gospel of John as well. I think Bruce also makes a good point with his chapter about the Apostle Paul; several details about Jesus are known from Paul's writings which are independent, earlier and in agreement with the Gospels (e.g. Jesus is a descendent of David, was betrayed, endured the Roman punishment of crucifixion and instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine etc..).

The one drawback with reprinting a book originally published in 1943 is that many of the works that Bruce cites or footnotes are old. There are many works quoted from that were published from 1900-1950 and these books are difficult to look up if you want further information. However, Bruce partially makes up for this with his "Suggestions for Further Reading," at the end of the book which has works published in the 1960's-1970's.

I would recommend this book to someone who has the interest and patience to get into the New Testament and history; I don't think I would call it a popular level work but if you want information about the New Testament, this 12

This is an elightening read. It has allowed me to have more confidence when I read the Christian Bible. I now feel confident that I can explain to interested others the basis for believing that the text we now have is the same message as preached by the first century Christians. Regardless of whether you believe what these people preached, there can be no doubt that we know what they preached after reading this book. Bruce (1910-1990) was for many years prior to his death the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester in England. Based on the claim that Chrisitanity is an historical revelation, he felt justified to look at the foundation documents from a standpoint of historical criticism. Perhaps it is impossible to prove beyond any doubt the authenticity of these documents. Bruce does show that "the grounds for accepting the New Testament as trustworthy compared favourably with the grounds on which classical students accepted the authenticity and credibility of many ancient documents" If you are interested in fortifying your spiritual relationship by understanding the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel Tradition, this book will be interesting to you.

At about 120 pages, this book accomplishes its objective more than adequately. Dr. Bruce demonstrates the fact that the New Testament as we know it today is a very accurate replica of the original first-century writings.

Who should read this book? A Christian struggling with doubts about the truth of their faith. Or if you are someone who isn't experienced at defending your faith against arguments from your skeptical friends or relatives. If you've never been sure how to respond to statements like, "The gospels were written so far after the life of Jesus that they are totally inaccurate" or "Since we don't have the original copies of the New Testament books there is no way we could possibly know how much they've been tampered with", then you need to read this book.

Your faith and intellect will be strengthened after reading this great little book. It's concise and you don't have to be a Greek scholar to understand it.

The book, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, written by the evangelical, conservative biblical scholar, F. F. Bruce, is a summary study of the life of Paul. Bruce writes from a conspicuous learned background, yet his voice is elegant, discernible, and vivid. A book like this is the yearning of every student of biblical studies, particularly those with moderate to conservative beliefs and not always in agreement with the liberal, school of history approach taken by other books of this genre. Bruce is concise, comprehensive, and enjoyable. The book is a collection of writings by Bruce, some from as early as 1969, while much Bruce apparently wrote new when publishing the book in 1977. He ties them together very well, with only a minimum of repetition. One exception is the often repetitious analysis of Paul's Roman citizenship and it significance. Some chapters at first disappointed me with the shallow treatment of a topic, but I was usually relieved when finding a more fully developed examination of the same topic in a later chapter.Bruce relies heavily on the book of Acts, whose historical value, in characteristic conservative fashion, he generally accepts unquestionably.

One objection I have to Bruce is that he does not allow for a Hellenized Paul. Bruce argues firmly the Paul was a "Hebrew born of Hebrews." On page 43, and 127, Bruce argues that Paul's Judaism was free from Hellenistic influence, from which Paul had been sheltered since childhood. Several other studies have shown that Judaism, and particularly Pharisaism, was significantly influenced by Hellenism during the second temple period, despite their attempts to resist it. The Greek language and traditions were hybridized with local cultural environments. The effect of this influence can be seen in the vocabulary, concepts, metaphors, and cultic acts from the Greeks which appear in much of the New Testament. How could a person such as Paul, who was born in a Greek-speaking city, educated in and communicated in Greek, pretend to be uninfluenced by Hellenism? Similarly, Bruce often refers to Christ as Jesus of Nazareth; on page 56, he says that Jesus "emerged from obscurity of his home in Nazareth." On page 47, he calls him "A visitor from Galilee." I sense that his emphasis is that Nazareth, and all of Galilee, was thought of as the rural backwoods of Palestine, a view that has come under recent challenge. If Bruce sees Paul without Hellenistic influence, he surely does not allow for a Hellenized Christ. But new excavations at Sepphoris and Tiberius portray a different picture of first century Galilee, one that is far more cosmopolitan and Hellenized. Bruce puts great emphasis on Paul's Pharisaism and the importance of the Pharisee in first century Palestine. The power and influence of the Pharisees on Judaism during the time of Paul is not as clear as Bruce infers. Josephus, himself a Pharisee and predisposed to bias, tells us little of them from the start of Herod's rule until the revolt in 66 C.E. Pharisaic practice and beliefs of were, until recently, based on view that Pharisaism dominated pre-70 C.E. Judaism, and that post-70 C.E. rabbinic literature accuracy reflected the earlier practices.

I feel Bruce does not emphasize as much as he should the conflict between Paul and James the Righteous, brother of Jesus. I do not feel the antagonism between Paul's "Gentile Mission" and James' "the Jerusalem Church" is adequately covered. Acts may not tell the whole story about these relations; more from Pseudoclementines on this subject would have been welcomed. Overall, I feel this book is admirable. It is a good treatment of Paul's life and work. I especially like the early chapters on the historical background of the world in which Paul lived. I found Bruce's occasional criticism of Bultmann's views throughout the book interesting, and wished Bultmann was alive to rebut them. I enjoyed the subtle humor, it made the book more readable.

This is the only book written exclusively about Paul that I have read and the only one that I think I will for quite some time. When I began my search for a good biography of the life of the apostle Paul I spent many hours sifting through editorial reviews all claiming strong accolades for each book I ran across. I eventually bought this one if nothing else than lack of desire to find "the one." Ironically, I think I did.

Bruce's portrayal of Paul is full and complete, covering the span of his life as well as the history, culture and geography of its setting. Each chapter is neatly categorized under numbered main ideas while still expounding a full thesis throughout. The design, as well as the content, of the book is superb.

I was concerned that I would not be able to find a book on Paul that combined both literary criticism and scholarship with a moderate to conservative outlook on Christianity in general. My concerns vanished after the first few chapters and I began to see the scope of Bruce's writing. Perhaps the most gripping aspect of the book is Bruce's ability to present Paul as a real person instead of merely an iconoclastic image of a legend. By combining both scholarship and straightforward hermenuetics the apostle springs to life as a threefold person, for Paul was a man of heart, mind and action and no element is neglected at the expense of the other. The reader is allowed to glimpse at Paul's personality as an audaucious and perhaps blunt individual who nevertheless is steadfast in his determination to complete the mission given to him by the risen Christ. Paul's heart is clearly seen in his interaction with is fledgling congregations while his mind is picked at for the tremendous ideas and thought he developed that affected the rest of christendom.

In short, I was more than satisfied enough with this book that I have found no need for another for a while. I would recommend this book to conservative evangelicals looking for an adequate description of Paul's life, thought and activity.

If ever there was a complete work of the apostle Paul, this is it. And it is written by no less an expert than one of the 20th century's foremost Christian scholars, F.F. Bruce. Now that it's in paperback, every Christian ought to examine it for himself. The problem is, we're such a light-hearted fictional society (yes, I'm talking about us Christians) that many might never touch this book with a 10-foot pole. There's not enough plot to it, I can hear someone say. (Are you kidding? Who could have lived any fuller a life than Paul? He was the MAN!) In addition, another possible complaint could be that it's not written in an easy-flowing biographical style. True, but at the same time, this is not an impossible book for the average layperson to understand. That's why the publisher has made it available in paperback.

Let me say, if you consider yourself a person who loves the Word of God, a book like this will only enhance your study. It takes us from the beginning of Saul/Paul's life and opposition to the Way all the way to his imprisonments and death, with an emphasis on the apostle's theology. In effect, Bruce gives us the complete context to help us understand the situations that caused Paul to write the way he did. You will want to have your Bible nearby when you read it. Another valuable tool in this book is its index. This book could be used when carefully studying Acts or one of Paul's epistles. The background information the book provides what is probably more valuable than a set of NT commentaries. While the book can be either read or just utilized as a resource, there is no doubt in my mind that this is the best single work on Paul that I have ever seen.