How much of a holy book must be read to accurately assess it?

So I have a question for any religionist whose religion has a holy book - how much of it does one have to read in order to make a qualified assessment of it?

Seems like a really silly question at first, right? These are supposed to be "good books", inspired by immense wisdom, possibly divine wisdom (depending on the faith), so you'd think reading even the smallest bit of one should suffice. Here in the US for example, Christians are always encouraging the reading of the Christian bible. The Gideons have made it so that every hotel in the country has one in every room. There were attempts last year to have free copies of their bible delivered with some Sunday newspapers. Christian groups attempted to send their bibles to Iraq and Afghanistan to be distributed not just to soldiers, but to the locals. We have nicely dressed Christians going door to door asking if we've heard the "good news" and encouraging us to read their book. On and on and on we're encouraged to read their book, as if that's all it takes and BAM! you'll see the light and join the faith. So what happens when people do read it and don't see what the believers see?

On one hand you have the pleading like I described above to crack these things open and have a read, yet on the other, when some take the advice and make unfavorable reviews of what they read, what's the response by believers? It usually takes the form of "you have to put it in context", "you have to see the whole", or sometimes they'll actually go as far as saying you have to believe first. Now am I the only person who sees this as odd? This is supposed to be a holy book, a magical book if you will. Shouldn't it have some effect on me regardless of how much I read? Shouldn't there be SOMETHING of the "correct" message or feeling felt by every reader regardless of how much they read or what part they read? Shouldn't anyone instantly get it? Shouldn't even the briefest exposure to it have the desired effect?

So how could it be that someone could open it, read some random section and be completely put off by the whole thing? How could that be? The response by the faithful is usually context. You have to put the selected passage in the greater context of the book as a whole. This is a criticism we hear time and time again by believers responding to nonbelievers who criticize something in their holy books. So you can't get it without thorough study of the whole. On its face, that could seem legitimate yet do believers ever question those who sing the praises of their holy book about how much of it they read or on how well they understand the parts they're praising in the grand context of the book? Is the burden of biblical scholarship ever one that's expected of each and every believer before they can speak positively about their holy book? No, yet such a burden is always expected to be carried by critics, but then if such scholarship is necessary in order to properly understand the faith, then how many believers actually understand their faith? Shouldn't such scholarship be required by all if it's going to be required for some? Shouldn't just as much scholarship be required to sing its praises as criticize it?

In fairness, some faiths and some members of all the faiths would say "yes", that thorough study is required to better get the message, and that's fine, but such a position is assuming that believers with an inadequate amount of scholarship can understand the little that they've read correctly, so why can't the same be said for those who walk away not believing, and who are quite unsatisfied with what they've read? Why is there this double standard of context and scholarship? I'm afraid this whole thing just brings us back to the same old bugaboo, 'ends justify the means'. If you read just one word, or don't even bother to read any bit of a holy book yet decide it's great and join the faith, then you've read just enough because you've arrived at the desired end, but if you spend years in study of their book and don't buy what it's pushing, then clearly you need to keep at it because you haven't reached the religion's desired end.

So I would love for the religionists out there to think twice before telling a critic of their holy book and religion that they're poor scholars and haven't read or studied enough. I would also hope they ask themselves if they ever make such accusations of their cohorts, or even if they hold such scholarly standards for themselves. Of course I'm hoping that they hold intellectual honesty and fairness in high esteem, otherwise such thoughts don't matter at all. Only the thought of advancing and defending the faith matter, by any means necessary.