Rating: 
Summary: integrity in print
Review: Being a skeptic, I am always intrigued by writings from both sides of the debate regarding the historical accuracy and validity of the so called holy scriptures. I have come across so many writings from believers and non believers alike. I have read material from detractors who are obviously filled with hate and a naturalisic bias, as well as writings from ignorant and intellectually lazy Christians who refuse to investigate and deal with the genuine and honest questions that are raised when their beliefs are challenged. I was very curious as to the position that this particular writer would take. I found the writer to quite refreshing in his honesty and scholastic approach. His writings came across as neither reflecting any of the two aforementioned positions. He presented the material, both in the affirmitive and negation, in a non-ranting,unprejudicial manner, while giving the reader room to draw their own conclusions. Though proponents of both sides may not like this approach along with their subsequential conclusions, readers who are seeking truth (as they understand it to be)on these matters will be happy to see that honesty and integrity can still be found while dealing with such controversial topics. A must for any honest seeker who has no "particular axe to grind" in such matters.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: I am 3/4 the way through this book. I like that it is written by a journalist rather than a clergyman. I think that lends more credibility to the text. It's very informative and not at all brow-beating.It does get a little dry at times, and that is the reason I'm still working on it about a year after I bought it.
Rating:
Summary: Balanced, Intelligent and Informed Look at the Bible
Review: I found this book "by accident," and was intrigued to see what a mainstream journalist would do with such a potentially volatile topic. His readable, clear and swift style were pleasant surprises. Even more surprising was his fair treatment of opposing viewpoints/worldviews of the nature of the biblical texts. Because already-submitted reviews detail the strengths and weaknesses of Sheler's book, I would like to emphasize what I consider its greatest strength: Sheler's consistent revealing of the underlying philosophies/assumptions of the scholars and academics active today in biblical criticism. It is critical for those seeking answers and clues to the nature of the Bible to not accept blindly someone's opinion simply because of a hefty-sounding degree from a prestigious university. Many contemporary scholars approach the Bible with the underlying theistic or even atheistic assumptions, and you better believe that those presuppositions heavily influence their findings. Sheler is also to be commended for his honesty and fairness in showing where there is an existing paucity in historical evidence to support the biblical narratives. Also, he does a good job of introducing the idea that ancient writers did not write their works with the same intentions and "standards" that we take for granted 20 centuries later. It is important that we are able to read them as they intended, and not to superimpose our own standards of journalistic writing on them. Additionally, Sheler does a fantastic job of explaining and debunking the Bible codes in language readable and accessible to laymen (like myself) who would easily be thrown by heavily technical discussions of the mathematics involved. To interested readers, I would strongly recommend "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" by Craig and Crossan. While more focused in topic, it deals with the same issue of underlying assumptions and evidences as does Sheler's book.
Rating:
Summary: Balanced, Intelligent and Informed Look at the Bible
Review: I found this book "by accident," and was intrigued to see what a mainstream journalist would do with such a potentially volatile topic. His readable, clear and swift style were pleasant surprises. Even more surprising was his fair treatment of opposing viewpoints/worldviews of the nature of the biblical texts. Because already-submitted reviews detail the strengths and weaknesses of Sheler's book, I would like to emphasize what I consider its greatest strength: Sheler's consistent revealing of the underlying philosophies/assumptions of the scholars and academics active today in biblical criticism. It is critical for those seeking answers and clues to the nature of the Bible to not accept blindly someone's opinion simply because of a hefty-sounding degree from a prestigious university. Many contemporary scholars approach the Bible with the underlying theistic or even atheistic assumptions, and you better believe that those presuppositions heavily influence their findings. Sheler is also to be commended for his honesty and fairness in showing where there is an existing paucity in historical evidence to support the biblical narratives. Also, he does a good job of introducing the idea that ancient writers did not write their works with the same intentions and "standards" that we take for granted 20 centuries later. It is important that we are able to read them as they intended, and not to superimpose our own standards of journalistic writing on them. Additionally, Sheler does a fantastic job of explaining and debunking the Bible codes in language readable and accessible to laymen (like myself) who would easily be thrown by heavily technical discussions of the mathematics involved. To interested readers, I would strongly recommend "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" by Craig and Crossan. While more focused in topic, it deals with the same issue of underlying assumptions and evidences as does Sheler's book.
Rating: 
Summary: What History?!
Review: I'm not sure I know enough to evaluate this book, but I can at least describe it. The basic point of view of this book is: nothing in the Bible is conclusively disproven by modern archaeology. Therefore, it is more or less true. (Or as one Conservative rabbi I know stated: "the Torah is truth but not precision.") Sheler's point of view is closer to middle-of-the-road Christianity than to either secularism or fundamentalism (though a look at other reviews suggests he gets more flak from the fundamentalist end of the spectrum--perhaps because atheists really can't be bothered with reading this kind of book). Sheler explains (or maybe I should say "asserts"; I don't have the knowledge to firmly agree or disagree with him) that the Christian Bible has plenty of inconsistencies (though he misses a few--for example, one of the Gospels has a lot more generations between Jesus and David than another), that some of the Gospels were written by people who were a generation or two removed from Christ, and that today's commonly accepted Jewish Bible differs both from the Dead Sea Scrolls and from other earlier versions--facts which would appear to create a lot of difficulty for people who treat every word in the Bible as true. On the other hand, Sheler asserts that these inconsistencies don't rule out the major themes of the Bible: the relevation at Sinai for the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament), the Virgin Birth for the Christian Bible (aka New Testament). In fact, he defends the latter, arguing that the Virgin Birth is such a weird story that it couldn't possibly be invented (ironically, pretty similar to a Orthodox Jewish argument for the Relevation at Sinai). Sheler understandably avoids the differences between Judaism and Christianity; for example, he doesn't discuss the fact that several portions of the Torah urge Jews to keep commandments "forever" which would seem to pretty much rule out Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: Is The Encyclopedia True?
Review: Jeffery Sheler asks a question in his title that virtually no scholar in the world asks of the Bible. Not that scholars aren't interested in truth. They simply understand the Bible to represent very complex stories and a compilation and editing process than that lasted several hundred years. The Bible can be seen as a mini-encyclopedia of ideas, poetry, claims, stories, songs and battles. It asserts political, religious and historical matters and comparisons without being purely political, religious or historical. Geographically the Bible is, of course, not encyclopedic even though it draws from people and ideas in a rather wide area of the ancient Near East. Thus, I qualify the analogy. However, no one ever asks...is an encyclopedia true! Popular journalism thus, can do things that scholars simply do not do. But the same standards of research and fact finding should apply. Sheler approaches his mission, which this reviewer senses is very personal, with a sort of "on the one hand, but on the other hand, thus it is probably the case" presentation. I started to say "logic" rather than presentation except logically you could conclude just as often "it is probably not the case" or there is no real evidence here. Many will sense that surmise and estimation are used to establish fact...a kind of on-balance-sort-of-reasoning, "therefore we conclude"...to accomplish the author's task. For example, if one reads the initial paragraphs of chapter 4, the author rhapsodizes, through the supposed comments of others, that the Bible is "....a timeless book...one that speaks eternal truths to every age...". He then offers a series of comments suggesting the Bible be recognized as very distant in time, language and culture. So far so good. Let us read it "in the light of the time period from which it comes." But what if it can not be read in such a manner. What if all the past readings, well intentioned or not, have largely failed to understand the language(s), culture and period, as a whole, from which it comes? What if current scholarship is demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt just that...that past readings guided by the more recently created theological super structure of the Church have misread the Bible. But let us continue with chapter 4 to see where the author takes us. We encounter the following: "But as scholars who view the Bible as basically reliable..." without being told what does "basically reliable" mean. Sarna is quoted as saying the Bible writers' "...concern was with the didactic use of selected historical traditions." Dever is next giving testimony to the effect that the writers had a larger question, "What does it mean?" How very funny then, the question
"what does it mean" appears no where in the Bible! A chapter heading or two so titled actually in the Bible would be reassuring especially for those of us who consult it almost daily. This book gives one the feeling of a very specious construction, that is, seeming to be good, sound, correct without really being so. Such is okay if it reflects a personal pilgrimage and is so described. However, if judged against objective or scholarly standards it falls short. Lest this comment be seen as nitpicking let us look at how the concluding paragraphs of chapter 4 are structured. William Dever is quoted as saying "...it really does matter what happened in the past...". Truly historical or "...possessing an essential historicality..." the author intones prior to the further asserting, "And when biblical writings that are unambiguously historical in their intent are critically examined, they consistently show themselves to be remarkably dependable. "(emphasis added). The author goes on to quote Seigfried H. Horn with a rather dated Albrightian-like statement. The statement begins, "The factual information contained in the historical books of the Bible has generally proved to be trustworthy and accurate...". Thus, the reader may tend to miss the author's concluding qualifier that some discoveries "...have not always been supportive of traditional views,...". Further, if one is not careful it might seem that Dever is also endorsing the Horn position on a point as the chapter concludes. Sheler uses Dever's careful thoughts as a prelude to Horn's stronger and much more traditional position. This sort of positioning of expert quotes is not limited to this chapter. The reader may be confused as to where the "chips" are falling. One might even think of this as a "balanced" treatment of difficult materials. I would ask but one more question. Is anyone surprised that so many reviewers suggest this book to be so very "even handed"? Has no one read the book jacket comments to ascertain reviewer bias
so institutionally obvious even while these theologians judge it is "trustworthy" and "balanced"? The problem, of course, is what the Bible is versus what generations of "tradents" acting sincerely but with enormous self interest have said it is! A Tradent is a person primarily interested in preserving and transmitting the (particular religious) tradition. The question arises: Is Sheler a tradent or an "objective" journalist. On the one hand he may be a tradent. On the other he may not. I think the preponderance of evidence reveals that...well, you... dear reader will have to decide! One last thought...I do hope the Encyclopedia is true! 8-14-2002 psb
Rating:
Summary: Excellent treatment for open minded readers.
Review: Just reading the author's treatment of 'the Bible code' in this book will reveal the balanced and fair treatment he applies to all the topics in this volume! If it's TRUTH without slant you're after, buy this book! Unlike so many other religious books out there, this one doesn't try to tell you what to think! It responsibly provides you with the information you need to think for yourself. The author's excellent comunication skill and thorough research makes for an incredibly user-friendly interface. You won't be disappointed!
Rating:
Summary: A Valuable and Honest Defense of the Bible
Review: Mr. Sheler presented a wide look at the major arguments for and against the Bible as truth. His fair and balanced look at the issue can only lead the reader to reevaluate his or her own views on the subject. It was refreshing to read a positive and honest evaluation of the evidences, rather than the unfounded negativity that one usually finds in modern Biblical study. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for the evidence to present an honest apologetic defense of the Scripture as true and inspired.
Rating:
Summary: Thorough Homework and Pleasant Presentation
Review: Nicely done throughout, in my opinion. I found Sheler's journalist perspective and persona a help and not a hindrance. He seemed at all times to honestly give multiple sides their due, then provide a reasonable analysis from there. Throughout, cruxes of the matter(s) were explained articulately for the reader to reflect upon. The two sections on archaeology and the Dead Sea scrolls were very informative since I had never delved into either area before. He managed to inform without getting too specialized or getting too dummied-down/generalized. I've already read a few historical Jesus/Jesus Seminar books before, and feel that section was also fairly and thoroughly done without seeming as heavy-handed as that material usually does. The coverage of the various "quests" gave he helpful terminology and the brief overviews of the Jesus Seminar scholars gave me some background information for the names I have frequently seen in bibliographies. I had only recently heard of the "Bible Code" and after reading his section on that feel confident enough to not sweat further inquiry in that area. If you're interested at all in understanding any of these Biblical studies areas in layman's terms, I think this book would be very interesting and helpful.
Rating:
Summary: A good update and balance to sensationalist skepticism
Review: Recently I have read a number of books in the "holy bloodline of Christ" genre (The Templar Revelation, The Hiram Code, The Tomb of God, etc.) in which the authors engage in cavalier exegesis of the Bible while accepting, uncritically, virtually every skeptical perspective on the historicity of scripture. This book is a great book on its own terms, but it is a wonderful balance to these other popular and skeptical books attacking the normal understandings of Biblical history. The author has the intelligence and the courage to include the perspectives of scholars in the evangelical tradition, thereby avoiding the uncritical canonization of scholars in the traditions of orthodox "higher criticism." I especially appreciated his chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is one of the best books that I have seen for laypeople seeking to understand issues of Biblical criticism.
| 
