Good review. I'm currently reading and enjoying Barnett's book "Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity."

Good review - even though I am not particularly drawn to the topic, you gave me a good feel for the book's arguments, and why it might be useful to read it.

This argument: "Belief in Jesus' resurrection appears too early for it to be a legend, for legends take long periods of time to develop." Is simply wrong. It does not take a long time for legends to form. Just look at comtemporary cults. I mean, some people actually think that Uri Gellar can perform miracles, in earlier times spirits were all around and it would have been a much easier idea to accept than today. There is nothing new in the arguments, I've heard them many times before. Another re-write of nonsense bible bunkum.

hey NoOne, besides being so long it skews the page, your nom de Net is factually incorrect

NoOne makes two points: (1) that legends develop quickly and (2) that earlier ages were credulous with regard to miracles. In response to (1), I'd like to point out that belief in Jesus' miracle-working power was not confined to Christians. Jewish critics of Christ's followers, both in the Gospels and in early rabbinic texts, conceded that he had the power to perform miracles. They simply ascribed that power to a demonic source. How odd, historically speaking, that the same legend would be believed by both Christians and Jews. How should we account for that fact historically speaking? The best answer, supported by liberal and conservative biblical scholars alike, is that Jesus was a miracle worker, at least within the framework of a first-century worldview. And that brings us to (2). Were first-century people credulous with regard to miracles? Perhaps. On the other hand, perhaps they simply believed what they saw with their own two eyes. In fact, that is precisely what the Bible tells us, that what Jesus did was seen by all. The last time I checked, empiricism was not a pre-modern philosophy. As for Uri Geller, NoOne might begin by spelling his last name correctly. But he also might consider that his implicit argument would have considerably more effect if (a) people worshiped Uri as a god, (b) they worshiped him in spite of decades of persecution and without personal gain, and (c) they were still worshiping him 2000 years from now.

You mean Uri isn't an uncle of Sarah Michelle Gellar? I'm so bummed!

Oh whatever. Belief in psychics is not confined to people who believe they are good, some people think Sylvia Browne consorts with demons. So what? She's just a bad cold-reading charlatan. Uri has been debunked many a time, he's still believed to be psychic by some. He hasn't claimed to be god, so it would be silly to make that a constraint, as silly as waiting 2000 years before making an obvious assessment.

That long nickname of yours really skewers the formatting of the sidebar

Strange. My browser doesn't have that problem.

Nevermind - you bring up valid points

You're making my points for me, NoOne. The fact of the matter is that charlatans are debunked, usually quite quickly. Why is it, then, that Jesus' Jewish critics argued that the source of his miracle-working power was demonic when it would have been easier just to claim that Jesus never performed miracles at all? In other words, why didn't they debunk him? Probably because they witnessed events that they, in their first-century worldview, understood to be miracles. Obviously, the early Christians thought similarly. It seems to me that this belief in Jesus' miracle-working power, among other things, contributed to the rise of a movement that has lasted for 2000 years, in spite of severe persecution in the early centuries. It is easy, of course, to claim that the Jesus of the New Testament is legendary. But a thorough working through of the relevant historical sources--as well as a clear understanding of the category of "legend"--makes such a claim difficult to sustain.

All that makes him is a Semitic, itinerant preacher, a smart guy, c'est ca

Aaman, I disagree. Neither the biblical or extrabiblical sources present Jesus as merely "a Semitic, itinerant preacher, a smart guy." The independent sources--Mark, Q, M, L, John--all present him as a miracle-worker and exorcist. Extrabiblical sources--Josephus, the rabbinic literature--present him similarly. Reducing him to some sort of an itinerant preacher fails to deal seriously with the relevant literature. In the first century, Jesus was understood as, among other things, a miracle-worker and exorcist. Whether we, in the twenty-first century, agree with that assessment hinges on our philosophical commitments.

it also hinges on how much of the text is accurate or made-up hoo-ha.

He was a)itinerant
b) a Semitic preacher
c) a smart guy

Which of these do you disagree with?

I accept that magicalizing is a common way to raise the heat on competitor cults - ref Golden Bough or Joseph Campbell. Not unique, though

Ummm.. he was debunked by the Jews of the time. Just as Uri was debunked. Just as both still have a lot of people who believe in them. And people still believe in the healing powers of stains on highway underpass walls that resemble Mary the Virgin. People brought up believing in spirits are more likely to debunk by saying that the person is consorting with the bad spirits and such. Not as many nonbelievers of spirits back then, were there?

Aaman: I don't disagree with (a), (b), or (c). I disagree with your statement, "All that makes him...." Jesus was not merely a smart, itinerant, Jewish preacher. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Joseph Campbell to be able to comment on your point about "magicalizing."

I agree with Mark Saleski, and establishing the historical reliability of the New Testament is exactly the point of Barnett's book.

NORBTNIB: How did the Jews debunk him? By claiming that he didn't perform miracles, as you do, or by claiming that the source of his miracle-working power was demonic, as I've claimed? If the former, then not everyone in the first century was as credulous about miracles as I've interpreted you to say they were. If the latter, then even critics of Jesus' miracles believed in miracles. I would argue that both then and now, people have been able to sift through claims of the miraculous, finding fault with some but not with others. You seem to have a dogmatic commitment to antisupernaturalism, however. What evidence would you accept as proof of a miracle?

Oh, right. People are sifting through it. And the same credulous people are not sifting, they believe in the miracles of Uri and Sylvia Browne's demonic ability to talk to the dead and tell your future, and so on. The juxtaposition of miracles with (in some but not all cases) historically accurate contexts, does not make the miracles historical. I mean, jugglers were thought to be doing something supernatural a long time ago, the people back then did not know about a lot that would have made them realize their "miracles" were not what they appeared to them.

NORTNIB: You didn't answer my question about what would constitute evidence for a miracle. You wrote, "The juxtaposition of miracles with (in some but not all cases) historically accurate contexts, does not make the miracles historical." I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I think you mean that a story that is otherwise historically accurate does not necessarily guarantee the reality of the miracle it reports, which is, of course, quite true. But so what! All I would argue is that a miracle that appears in an otherwise historically accurate story may be true. Whether it is true depends on larger philosophical commitments. So back to my question: For you, what would constitute evidence of a miracle? What, in other words, would you accept as an argument that could falsify your antisupernaturalism?

Show me one.

My aunt was very nearsighted throughout childhood and well into her teenage years. During a church service, when she was 19, she had a religious vision, believed that she had been healed, took off her glasses, and could see perfectly. She did not begin wearing glasses again until she turned 70, and then only for driving purposes. I'm sure she could still round up people who knew her before and after the incident to confirm what happened to her.

about the compiling and founding of the New Testament as we know itm try my comments in this thread

the history of the Sources is not that controversial, the probabilities of editing and mistranslation as well as which writings were kept in and which discarded and/or discredited can easily be subject to debate

there is little doubt that fatcs of History are in there...but which facts even the 4 Gospels do not agree upon

glad to get into it if you are interested in more serious discussion

gnosis > dogma

Excelsior!

Gonzo: I'd be more than happy to communicate with you regarding "the compiling and founding of the New Testament." Perhaps we could start a thread in the "culture" section--something like a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. I'm not sure what the resolution under debate should be, although perhaps something like this would do: "Resolved: The canonical New Testament excludes books that should have been included."

Regarding your comments: "the history of the Sources is not that controversial, the probabilities of editing and mistranslation as well as which writings were kept in and which discarded and/or discredited can easily be subject to debate." Actually, the history of the sources still is controversial. Some--e.g., the Jesus Seminar--would like to include the Gospel of Thomas as an independent source. Also, they typically elevate Q to a higher level of authority than I think is warranted. That editing and translation took place is obvious, although I am unaware of what "mistranslations" you are talking about. And regarding the NT canon, I think there is a lot of misinformation about the canonical process, which we could go over in a debate.

Also, "there is little doubt that fatcs of History are in there...but which facts even the 4 Gospels do not agree upon." Actually, I'm not sure NoOne would agree with you. And regarding the relevant "facts"--virginal conception, miracles, the resurrection--the Gospels are in broad agreement, although there are apparent inconsistencies in some of their accounts. Whether those "inconsistencies" are apparent or real is also a good subject for debate.

So much to nuke about this post and the book he's reviewing, so little time.

Fer starters:

"A cursory reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveals that they are similar to one another in both the arrangement and wording of their material."

This is so wrong. In many cases, the order of JC life events is vastly different among the Synoptics.

And if IT'S ALL TRUE, How do you deal with the many BLATANT contradictions among the Synoptics?

Anywhoo, the "Third" and "Fourth" points are the most incorrect.

I'll be back to nuke yer ass later.

Gotta run!

PS: Did a bus from Bob Jones University recently pull up outside the ol' Blogcritics headquarters? Man, I smell some Christiod spam.

Oh my! Two references to nuking me in one post. Is this what passes for reasonable debate abour religious issues on BlogCritics.org? Whatever happened to civil dialogue. At any rate, Shark, the Synoptic Gospels are called "synoptic" for precisely the reason that when viewed together, they are similar in order and wording. If you don't know that basic fact, then perhaps you should go sit at the children's table. Of course, their similarity in wording and order does not preclude disagreement about the order and wording of certain events. Perhaps you should look up the words "similar" and "same" in the dictionary. All I claim is that the order and wording are similar, which is beyond dispute, not same.

While you're at the library reading a dictionary, you might also want to consult a book on introductory logic, paying particularly close attention to what are known as "straw man arguments." You wrote: "And if IT'S ALL TRUE, How do you deal with the many BLATANT contradictions among the Synoptics?" I wrote: "Although there are differences between these sources -- including some conflicts that are hard to resolve -- the basic picture of Jesus they present is largely consistent and, I might add, theologically traditional." When they debate one another, intelligent people typically try to represent the other side's argument precisely, which you don't. I guess in your eagerness to "nuke yer [i.e., my] ass," your words outpaced your wits.

I'm looking forward to your "nuking" of my other points.

George, I have to tell you this thread is about as civil as it gets

Eric, that's a shame. How are we supposed to live in a pluralistic religious environment when people cannot talk about religious issues civilly and intelligently?

George, Speaking only for myself, I don't find this post objectionable, but like DrPat I'm not really drawn to the topic.

Margaret Romao Toigo posts theosophical dialogs, and some of them have been very interesting, thought provoking even. But she never preaches, that I've seen anyway.

A lot of the recent posts by evangelical Christians have done just that. They come in high handed, trying to convert people on the spot. Or they use some cheesy misleading title as a way to get people to read their religious dogma.

Both of these tactics are hard for me to take, and are so far away from why I am involved with blogcritics. This feeling is obviously shared by a great many of the folks who contribute to this site.

This isn't, as far as I can see, a bible study group. If you have a point to make and some of your personal beliefs come into play, well okay. But I wonder if you have anything else to write about?

Is every book you review going to be a Christian book? Every CD a Christian CD?

I feel sorry for anyone whose every thought, every motivation, every topic of conversation is limited to aspects of their religious faith. Especially if they can't see how much that irritates those of us who do not share your faith, and who have no desire to be converted.

Your writing is clear and thoughtful. I would enjoy reading something from you that has nothing to do with Christianity or faith or morals or sin.

Cheers!

Bennett, thank you for your kind and complimentary words about my writing. I have posted one book review on a political book, Do Gooders by Mona Charen. I regret to say that it's not my best review. I'm trying to put together reviews of "Revenge of the Sith," the "Delicious Surprise" CD by JoDee Messina, "One Nation Under Therapy" by Sommers et al, "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" by Byron York, and--eventually--a long review of "The Complete Aubrey/Maturin Novels" by Patrick O'Brian. I also have some Christian books to review, not necessarily favorably I might add.

As for the preachy tone of my coreligionists, I too get annoyed by the way they sometimes present their "reviews". That's why I try to write clearly and thoughtfully about faith. If you have any books you'd recommend me to read, I'd be happy to do so.

well...leaving yoursel fopen to that one, George..

one Fiction - Job: a Comedy of Justice by Robert A. Heinlein

one non-fiction - the Nag Hammadi Library

that will keep you busy for a bit

plenty of others if you enjoy those...

Excelsior!

I'd love to read your review of any Sheri Tepper novel, George. I could recommend the millennarian Gibbon's Declie and Fall, which is loaded with references to US politico-religious activity, or Singer from the Sea, which has a vaguely paternalist-desert religion flavor.

Shark, I think the influx comes from Mid & Media, an alternate review site whose moderator joined BC recently, bringing along a coterie of like-minded folks who all seem to be reviewing the same few books.

George, to give him credit, does not seem to be in the same Sunday-school "What I Read on My Sumer Vacation" crowd. Let's give all some time (and assistance, of course) to come up to the BC standard...

For one thing, reviews of books outside the narrow stream discussed on M&M will likely happen as these new posters are exposed to the broader menu available on BC...

That's if they don't run screaming at the sight of a Shark!

Gonzo and DrPat: Thanks for the book recommendations. I think I'll look at Nag Hammadi and Gibbon's Decline and Fall. In return, I'd recommend "Master and Commander" by Patrick O'Brian and "The Roads to Modernity" by Gertrude Himmelfarb. I'd be interested in seeing your reviews of the latter especially.

Shark's Quick Take:


1) "Did Jesus in fact live?"

Few scholars would dispute the existence of an historical Jesus. Including yers truly.

2) "Can we know the time frame in which the New Testament was written?"

Mark - oldest, a generation or two after Jesus death
Luke - Matthew - somewhat later than Mark, both had socio-political agendas overlaid on Mark's basic story

Letters of Paul - You realize they don't really count? ie. the guy never got near JC; his testimony about JC is heresay at best. ie. Forget Paul as anything other than a fanatical ad man/organizer/CEO for the new church institution evolving post-JC et al.

(NOTE: When talking about a historical Jesus, MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE are all that matter in the NT -- along with a few other "books" tossed from the canon by early 'church fathers' and misogynistic pricks.

BTW: I'll remind you that a mere thirty or so years after Elvis died (in an era of optimum media, documentation, science, archives, etc!) we've not only had SIGHTINGS of the guy risen from the dead, but we'd be hard pressed to reproduce ONE direct correct quote the guy made during his lifetime.

3) "Can we be confident about transmission of the manuscripts from those times to the present?"

and

4) "can we know that what we read of Jesus is a true account?"

You must be joking on both 3. and 4.

In other words, NO WAY.

There are so many errors, corrections, mistranslations -- not to mention the biggie: the oldest extent MS we have (Codex Sinaiticus) of (arguably) the most important, relatively "reliable" book of the Synoptics, MARK, is MISSING THE PART ABOUT THE RISEN JESUS. It ends at Mark 16:8 with the words, "...and they were so afraid."

The next lines (added MANY years later) is "Now he was risen on the third day..." etc. (ie Mark 16:9-20 is a spurious fraud added by someone later -- once the 'resurrection' myth had become a part of the dogma.

(Evidence of the primacy of Mark: If one examines the order of events in the Synoptics, the order is the same ONLY when Matthew and Luke agree with the order of Mark. When either Mat or Luke disagrees with Mark, they disagree with each other. Mat and Luke never agree with each other AGAINST Mark.)

Another point re. the primacy of Mark: not a word on the birth of JC, or the first 30 years of his life, etc. that were so elaborate in Matthew; Mark begins with an adult JC at the start of his 'career' and lasts maybe 18 or so months in his life -- which is what you'd expect from a more 'realistic' authentic 'history'.

In addition, Matthew's Joseph/Mary, Davidic lineage, nativity, wise men, trip to Egypt, star light-star bright, etc. are just laughable theatrics added for a primarily Jewish audience to connect the dots between JC's life and the Old Testament prophesies concerning a messiah.

("Was he a Nazarene, or from Bethlehem"? is one of many insane contradictions one can find; How 'bout his last words on the cross?)

As to many other alternate versions of Jesus sayings and doings, I won't even get into the Nag Hammadi MS, with such revolutionary (and CONTEMPORARY!) views of JC as The Gospel of Thomas (in this version, JC is closer to Buddha than to Pat Robertson), The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Apocryphon of James, et al. -- although I urge readers to check 'em out in "The Other Bible" edited by Willis Barnstone. (great stuff, regardless of your particular brand of B.S. ie. belief system)

See also "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels -- for an excellent summary of the MANY controversies among early Christians -- along with the history/social justification for the "tick-tock-the game is locked" concept of the Resurrection, ie JC rose from the dead, unlike anything ever seen before or since.

(That raising from the dead stuff: You actually believe that?! Well, good news: not only was it missing from the most important/oldest testimony (Mark) -- it wasn't part of at least SOME of the early Christian teachings, either; it came later -- when they needed some marketing.)

See also: The Jesus Seminar writings/writers for a pretty darn good and rational attempt to figure out what really went on back then.

======

I'll be back for more if need be. Ya see, I actually participated in The Jesus Seminar, have spent some time with the brilliant E. Pagels, Darryl Schmidt -- and have been pursuing this research for over 30 years.

ie. I can do this for days, (yes, I can see you're all thrilled at the thought) but I'm quite busy on a few other writing projects.

xxoo
S

Shark: Thank you for posting your lengthy and thoughtful reply! Regarding the timeframe of the New Testament, I find it odd that you speak of Mark Matthew, and Luke as sources, rather than Mark, Q, M, L, etc. I also find it odd that you exclude John as a source, for recent scholarship has demonstrated its genuine historical value. But then, I find it completely odd that you speak of "a few other
'books tossed from the canon by early 'church fathers' and misogynistic pricks." You don't name them, but I'm sure you would include the Gospel of Thomas among them. This is odd since most scholars date Thomas as a second-century writing, with the other "excluded gospels" coming in the second and third centuries as well. If Paul, whose earliest writings come in the 50s and witness to belief in Christ's resurrection are to be excluded, then certainly the "excluded gospels" you allude to should be excluded from consideration too.

Regarding transmission: You might want to consult Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. The text of the New Testament is the best attested text of any writing from the classical period. Remember what I wrote: " By contrast, 'our major sources [for the life of Tiberius, 42 B.C.-A.D.37] are considerably later--Tacitus about A.D. 110, Suetonius about A.D. 120 and Dio Cassius about A.D. 220.' If we can be reasonably sure of the historical reliability of our late sources in reconstructing the life of Tiberius, we can be reasonably sure of the reliability of our much earlier sources for a life of Jesus." Bart Ehrman has a book entitled The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which points out the glosses, explanations and whatnot that crept into the text over the years, but New Testament textual critics are well aware of these. No doctrine of "orthodox Christianity" hinges on any major textual variant. The resurrection, for example, does not hang on finding the lost ending to Mark's Gospel. Pay attention to Mark 8.31, 9.31, and 10.34, all of which contain a "prophesy" from Jesus regarding the resurrection.

So, in brief, the earliest extant Christian writings come from Paul, and they demonstrate belief in Christ's resurrection from the dead. The Gospel of Mark, which you claim knows nothing of Christ's resurrection, does. And despite your protestations to the contrary, the text of the New Testament is basically stable, and no "orthodox doctrine" hangs on a textual variation.

You mentioned the Jesus Seminar and Elaine Pagels. I'd encourage you to read, as a response to their arguments, The Hidden Gospels by Philip Jenkins. Also, you might want to check out my review of The Birth of Christianity by Paul Barnett. Actually, read the book. His discussion of chronological issues is superb.

Let's not forget the Johannites, and their claimed direct line of succession from John the Baptist, the spiritual king, perhaps, as Jesus was claimed to be the earthly king. Of course, the Knights Templar (Hughes de Payen) claimed to be recipients of this succession, falsely.

Also, throw into the mix the tradition of priests of the temple taking up young Jewish women to serve in the temple, and more besides (similar to the Devadasi system of India).

Finally, consider the Roman origins of Christianity (0974092800), and the apocryphal Leo X "It has served us well, this myth of Jesus"

Some one - Shark/Gonzo should/could review the Gnostics at length - would be interesting, I'm sure

Coupla points: Obviously, "Q" is a part of the basis for the synoptics -- I left it out 'cause it ain't specifically in the NT.

=========

"the earliest extant Christian writings come from Paul"

This is wrong.

And even if it were right, Paul never met JC and was operating on heresay.

=========

re: Paul's letters: "...they demonstrate belief in Christ's resurrection from the dead."

"belief" being the operative word here.

=========

re: The Gospel of John as an accurate depiction of anything other than a hallucinagenic piece of early-church propoganda is poppycock. And virtually all scholars agree it was written circa 90-100.

Besides, John was on drugs; Everything "he" says is says is suspect.

=========

re: "...The Gospel of Mark, which you claim knows nothing of Christ's resurrection, does."

Again, Mark 16:9-20 were added MANY years later to boost the growing weirdness that someone could actually RISE FROM THE DEAD. (picture me trying not to laugh at your gullibility)


=========


Shark's Conclusions: (after 30 years of serious research)

++ Jesus was a real guy.

++ Jesus was a pretty cool, cosmic guy (if you read the Gospel of Thomas!)

++ He was one among many purported 'messiahs' during that era.

++ He was basically a spiritual-socio-political rebel (Nazareth -- JC's home -- was a hotbed of hotheads, including the infamous Zealots) who was reacting to:

* Roman occupation
* Sadducees/Pharisees sellouts
* Eschatological feelings among oppressed Jews

++ Jesus was used by later factions/generations for their own socio-political agendas, the main ones being:

* a reaction to Paganism

* a need to revitalize a waning monotheism (Jewish compromises to the Romans, etc)

* a yearning for the eschatalogical

* and the impulse to create a MALE authoritarian ^^HEIRARCHY to compete with and/or conspire with those in power, later known as "Royalty"

^^ see "Catholic Church" for more.

========

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

xxoo
Shark

This is going to be my last post in this particular thread, since I think we've pretty much exhausted the subject for the time being. Thank you all for your interesting and thoughtful comments.

In response to Shark, I'd like to make the following comments:

1. I reiterate my comment that Paul's writings are the earliest extant Christian writings. They were written before the Gospels, Acts, the catholic epistles, and Revelation. James is difficult to date, so it might be earlier, but I know of no reputable NT scholar who would disagree with my comment about how early Paul's letters are. The key qualifier here, however, is extant. Perhaps some of the Gospel sources--Q, M, L--were written before Paul, but they are not extant, except in the Gospels themselves, which were written after Paul.

2. Paul's letters are important historically because demonstrate the widespread belief among early Christians in Christ's resurrection from the dead. The statement you make about Mark 16.9-20--that those verses "were added MANY years later to boost the growing weirdness that someone could actually RISE FROM THE DEAD"--get it exactly wrong, from a chronological point of view. Christians believed in Christ's resurrection of the dead well before Mark even wrote his Gospel. Picture me laughing at your chronological ineptitude.

3. As you no doubt know, there are three endings to Mark's Gospel: (a) at 16.8, which seems to be original; (b) a shorter ending, which some manuscripts added later; and (c) the longer ending (16.9-20), which a whole lot of manuscripts added later. Neither (b) nor (c) are original, which nearly all Bible translations demonstrate by adding a note before verses 9-20. It is doubtful that these verses 9-20 were added to boost belief in the resurrection. After all, (i) Christians already believed in the resurrection, (ii) verses 9-20 crib incidents and allusions from the endings to Matthew and Luke's writings, and (iii) Matthew and Luke include references to Christ's resurrection. Verses 9-20 were added, not to boost belief in the resurrection--which was already widespread--but to add a smoother ending to Mark's abrupt statement about the women being afraid. And by the way, you obviously didn't look up the three verses in Mark that I mentioned. If you did, you wouldn't make the statement that Mark's Gospel does not know about Christ's resurrection. So, Shark, read the verses, which unlike verses 9-20, are not later add-ons but original components of Mark's Gospel.

3. "Hallucinogenic piece of early church progaganda" is fine as a bon mot, but a bit reckless as a scholarly conclusion. It used to be thought that John was theology, and Mark (and Matthew and Luke) were history. Now we know that all the Gospels contain a mix of theology and history. (Indeed, that's why I find your near-exclusive reliance upon Mark for info on the historical Jesus to be so touchingly naive.) I'd recommend you read Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliaibility of John. John is highly theological, of course, but Blomberg points out numerous ways in which John gets history right.

4. Finally, your apparent love of the Gospel of Thomas is, while obviously heartfelt, historically out of place. Regardless of what your friends in the Jesus Seminar are saying, the scholarly consensus is that Thomas is a second-century document, later than John.

In other words, Shark, my basic complaint with your methodology is its incredibly weak grasp of chronology. Belief in the resurrection of Christ appears early (in Paul's letters) and often (in all the New Testament documents). It was not a belief ginned up late in time in order to prop up a hierarchy.

One more Bible verse for Shark. Since you are so insistent on the fact that Mark's Gospel knows nothing of Christ's resurrection, you should read Mark 16.6, in which "a young man" says to the women, "He [Christ] has risen! He is not here." This is part of Mark's original Gospel, not part of the spurious longer ending. I'm embarrassed that I forgot to mention it. You should be ashamed that you didn't even read it.

gees....the end is near.

"He [Shark] has logged off! He is not here."

Bennett 1:27

What a great string of comments.

Keep blogging Mr. Wood, and I'll definitely keep reading.

P.S. I don't mind the religious materials you tend to review because they often invite discussion of other issues like philisophy, history, politics and etc..

Voracious Reader: Thank you for the compliment! While I will post reviews of books with religious topics, several readers have also asked me to review non-religious books, and I've promised to do that.