On "Critial Reviews"

I was recently written by a brother asking if I knew of any critical reviews of Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus." I said I hadn't, and that I only read the book because it was a gift for a friend (and, consequently, I had it in my possession for awhile). The brother then sent me several critical reviews he knew of, so I decided to click one and see what they had to say.
I was shocked. Shocked at the... level of rationality and sophisticated argumentation used by this person trying to refute "Misquoting Jesus."

I did not originally intend to write a critique of the critique. I had slopped something out on a typewriter that had recently fallen into my possession, mostly an excuse to use the typewriter. But then the brother asked me to send him what I did have. In the process of typing it up, and with the addition to reading another bit of genius from the review, I decided that, since I already have the text here, I may as well post it.

So, for your reading pleasure:

I find it difficult to continue reading a "critical review" when the paper begins with such a flimsy argumentation that even I am able to spot holes on the first read through (and I am no scholar, I assure you of that). To begin, in the introductory page the author, a one James Snapp Jr., complains about the claim that this book is the "first of its kind," pointing out that other such writings (textual critiques of the bible) have been made, and that many of the points made can be found in other writings. What Mr. Snapp is missing is that the claim that this book is the first of its kind is not a claim to be the first book critiquing the textual authenticity of the bible, but the first scholarly work written on the subject intended for the general masses, rather than as a book for scholars (as is the case with Dr. Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"). This book is a simplified, "dumbed down" version of more scholarly works, yet is still written by a biblical scholar (and not the kind of bible scholar you find at your local Baptist church who receives his "critical analysis" straight from Almighty God).

Mr. Snapp also diverts from any serious standard of critical thought when he goes down the path of textual variations. For instance, Mr. Snapp says, "So which textual changes are doctrinally significant? In this book, Dr. Ehrman discusses less than 40 -- quite a reduction from the 400,000 he refers to in the first part of the book."
This sort of argument is laughable. To cover 400,000 textual variances, or even 400, in a book meant for the common person would be insanity. Just because Dr. Ehrman discusses less than 40 alterations is no indication that the other 399,060 (plus or minus) of them are thereby of no consequence. The point is that there being any textual variances is a pivotal problem ignored (or, more likely, written off) by the orthodoxy.

An example I like to use is, say you have a bit of textual revelation from God (hypothetically speaking). This Holy Book consists of just three statements:

1. Fast every thursday;
2. Pray three times a day;
3. God is one.

Now, the problem with this text (in this hypothetical situation) is that one of these statements has been changed through the passage of time, but we don't know which one it is that has been changed. This puts the entire list at fault; knowing that any one of them could be the one that's been changed, how can we accept any of them as the de facto Word of God? Rationally, we can't, for to do so would mean attributing (or risk attributing) false words to the Divine Creator.

And that is just one error. What about 40? Or 400,000? Is there some margin of error that is allowed in Christian thought?

Mr. Snapp also runs into rational trouble when discussing his map analogy. The analogy itself is fine, but a point he implies while discussing is... well... He says,

"but what if some of those areas of uncertainty on the map involved roads and landmarks? What if we don't have the contents of the original map? Dr. Ehrman regards this as a justification to stop trusting the spiritual map known as the New Testament."

And so do I! How can you say the text is the Word of God when ou aren't even sure where the words come from? Dr. Ehrman's claim isn't that the New Testament is a useless document void of any guidance. What we cannot do is regard those words as the words of God, as the Evangelicals (and such) that Dr. Ehrman is refuting do.

Mr. Snapp continues with this rational malfeasance after the introductory page when he says,

"Dr. Ehrman says (on p. 10) that it doesn?t help much to say that the original text was inspired if we can?t reconstruct it. I take issue with that for several reasons, not least of which is the point that the message, not the package of written words in which it comes, is what guides God?s people. If every Greek manuscript on the planet suddenly disappeared today, the Word of God could still be preached tomorrow."

Hold on a minute, I need to catch my breath. This... this mess just astounds me. This, kids, is an introduction to circular reasoning. Mr. Snapp is saying that it doesn't matter if the words have been changed, so long as the message is there. Well how do you think the message is conveyed? By words! If the words have been changed (and changed thousands of times for some 2000 years), and if we don't have the original, we don't know what the message is! There is a message in the New Testament, yes, but we don't know if that was the intended message. The message that matters, the supposed Divinly Inspired message is the original message--the exact one we no longer have!

And for Mr. Snapp to follow this by saying, "If every Greek manuscript on the planet suddenly disappeared today, the Word of God could still be preached tomorrow" is a masterpiece in idiotic circular reasoning. The whole point of books like "Misquoting Jesus" is that the so called "Word of God" is actually the word of men! If every Greek manuscript disappeared from the face of the earth, the word of men would still be preached tomorrow.

Maybe Mr. Snapp makes some good points, but with lapses in reason such as that, I find it difficult to justify reading any further. Though I may once I have the book in hand.