I just stumbled across this review, and the book sounds great! Biblicism poses a huge danger to 21st century Christianity, and I really appreciate the fact that someone is willing to point it out! As one might see from my blog, that I have held discussions (and am currently holding one) about historicity and the text, and what a non-historical account of creation, or a book of Isaiah that was redacted after the fact, has to say to an evangelical faith. It is an important discussion, and I am pleased that Professor Smith has put forth this contribution to the conversation

I have read Professor Smith's book, have been a believer and student of the Scriptures for twenty-five years and have a graduate degree in theological studies from a conservative, evangelical university. Professor Smith has raised some issues that have plagued me for the last few years and gone insufficiently answered. But, what troubles me about this exchange is the lack of civility on the part of those addressing Professor Smith. If their sarcasm was stirred by the author's use of the term "intellectual integrity", they are, I believe, misreading him. This kind of angry attack is often due to fear and misunderstanding.

I have ordered this book and will reserve judgment until I have read it. At this point I am not convinced any crisis exists, though there is little doubt that some serious issues have been identified. From what I have read, it seems fair to say that Gundry's criticism of C. Smith's book is no more negative than Smith's evaluation of Gundry's review. Further, Gundry has a long background in biblical studies that cannot be lightly dismissed. The thesis Smith presents is sufficiently favorable to Roman Catholic thinking that issues of motivation are obvious. It is certainly not clear how those concerns can be removed. -Barry

I am publishing a more developed reply to Gundry in the next print issue of B&C. Don't miss it.

Thank you Mr. Smith for your excellent book. Having taught 6 years at Messiah College, a fundamentalist/Biblicist "Christian" college, I share most of your observations and think your argument is right on target. The only authority that a Biblicist hermeneutic has is the power that institutions have to enforce an interpretation of their own liking. I despair over the state of Christian thought and hope that your book will help others to see the impossibility and complete arbitrariness of Biblicist Henry Venema Prof. of Philosophy Brandon University Brandon, Manitoba Canada

If I thought that someone had made 100 bad points about my book, I would take the first three points and refute them convincingly. Then I would note that I don't have time and space to do this for 100 points. The FIRST three, not the weakest three out of the 100. The reader would suspect that if the first three criticisms of the book are that easily refuted, perhaps the whole review is suspect. Refusing to go into any of the review points in detail seems quite a bit less convincing.

Sir, with all due respect to you, as a layperson with little education but a love of theological issues, I, and I suppose many others, do not find authors' answering point by point their reviewers criticism "annoying". I rather find it honest, scholarly and respectful. After reading the review I had questions arise regarding the reviewers presuppositions as well as your book. It made me want to actually read your book and delve deeper into the subject as a whole. However, I come away with the distinct impression that if I and others " ...carefully read and judge The Bible Made Impossible ", we could only end up agreeing with you if we have the "...intellectual integrity to face and deal with that reality." It seems that their is only one possible conclusion one can come to after reading your book. That sir, leaves me with more questions regarding you as an author, than it does of the review itself.

I am sure this is just one of the many interpretive realities you will have to deal with. Good thing you’re not dead…we can ask you what you meant. “The authority still lives clarify his word.” No PIP here. Phew! For a moment I thought we were stuck in a linguistic construct in which none of us could get out… If you don’t answer Gundry’s review, which is understandable considering his lack of intellectual integrity (I mean those silly “people” don’t even a response…right), may be you could answer my question. If PIP nullifies the Biblicist’s basic assumptions and interpretative gird why does it not nullify your basic assumptions and interpretative grid? Also, thank you for letting me know Evangelicals have not wrestled with these issues before (who knew…you think they would have said something by now especially with all their preaching on integrity and what not). Well maybe they haven’t until they buy and read your book… Wait a minute. Am I interpreting that right?

No please a snarky, annoying point by point remark would be nice. Suffice it to say it may look like you "evade the central critical point" of his review, i.e. your book is rife with contradictions, double standards, straw men, etc. I guess my contention is if you know his review is "shot full of the kind of diversions, evasions, misrepresentations, fuzziness, and catching-the-author-in-faux-contradictions" then it should take no effort in answering his review. You could then suggest that Professor Gundry pick up a copy of How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren (want to stay away from those Biblicist hermeneutic books right) since it is obvious he doesn’t read well. But who knows, in the end maybe Professor Gundry thinks you’re wrong, and your book is not argued well. The “question is whether you have the intellectual integrity to face and deal with” Gundry’s review and maybe deal with a few realities he has pointed out in your book.

One wonders as an author, at times, what is the point of spending the effort to carefully construct a book’s argument, including all of the necessary emphases, qualifications, and nuances, when snarky reviewers go on to misrepresent the book and dodge its main argument? I ask myself that now, having just read Robert Gundry’s review of my book, The Bible Made Impossible. Book authors who are unhappy with reviews of their work responding with long, point-by-point replies are annoying, so I will not do that here. Suffice it to say that Gundry evades the central critical point of my book, focuses on side-issues concerning certain constructive suggestions offered in the second half of my book (which, btw, I do not say will “solve” the problem), and in the process lets himself and readers off the hook for explaining how biblicism could be possible, given evangelicalism’s pervasive interpretive pluralism. His review is shot full of the kind of diversions, evasions, misrepresentations, fuzziness, and catching-the-author-in-faux-contradictions that have now become a pattern in negative reviews of this books, ones which, evidently, do not want to actually face and answer its central argument. The name dropping is also amusing. But in the end Gundry is simply wrong. Biblicism of the kind I describe is real, widespread, influential, and, yes, impossible. The question is whether evangelicals have the intellectual integrity to face and deal with that reality. Gundry apparently does not. Other readers interested in these matters, however, I hope will not be deterred by his grumpings, but will actually carefully read and judge The Bible Made Impossible for themselves.