Thank you. Published 1994. One needs an open mind to read it. He speaks of Quirinius not Quintillius. He does not deny the historical existence of Jesus. He believes that John's gospel is historically most accurate, that John actually knew Jesus, and wrote his gospel in hindsight, as an old man. He investigates several historical myths in the Bible, but without taking away the essential truth of it, for believers. He is not very kind towards the writer of Chronicles, for instance, but in general allows Kings to pass, although with a number of historical corrections. He is often a bit flip and superior in his style, and he sometimes draws rather dubious conclusions from his own guesses. So there is always room to allow that he might be wrong. As I say, one needs an open mind, but eventually I feel it has enhanced my awe of the power of the Bible. I would really like to hear what you think, after reading it. Regards.