The last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) remain one of the largest, if not THE largest, consecutive group of allegedly spurious verses in the Bible. In this work, Burgon settles the question once and for all.

Originally intended for biblical scholars, this book will prove quite difficult for the average reader, because of its highly academic writing style of the period and because of its numerous footnotes and other passages that quote ancient sources in the original Greek and Latin without English translation. Yet, the depth of Burgon's textual criticism and research will stagger the honest reader. Beginning with external evidence, he examines hundreds of cursive and uncial Greek manuscripts which date at least from the fourth century, ten early Bible versions which date from the second to the sixth centuries, the individual writings of 19 early Church Fathers from all over the then-known world who wrote between the early second to the mid sixth centuries, and all known copies of the venerable Lectionary of the East. Then he turns to the internal evidence, or the writing style of St. Mark himself, and compares the verses in question to Mark's remaining Gospel, with particular attention given to the parallelism found in the first twelve verses of chapter 1.

With the exception of two manuscripts, not only do all of the other sources above contain or make reference to Mark 16:9-20, Burgon shows that these same verses match Mark's writing style to boot. Moreover, certain Church Fathers, who by tradition were considered hostile to Mark 16:9-20, namely Gregory of Nysa, Eusebius, Jerome, Severus of Antioch, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius Zigabenus, are proven instead to be favorable. To Burgon, this overwhelming wealth of evidence proves that these verses are genuine. The honest reader must surely agree.

The two manuscripts which completely lack Mark 16:9-20 are the infamous Codex B (Vaticanus) and Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus). Dating from the fourth century, they are the two oldest copies of the Gospels extant, which, in part, probably influenced Burgon's liberal contemporaries to reject these verses as genuine. Yet Burgon clearly shows that these two manuscripts are monstrously flawed throughout. Discrepancies are so numerous that he remarks, "It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. [manuscripts] differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree." Thus, neither of these two manuscripts are reliable sources for any of the Gospels, and they seriously impact on modern Bible translations (see below).

Also included in this edition is a helpful 36-page summary with commentary by Rev. D.A. Waite, president of The Dean Burgon Society. He reminds us that, despite Burgon's research, most modern Bible translations today (NKJV, NASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NEV, TEV, CEV, and others) continue to regard Mark 16:9-20 and other passages as spurious. The reason lies in the fact that liberal scholars, who in many places actually doubt the Word of God, have chosen to base most modern NT translations primarily on those two flawed manuscripts, Codex B and Codex Aleph. Westcott and Hort's Revised Greek Text of 1881 is a prime example, which alters the Greek New Testament (Traditional Greek Text or Textus Receptus) over 5,600 times.

Modern translations place allegedly spurious passages in brackets, reduce them to footnotes, or eliminate them altogether. In so doing, these modern translations can do much to dissuade people from belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Thanks to the work of Christian scholars like Dean John W. Burgon, however, discerning Christians will reject those modern translations that promote such error.

Although they as a discernable voting block tend to be more socially liberal than the general population at large, this does not neccesarily mean GLBT voters are anti-war or the oft-riddiculed "tax and spend liberal". Indeed, GLBT Americans can even be found as members (or at least supporters of) conservative political parties.

Hertzog's premise and supporting research argue that the potential electoral power of GLBT Americans has been historically undertaped (hindered by first a general climate of discrimination, and then the failure to inquire about sexual orientation on previous polling questionaires) and utlized by the major American political parties, but even the advances that happened in the 1990's still leave the community underutlized compared to both the general population and other community voting blocks.

He also looks at voting blocks within the GLBT commuinity and concludes that voters identifying as feminist will have less in common with the heterosexual society than non-feminist GLBT voters. These feminist voters are more likely to register as very liberal on social issues and much less likely to support a strong millitary-industrial complex.

Finally, Hertzog makes some interesting and (somewhat prophetic) predictions for the 1996 presidential elections. Despite uncovering evidence that the GLBT vote is not solidly Democrat, and GLBT's vote for Republicans who are socially moderate, he also warns that the GOP cannot expect to gain this vote if it continues to court people and organizations from the religious right.

This book is heartily reccomended for political and social scientists who are interested in American voting patterns and civil rights movements. Originally published as a doctoral thesis, this volume is certain to be an indispensable classic for researchers and activists alike.

This edition has a strong orientation to the stock market / investment world. Between the interviews with Schwab and the heads of Nasdaq & the NYSE, I gained some real insight to the people controlling the stock market world.

There were some surprises as well. I have never heard Charles Schwab talk about how he had to overcome his learning disability before. It added some fascinating human elements to the leadership discussion.

I would have liked to hear more from Lance Armstrong. His segment was supposed to be short, but I would have liked even more.

This series is very strong. By hearing the actual interviews with these leaders, you pick-up much more than reading a summary.

This was a very worthwhile edition and I recommend it highly.