Kurt, I accept that my analysis of the Jesus Manifesto probably erred on the side of negativity. But I would be interested to know what really offended you here.

Is it the issue of qualifications? Is your point that I am not sufficiently well read to put forward this sort of critique? Are you concerned that having read ‘a few NT Wright books and some other stuff’ does not constitute an adequate basis for examining Sweet and Viola’s work? If so, what in your view would count as adequate qualifications?

Is it that you disagree with the narrative-historical hermeneutic popularized by Wright? Do you think that the church is better served by a theology that disregards contextuality?

Or do you object to the shredding? Do you think that my comments are unfair or incorrect or incoherent or driven by suspect motivations? Do you think that it is inappropriate to subject a document such as this to critical analysis – and that a sarcastic one line comment is a fitting response?