OT And NT Manuscript History, by Michael and Mary C. Findlay

This book is, from all appearances, excerpted from a longer book that would likely be interesting to read. The apparent attempt of this book is to defend a particular interpretation of the Bible, and it appears as if the authors are somewhat unaware of the fact that there seems to be a marked inability to differentiate between what God says and what they read into it. Some examples should suffice. For example, the authors claim a young earth chronology out of their principles of biblical interpretation but show no awareness of the fact that their viewpoint is one they have imposed on the scripture. Similarly, their hostility to certain manuscript theories (like a supposed “Q” source for the synoptic Gospels) seems unrelated to scriptural reality, inasmuch as a putative source that has never existed is similarly unrelated to scriptural reality. The authors also make a lot of dogmatic statements, like the Book of Jashur being a forgery, without attribution to evidence to prove their positions. It would appear that the authors wish to be seen as authorities whose word can be taken without recourse to proof, and that is at least one bridge too far.

The tone of the book, therefore, is at odds with its structure, which is a short textbook about the manuscript history of the OT and NT. This history is nearly devoid of actual citations of history, or even examples of the internal evidence that suggests the early written nature of scripture, evidence the authors (who possess a high view of oral history) seem disinclined to point out. The lengthy quizzes which test whether a reader understands and can regurgitate the statements of the authors take up a large part of what is a very short book. A much longer, and much better book would have spent some time and effort citing sources that would back up the authors’ claims and would have provided an explanation for some of them. For example, the authors seem to infer that some sources (like 1st Maccabees) have legitimate history, but there is no attempt to demonstrate the relationship of the successful resistance to Seleucid rule to New Testament concerns.

So, how does one best view this book. So long as one takes it as a personal pamphlet, on the level of an unsourced and dogmatic blog entry written as an e-book, it is not offensive even if it is very opinionated (like many bloggers). As a textbook, though, and a book which has aspirations beyond being seen merely as personal opinion, the fact that the authors took the time and effort to make this book a source for study for a high school level course on biblical manuscripts without taking the time and effort to cite why the New American Standard Version is superior to others (to name but one example) suggests that the authors hold too high a view of their own credibility to be truly safe to read with the intents that they have. So, this book will merely preach where it wishes to teach, entertain where it wishes to instruct, and while this is a sort of accomplishment, it is likely not to the level that the authors wish to attain. To reach those heights it would be necessary to speak with more modesty and nuance, and better authority than their own.