Books for Your Bookshelf in 2024

            It's still January 31, 2024, and the following text-critical resources are now available on Amazon.  Anyone who finds the price at Amazon prohibitively high is welcome to request a free digital text copy in the comments below or via an email to james.snapp@gmail.com .

Reviews welcome on Amazon
$9.99 US digital e-book
$19.50 US paperback

New Testament Textual Analysis.  That's what New Testament textual criticism is, minus the "art" that the dearly departed plagiarist Dr. Bruce Manning Metzger tries to smuggle in.  

            In terms of authority in the Christian church on earth, textual analysts rank second to the men and women who produced the contents of the Bible, for it is through the work of Christian textual analysts that the form of the New Testament books' text written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is recognized, verified, and protected from corruption.
            In this volume, written for adults, James Edward Snapp Jr. (that's me) systematically explains the materials and methods that are used to produce and, for lack of a better term, authenticate the text of the books of the New Testament. He also confronts the flawed reasoning that has, in much of academia, weakened many Christians' confidence in the New Testament's accuracy. He also exposes prominent false teachers both within and without church walls who have spread falsehoods about specific passages in the New Testament. Finally he summons aspiring textual analysts to dedicate themselves to this sacred enterprise using the equitable eclectic approach which he has developed.

This 400-page volume is intended to render superfluous Bart D. Ehrman's strategically titled "The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" and is an ideal resource for those who prefer not to have an atheist as their guide through the text of the New Testament.

Reviews on Amazon
Are Welcome
Is It Eclectic?
$12.88 Hardcover
$8.88 digital

Is It Eclectic? is a devastating expose of the "reasoned eclectic" text that has been produced via the "reasoned eclectic" approach which has hypnotized/brainwashed (I don't have a word that's just right so those will have to do) so many American seminarians.  The data in the page of this brief volume speaks for itself but I added some commentary to make sure even Wheaton graduates can't miss the point:  the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation in Matthew-Jude is 99% Alexandrian, and about 1% Byzantine.    
The Greek text that is the basis for the ESV, CSB, NRSV, NIV, NLT and other English versions of the New Testament is marketed as an "eclectic" text. But after textual analyst James Edward Snapp Jr. (that's me) examined it, he concluded that the idea that the results of the compilation-method used by the editors of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBS Greek New Testament are NOT, by any reasonable definition of the word, eclectic. The empirical evidence that compels this conclusion is presented in this book.

Is It Eclectic? is also available in German, so the folks in Muenster can read it as they wonder why American Christians are beginning to wonder why the Greek base-text of their English Bibles (NIV, CEB, NLT, NRSV, CSB, etc) is being introduced by an ally of secular humanists.  (Yes, in Germany, secular humanism is still a thing.)  

Reviews on Amazon are welcome.
Is It Eclectic?
in German is
$9.80 US

Der Basistext, der die edle deutsche Übersetzung der Heiligen Schriften der 27 Bücher des Neuen Testaments ersetzen wollte, wurde als „eklektische“ Zusammenstellung auf der Grundlage antiker Manuskripte vermarktet.
            Aber wir alle haben schon erlebt, wie alte Fußballspieler von jüngeren Spielern besiegt wurden. Die Qualität des Textes in einem Manuskript hängt nicht vom Alter des Pergaments oder Papyrus ab. Es hängt davon ab, wie gut die Kopisten ihre heilige Pflicht erfüllt haben.
            In diesem Buch untersucht James Edward Schniepf objektiv die neugriechische Zusammenstellung, die als „Nestle-Aland“ und als „Griechisches Neues Testament“ der United Bible Societies beworben wird, und entlarvt ihre Marketingpropaganda als authentische Propaganda. Meister Luther verfügte über jüngere Manuskripte, aber für den größten Teil des Neuen Testaments verfügten sie über einen besseren Text als die „älteren und besten Manuskripte“ als der Text, der wie schlechter Fußball aus Münster stammte. Es lebe der reife Martin Luther und möge seine deutsche Übersetzung wiederbelebt werden und möge auch die gläubige bekennende christliche Kirche in ganz Deutschland wiederbelebt werden.
            Dieses Buch enthält die Daten, die zeigen, dass Münsters „eklektischer Text“ nicht eklektisch ist!

Is It Eclectic? is also available in Portuguese.  Você já ouviu afirmações como essa dos editores do seu novo e moderno Novo Testamento em português? Então você foi enganado. Neste volume, o analista textual James Edward Snapp Jr. oferece uma crítica sincera ao texto base "eclético e fundamentado" sobre o qual vários.

Um exame do texto base "eclético e racional" da Nestlé-Aland do Novo Testamento.

Seu Novo Testamento é baseado no texto grego encontrado em mais de 5.000 manuscritos gregos, todos cuidadosamente considerados pelos maiores especialistas do mundo. Você pode ter certeza de que todas as evidências foram cuidadosamente examinadas antes do início da tradução do seu Novo Testamento em português.

Is It Eclectic? is also available in Indonesian.  (Due in part to a dream I had which involved Indonesian chicken wings.  So delicious.)

            Kompilasi Perjanjian Baru Yunani Nestle-Aland/UBS adalah dasar utama untuk terjemahan Perjanjian Baru di seluruh dunia dan untuk terjemahan bahasa Inggris seperti ESV, NIV, NLT, dan NRSV.
            Ini dipasarkan sebagai kompilasi "eklektik yang beralasan" berdasarkan lebih dari 5.000 manuskrip Yunani.
            Apakah itu deskripsi akurat dari teks Yunani NA/UBS?
Dalam pemeriksaan analitis yang cermat terhadap kompilasi NA/UBS, peneliti James Edward Snapp Jr. menunjukkan bahwa ini BUKAN merupakan deskripsi yang akurat menurut definisi normal istilah "eklektik".

The Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation of the Greek New Testament is the primary basis for translations of the New Testament around the world and for English translations such as the ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV.
It is marketed as a "reasoned eclectic" compilation based on over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.
Is that an accurate descriptions of the NA/UBS Greek text?
In this meticulous analytical examination of the NA/UBS compilation, researcher James Edward Snapp Jr. demonstrated that it is NOT an accurate description by any normal definition of the term "eclectic."

Codex Sinaiticus:
Reliable or a Liability?
$8.88 paperback
Reviews on Amazon
are welcome

The World's Oldest Bible:  Reliable or a Liability? is a close (but not exhaustive) look at the message conveyed by the main text of Codex Sinaiticus (called "The World's Oldest Bible" in the title of Dr. D. C. Parker's book "Codex Sinaiticus - The Story of the World's Oldest Bible").  In this concisely worded volume, James Edward Snapp Jr. - citizen of the kingdom of God and specialist in the field of New Testament textual analysis (and definitely NOT a KJV-Onlyist) - tests the claim that the text of one of the "the oldest and best manuscripts" of the Bible means the same thing that a typical medieval Byzantine manuscript of the Gospels means. Collecting 60 translation-affecting variants from Matthew, 60 translation-affecting variants from Mark, 60 translation-impacting variants from Luke, and 100 translation-impacting variants from John, brother James offers an irrefutable answer to the question, "Is Codex Sinaiticus' text as reliable as the Byzantine text in the Gospels?".  James R, White fanboys take note.

A Word to John MacArthur Regarding His False Claims about Mark 16:9-20 is, as the title, suggests, a straightforward word to John MacArthur of Grace Community Church (in Sun Valley California USA addressing some of the erroneous claims he has shared (and, as of December 2023) continued to share via the Grace To You organization, pertaining to Mark 16:9-20 - twelve verses of the inspired and inerrant word of God.  This comes in large print so that even someone as blind to the evidence as John MacArthur can easily read the proof that Grace To You has spread, and continues to spread, ridiculous lies (did I say that out loud?) about 12 verses of inspired Scripture.  With the data in this book, the average congregation-member in John MacArthur's congregation will be well-equipped to refute MacArthur's preposterous claims, and to compose a stern rebuke to the Masters Seminary faculty for their failure to inform their boss that he sounded like a braying donkey who has no business attempting to teach textual criticism from the pulpit.

Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20 (Fourth Edition) is also available on Amazon in two formats:  digital e-book($9.99) and paperback ($25.00).
You may have read statements like these from trusted scholars:  
"Mark 16:9-20 is not in many of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”
"Mark 16:9-20 is not found in any manuscript until the 800s."
"Mark 16:9-20 was added over two centuries after the Gospel of Mark began to circulate.”
"Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirm that the Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8."

                STOP TRUSTING THEM.      

                                                                                  Those are all lies.

          In this book James Edward Snapp Jr. identifies some of the liars who have misled American and European readers, students, and congregations about Mark 16:9-20 - twelve verses of sacred Scripture. He also demonstrates the numerous errors committed by "parrot pseudo-scholars" -- individuals who basically paraphrase Bruce Metzger without conducting their own research -- and shows how incompetent and irresponsible (or just plain dense) authors such as James R White, John MacArthur, Craig Evans, James Edwards, N. T. Wright, Norman Geisler, Bart D. Ehrman and the late Bruce Manning Metzger have been in the course of leading astray (knowingly or unknowingly) many readers, students, and congregations about Mark 16:9-20.
            By thoroughly analyzing the evidence in Greek manuscripts, church writings, and more, James E. Snapp Jr. presents a decisive case for retaining Mark 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark, and for interpreting it and applying it reasonably to the lives of all believers, as the Christian church has done since the first century of her existence.

More titles and more translations (French, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and more) editions are planned.  If you would like to write a review - just make sure it's honest, favorable or unfavorable - please contact me for a free text file; be sure to name the book you intend to review.

Mark 16:9-20 Is Being Misrepresented. It Must Be Easter!

            Today is the first day after Easter 2020.   Happily, most journalistic outlets seem to have decided against publishing attacks on the passages of Scripture that affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ (or on the reliability of the Bible in general) – with one exception:  Bonnie Kristian’s article “Coronavirus and the mystery of St. Mark’s Easter story” was published in The Week, and on the Yahoo! News website.

            Kristian, a graduate of Bethel Seminary, targeted Mark 16:9-20 as part of her Easter celebration.  She attempted to draw a parallel between the fear that was felt by the women in Mark 16:8 and the fear that is felt by some people about the COVID-19 pandemic.  The same sort of parallel could be made using the fearfulness that is mentioned in Mark 16:5, or Luke 24:4-5, or John 20:19 – but Mark 16:8 was chosen instead, apparently so that Kristian could encourage readers to erase Mark 16:9-20 from the authoritative text, spreading some false claims along the way, such as the following:

● The KJV was translated from Latin rather than Hebrew and Greek.  That claim is false, and it has already been withdrawn from the article in The Week.  The Week regrets the error.

● In many ancient manuscripts of Mark, the Gospel ends at 16:8.   Today, the surviving text ends at the end of verse 8.  In real life, the number of Greek manuscripts of Mark that end the text there is three. The number of Latin manuscripts that end the text there:  one. The number of Syriac manuscripts that end the text there:  one.  The number of Greek manuscripts in which support for Mark 16:9-20 has survived is 1,640.  (This includes important ancient Greek manuscripts such as Codices A, C, D, W, etc.)   The number of Latin and Syriac manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 is in the thousands.  In addition to Gospel-manuscripts, Mark 16:9-20 is also prominently featured in hundreds of lectionaries, such as Sinai MS Gr, 212.

● Most modern translations, if they have verses 9-20, “add a preface stating it isn’t present in many of the best ancient manuscripts of Mark.”  This is false.  Most recent translations add a footnote, but when I consult the BibleGateway website, only the NIV and ESV appear to have a heading-note prefacing Mark 16:9, and it does not say what Kristien says.  There’s a reason for that:  two is not many.  

            The ESV’s heading-note stating that “Some of the earliest manuscripts” do not include verses 9-20 is not very accurate:  how many Greek manuscripts are in that “Some”?  The answer is, as already mentioned, is three.  One is GA 304, a medieval non-continuous commentary-manuscript.  Codex Sinaiticus (À, with replacement-pages at the end of Mark) is one of the two earlier ones, and Codex Vaticanus (B, with an entire blank column after the column in which Mark 16:8 appears) is the other.  

            Heading-notes and footnotes are brief by nature, and the point could be argued that a heading-note cannot be expected to mention Sinaiticus’ replacement-pages, or Vaticanus’ blank column.  But what keeps the note from being precise by referring to “Two” early Greek manuscripts instead of “Some”?  I hope it does not sound conspiratorial to mention one possibility:  the editors did not want readers to easily notice the narrowness of the thread from which their favored variant hangs.

● The KJV “includes uncritically a 12-verse ending.”  This is a technically ignorant statement – that is, Kristian has no special knowledge or insight about the critical research that went into the KJV; she simply does not know how much critical investigation into the question was made by the KJV’s translators.  Kristian says the KJV adopted Mark 16:9-20 “uncritically” but she did not mention any of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament that were issued in the 1500s – perhaps because she is unaware of their existence, thinking that the KJV was based on Latin instead.  I suspect that she is equally oblivious to the early patristic support of Mark 16:9-20 supplied by writers such as Irenaeus (in 180), Jerome (383), Augustine (400), Ambrose (385), Aphrahat (337), Ephrem Syrus (360) and Patrick (450) (to name just a few).  (For if she had known about them, it would have been deceptive to avoid mentioning them.  Surely, undoubtedly, The Week only misled its readers due to ignorance, not due to intent.) 

            There is still time for The Week to undo some of the damage its carelessly written article has done – although, alas, when misinformation is spread so irresponsibly, correcting it all is like trying to capture all of the coronavirus that a carrier has been sharing with family and friends over a weekend.

            There’s a lesson that may be learned from this:  if you read anything about the ending of the Gospel of Mark in a journal of any kind around Easter-time, and it does not mention that only three Greek manuscripts out of over 1,600 end the text at 16:8, and it does not mention that Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19, and it does not mention Codex B’s blank space, know that you are reading propaganda, not a balanced report.

P.S.  N.T. Wright, this was partly your fault.  Fix your book!

P.P.S.  My research-book Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20 is available at Amazon as a Kindle e-book for 99 cents.   It can also be downloaded from Academia.edu for free.  Also, I will be glad to try to send a free digital copy to those who contact me and request it. 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.