Misquoting Jesus

I have been reading the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman recently, and I swear I thought it was name Misquitoing Jesus for the longest time. I have to say that I am personally not a fan of the book so far. Ehrman's scholarship is good (not great but good given that it was written for a non-academic audience, however the fact that the vast majority of his citations come from previous books he has written rather than other scholars concerns me.) However he freely admits at the beginning of the book that he traded in his faith for academic acceptability early one.
This fact is evident throughout the book as he attempts to pick apart the Christian scriptures and the doctrines of inerrancy (that scripture was an accurate report of events in its original autograph and divinely protected until today) and authority (that scripture is authoritative for life and godliness). While he does a good job of pointing out several of the larger problems with the doctrine of inerrancy in particular, he fails to understand that there may be purposes at work beyond his current understanding.
I seem to find this problem quite often, both among unbelievers, and among believers, as well as in my own life. As humans we tend to want to believe that we can understand anything. If something is outside of our understanding then it must be wrong, or false. As I said in my last post I am going through some difficult times, my first response to this was "God, why are you letting this happen?" It didn't make sense and, being human, I doubted God's goodness and his willingness to help. It was quite some time before I was able to accept that God had a purpose in allowing this to happen that I simply didn't understand.
The same is true for Ehrman here, he sees something that he can't explain and his first reponse is "God must be wrong." If it doesn't make sense to him then the problem must be in the text or in the faith, not in him, if something doesn't fit into his worldview then it must be the world's problem, not his own. I would encourage anyone reading this book to read it with a grain of salt because of these issues and some issues of unsupported scholarship and vague claims that appear in the book.