Negative Positive
Title: Bart Erhman's book good, but has its own problems
Review: Bart Errman carefully and in precise academic thoroughness exposes as false the historical claims made in Dan Brown's excellent mystery thriller. The one drawback in Bart Erhman's argument are his own biases about the reliability and dating of many of the New Testament documents, for example the Pastoral epistles, 2 Peter and the Gospel of John. He also resorts to a dan brown type of statements such as "Scholars now agree that . . ." But many reputable New Testament scholars don't agree with the doubts Bart Ehrman has about the NT sources. Anyone wanting a more reliable guide to the authenticity of the NT documents could do no better than read the late F F Bruce's little book "The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"
Is the review positive or negative? 