This is one of a series of books I have greatly enjoyed over the years. There are short (often one paragraph) readings clustered by theme in various sections. I recommend this for anyone interested in the themes of repentance and forgiveness, or for reading during Lent.

Kimbrough provides an excellent glimpse into 19th century Indiana and the early history of the Tarkington family. In addition, he offers detailed insight into the chronology of the evolution of Methodism. If you're looking for a strict biography of Joseph Tarkington only, this is not the read for you, but if you're looking for a good understanding of the Methodist religion, you'll find it here.

This book is a valuable component of an overall peer ministry formation program. If there were ever a text to be used in training teenagers for ministry --this is it. It doesn't speak down to our youth and it doesn't aim the message above their heads... it is aimed at empowerment......and it is not overwhelming like a "school-book". Other words that come to mind--- friendly, resourceful.... Any youth group working with peer leaders should have at least one copy on hand --if not one per peer leader.

This study Bible will serve as a useful introduction to the Orthodox interpretation of the scriptures, and many households will benefit from a copy. It is easily approachable, and the footnotes are helpful to those who are relatively unfamiliar with Orthodox theology.

Yet the critiques of others --that the OSB fails to make use of scriptural study that is prevalent within the Orthodox community, that it fails to be Patristic enough in its notes and comments-- are well grounded. Much more could have been added on the interpretation of passages by the Fathers, and it is a shame that this was not done. The book introductions are quite simplistic and often fail to consider the critical study of even Orthodox scholars on such issues as authorship, dating, audience, etc.

Still, most non-academics will find this a helpful and enjoyable volume. Its lexicon at the end, and guide to Bible reading by Bp. +KALLISTOS, are both excellent.

For those, especially, who are looking for a friendly insight into Orthodoxy through New Testament examination, it is a book worth having.

Many Orthodox scholars such as Fr. Jack Sparks, Bishop KALLISTOS Ware, & Fr. Constantine Nasr. It was overviewed by such Orthodox authorities as Fr. Thomas Hopko, Fr. Stanley Harakas, and bishops representing virtually every Orthodox diocese in North America. I find this Study Bible very useful in introducing people to Orthodoxy through the Holy Scriptures as well as a wonderful companion for every Orthodox Christian. I believe that any Orthodox family could benefit from having this Study Bible in their home.

There are wonderful notes on nearly all the verses of the New Testament, giving the interpretation of the Orthodox Church on the Holy Scriptures. It also includes a lectionary, chapters on "How to Read the Bible," and "Introducing the Orthodox Church," and wonderful articles are interspersed throughout the Bible on such topics as "Confession," "The Four 'Orders' in Church Government," and "The Transfiguration." The pages are also graced by the presence of beautiful icons.

I do have a few minor problems with this Bible. Some is left to be desired in the Book of Psalms, largely because the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Orthodox Church, was not used. (Of course, this is about to be resolved because the same group of people is currently working on the Old Testament Orthodox Study Bible using the entire Septuagint text.) It was also disappointing to see that in the Morning and Evening prayers in the back, there is no mention of the Virgin Mary. However, the notes and articles throughout the Study Bible clearly explain the emphasis which is put on the Virgin Mary in the Orthodox Church.

I would highly recommend owning this Study Bible, and I don't feel that it deserves a lot of the harsh criticism it has gotten. They did an excellent job!

Up until this century it was taboo to put commentary into a Bible for fear that folk would take the notes and interpretations as if they were part of the Bible itself. Well, they were right! However, now everyone and his brother puts footnotes and explanations in their texts of the Scriptures, so now the Orthodox do as well. This is not THE Orthodox Study Bible (as reviewer Matt asserts above - and, yes Matt, you are nit-picking!), nor does it pretend to be. The articles and notes are intended to help elucidate the Scriptures and provide some introductory articles on Orthodox topics, but this is not a full-blown Bible commentary, nor a course in New Testament theology. The complaints of the critics tend to be essentially that it isn't enough. Well, then they need to write a multi-volume commentary to suit their needs. However, for the average layperson who's lucky to crack open the Bible occasionally, this fits the bill just fine. Remember, there is no "official" Orthodox translation of the Bible except for the original Greek. Thus, the NKJV is one of the better texts and the footnotes are there to make occasional comments as to translation problems and errors. No, they don't cover all the issues, but as I said before, to do that you would need a multi-volume Orthodox commentary that takes up half your bookshelf. Hopefully, at some future date, such a work will be undertaken. For now, this is a modest and well-needed starting point. +Fr. William Christ

Wells is totally out of his field. He is neither a historian nor a New Testament scholar - he's a German professor, for heaven's sake! How anyone can accept his theories when it goes against almost all current NT scholarship is beyond me.

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." Sanders echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." Dunn provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells'thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith. Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, is a friend of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

Professor Wells exposes quite persuasively the sham made by some catholic and protestant Bible comentators in order to hide the historical unreliability of the New Testament and their characters. People tend to believe that something which everybody is familiar with has to be true, but even at the end of last century people and scholars satirized Darwin because of his unbiblical version of the creation of man - well, nowadays, people don't think still that Adam and Eve were real historical characters. Scholars of every scientific field have shown the Bible to be innacurate in several ways, including in History, yet the christian Churches still resist to give up some pieces of our History which were written exclusively on the Bible and that have no sort of consistency whatsoever. I think that the historical pursuit of thr real Jesus or the legend that was built around a purely mythical Christ will have a meaning so great in the field of History, as the discoveries of Galileo and Darwin had in the field of Science. Wells builds his argument about how the legend of Jesus developed by trying to see the implications of the theological evolution seen if we put the early epistles of Paul, the sayings attributed to the Q gospel, the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John in their correct chronological order (as I have ordered them). Then we can see how the notion of the existence of Jesus Christ changed in this short period of 50 or 60 years: from a supernatural risen Christ with no specific historical existence in Paul and a kind of Cynic teacher in Q appeared several inconsistent stories about a Son of God cruxified by Pilate. The writers of the gospels weren't ancient historians as many people believe - their writings reflected the problems of their small community and the theological goals of their leaders: for every problem which aroused a christian prophet built a saying of Jesus or a miracle made by him which supported his own point of view on the issue. And so appeared so many contradictory sayings of Jesus with no specific chronogical order or geographical background in the gospels. If we believe that the gospels show us the real teachings of Jesus, then we had to say that Jesus at the very same time was: a Jewish who obeyed the Law, an anti-Semitic leader, a miracle-worker who acted for the crouds and at the same time a man who tried to act anonimous (but how can a great miracle-worker who acts for the crouds be anonimous?). Also, the writers of the gospels show us a group of 12 incredibly stupid apostles and don't date the Passion at the same time. Many of the events described in the New Testament appear to be things just build to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. Yet, I think that there were several things forgotten by Wells: the inconsistent dating made by the gospels of Jesus supernatural birth and the inconsistency of the Passion events in the Roman world background: Pilate was a cruel man and wouldn't defend a man accused of social disorder; also, Pilate wouldn't deliver Jesus to Antipas, the lord of Galilea, because he had no kind of power in Jerusalem. Also, Wells should have given some further discussion of the thesis made around the Dead Sea Scrolls and the book can, perhaps, confuse a reader somewhat less informed in this matter because of its many citations of other scholars and the several critics made to their books. Wells finishes his book criticizing the distortion of the Scriptures made by christian Bible commentators for support of their conservative ethics: they only pick up some epic phrases, get rid of some complicated sayings by explaing that they're only methaphorical or with no significant meaning and convince others of a great, uniformal moral written on the Bible. Yet, there is no uniformal moral on the many books of the Bible, because they were written by several different people, in many different backgrounds and in the course of many centuries. However, we have to resist this view of the great morals given by the Bible, because the teachings of Jesus and the Jewish prophets are not as pacific as they say: in the Old Testament God says to Moses to kill all the homossexuals, the worshippers of idols, the adulterous and maim the criminals, then God tells David to massacre every living person of the unjewish population in the land of Israel - including women and children; finally, Jesus prohibits the divorce between christians and says he is the only way to God and that the Jews will all be condemned to Hell - some epistles even say that everyone who doesn't worship Jesus Christ is a son of the Devil. Clearly, the precepts of the equality of all men in God's eyes were only meant to christian believers and not to unbelievers (who are described as the assassins of Christ and sons of the Devil). I believe that most people never read one piece of the Bible, because if people did so they wouldn't still think that Jesus was a peaceful man and that the Bible teaches only good things which can be applied in our real lives.

Carlos madeira 20th of July of 1999

This is addressed to all believers in JC. The matter with JC isn't so much whether or not a mere mortal human being existed at some point in the distant past. The claim made by the believers is that Jesus Christ was not at all a mere human being, but that he was son of a god, that he possessed supernatural abilities, and that he is really alive in some form even today. Is it not a bit silly that the believers implore all to believe in the reality of JC by appealing to so-called historical evidence while all that's required for all to believe in JC (or God, the Almighty) is for the real Jesus Christ or God to materialize berfore each one of the unbelievers and thus put the matter to rest? If it is so utterly important for God that we believe in him, then why doesn't he produce a very current living evidence by appearing brfore us? May the real God or Jesus Christ rise and introduce himaself? Look, it isn't much for an almighty god to do this favor - please come forward and introduce yourself and show us that you are indeed an almighty god! Why would you want to hide yourself from our senses and yet want us to believe in you by looking at unverifiable historical documents purporting the exeistence a god or JC?

This book is not unimportant, especially to those in the Reorganized / Restorationist LDS [Mormon tradition] cultures centered primarily in Independence, MO who cling to the notion that the founder of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints was never personally a revealer, teacher or practitioner of Polygamy. Rather, that he was a 'victim' of a conspiracy within the Mormon church in IL to introduce it. This despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, documented in scholarly works during the past decade alone... The book is nicely bound and printed. Would that it's content were as praiseworthy and historically accurate. Any serious student of LDS [Mormon] History will immediately recognize that to accept the authors interpretive theories requires tremendous leaps in logic with regard to their inferential conclusions about evidence at best circumstantial and at worst completely out of context.

Was Joseph Smith polygamous? Richard and Pamela Price, despite the insistence of most "scholars" that say he was a polygamist, makes a compelling case for Joseph Smith NOT being a polygamist. They mention Joseph's repeated statements, verbal and written, against polygamy, his excommunication of persons who believed in, advocated, and/or practiced polygamy, as well as taking people to court for polygamy or for saying he was a polygamist. Personally, I find this compelling. However, in the final analysis, the reader will have to get the book, read it, and decide the issue for themselves.

While many of Porphyry's works were copied in Christian times, and Christians were generally interested in Neoplatonism, his work in 16 books rubbishing the Christians is lost. Works calculated to annoy both readers and copyists have few chances to survive. It was condemned as a mischievous libel by Constantine, without much effect, and again by Theodosius (448AD). The refutations by Apollonius, Methodius and Eusebius are sadly also lost. However fragments exist in various works by the church fathers, about half of which come from the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, preserved in a single 15th century MS (now lost). These are the fragments presented here.

The book isn't aimed at the specialist - the issues of dating, the MS tradition (less info than in this review!), the many philological issues with the text are not addressed, and footnotes are only for the translation, and mostly simply summarise Macarius' response. However references to the Apocriticus are given (an improvement on the same author's Celsus).

There is a rather pointless essay occupying the second half of the book, which the author admits is not for specialists and has not a single footnote. The introduction is unsatisfactory - for instance it does not even list the works of Porphyry. On the first page the quote from Tertullian from Ad Scapulam (title not given but obvious) is inaccurate; the lack of footnotes makes it hard to check others.

The translation is very crisp, and much the best part of the book. It is not always very accurate. For instance he translates "The evangelists were fiction-writers - not observers or eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus" (p.32) where the Greek (and Crafer) says "The evangelists were inventors, not historians of the events concerning Jesus" (p.38, Crafer, p.20 of Blondel's text). Hoffmann's version suggests they were not eye-witnesses, and consequently he can make no sense of Macarius' reply. The correct translation allows us to see that 'Porphyry' has no opinion on this - a 20th century idea - but just says that their accounts are invented.

I had wondered whether the book was worth doing. It is hard to imagine a series of reconstructions of lost anti-semitic literature being made. But somewhat to my surprise, it does have a contribution to make - a definite picture of the nature of Porphyry's work emerges, which makes it plain why it no longer exists.

The arguments of Porphyry will appeal to Christian-haters - apparently the target audience (in the first couple of pages of the introduction almost every statement by a Christian writer is labelled a 'boast' or 'brag'). Porphyry's method is to highlight by pretending an 'idiot-boy' obtuseness to what used to be called quaintly 'bible difficulties'. A few pages of this will be enough for most readers, other than the anti-Christian believer.

But the power of the work lay in its silent appeal to the embarassment at being different that any minority feels in a society that does not share its values. He sneers at Christian respect for the poor, for instance. Frequently he does not argue - merely assert that such an attitude is shameful. Of course once times changed, this process worked in reverse, and his appeals to the shibboleths of a vanished society were at best meaningless, and the obtuseness embarassing even to his admirers in Christian Greece. This then is the real reason the work had power, and why it is lost.

This book suffers because the editing is not up to standard, and the statements made are usually undocumented and too often have not been verified. I missed any discussion of the many interesting problems of philology posed by the text. It would have been nice if Hoffmann had gone to look for the MS, as I suspect it is only lost because no-one has seriously searched.

It is always nice to see a new version of any ancient work, even if a popularisation like this, particularly for so obscure a work as the Apocriticus.

Note: This text has not been considered an academic work by the scholarly community; it is not listed in the academic bibliography l'Annee Philologique, and so I presume was not reviewed by any academic journals.

The pagan reactions to Christianity are not as well known as they should be. In the eyes of many people, Christianity unfolded on a blank page--guided by providence and assured of victory. The words of {Porphyry of Tyre, the neoPlatonic philosopher-scribe who preserved the writings of Plotinus, give us a whole new slant on the struggle. I recommend this book highly.

Practically every sentence in the book is twisted and there are manifold untruths and omissions on every page; therefore, all I could do was try to keep track of some of it. (Go to the Exit & Support Network Recovery Page to see the full details.) The worst thing beyond the untruths is the author's obvious lack of feeling for the abuse, suffering and trauma the members and exiters have endured.

Almost all of the important dates for significant happenings; i.e., when the WCG leaders met with evangelicals are cleverly omitted. The author tells the world that the WCG is "Trinitarian" now, but his mention of the Holy Spirit in the book approaches zero. (To this day I haven't heard members of the Worldwide Church of God admit that they consider God a "Trinity".)

I consider this book the greatest deception a cult has pulled off in this century. I hope more people research the facts and let the truth speak for itself!

Exit & Support Network

In order to fully understand this title additional reading isrequired. Many unauthorized changes have occured in the last few yearsthat cannot be properly understood unless we have the whole story. For the missing side of this story, the title: "Malachis's Message to God's Church today" is offered gratis. This subject is too important not do ones own research. The Revelation is freely available (as it always has been), to those who value the truth.

Tkach has laid it all on the line in this book. I am sure that it was not an easy book to write, as he was involved in much of what this church was about, both before its "conversion" and after. The charts were especially helpful, as it helped me to better understand where this church's roots lay. In some places the book bogged down a bit, as some of the details seemed to be somewhat redundant. But it did not diminish the powerful story as told by the church's current leader. I am sorry to see that it is now out of print--can it be that this story is not well received by the general Christian population?

John Cardinal O'Connor was undoubtedly a man of conviction. He was a colorful poltical heavyweight; a significant player in worldwide Roman Catholic politics and in American affairs in general. Sadly, while O'Connor might be commended for his loyalty, he is not a man who should be exalted as one of the great spiritual leaders of the 20th century.

John O'Connor could have been great! He could have been. Instead he chose a different path - favored son in a "family" (in this case an institution) out of touch with the world.

He could have dared to speak up for those who were marginalized.He could have told the poor faithful people of his church that he understood their need to practice birth control. He could have advanced the recognition of women as full and complete members of the church. He could have recognized that so many American Catholics felt out of touch with the message of their Church. While he visited dying gay men and opened places where they cold die with dignity, he continued to deny their legitimate place on the earth.

Perhaps the greatest lost opportunity was the fact that John O'Connor could have changed the Church -- but didn't!

I finish this book sadly feeling that here was a man who had the forum to do great things but sadly chose not to. It is the sadness of "the could have ... but didn't".

A Man of Conviction is small book which poorly conceived and dully written. If this book is some effort to advance O'Connor's spiritual legacy in the hope that he will yet again be promoted, perhaps to Sainthood, it is a bad start.

John O'Connor,late Cardinal Archbishop of New York, was a large figure on the political and religious landscape for almost 17 years. One time Hawkish military chaplain{his pro military stances influenced many of the documents that came out of the bishops conferences],he became bishop of scranton, Pa.,then very quickly{I mean real quickly} Archbishop of the largest archdiocese in North America. He sparred with polticians early{Publicly berating democats Mario cuomo and Geraldine ferraro for their pro-choice stands}though not republicans{though he did criticise R Guliani 's policies as viscious against the poor}, so often putting his foot in his mouth that all three of the major dailies began putting reporters at the Sunday 10 am mass. This collection, has nomne of that. O'connor was a vociferous supporter of the state of Israel, and is warmly remembered as such. He was also an avowed opponenet of homsexuality, and some of his worst moments came in trying to defend his position. He was also a man of great generosity, refusing to close any schools{no matter how poor they were]. begging, literally, begging some of the moneybags catholics{Simon, Grace, et,al. } for donations.He opened doors of catholic hospitals to aids patients{while condeming thier lifestyle. }In short, a man of immense contradictions, who died a slow, painful public death, and did so with great dignity, and without some of the macabre operatic flourishes of so public a demise. The best of these remembrances come from ordianry folks,not the politicians nor clergy{what on earth do youthink a priest of another bishop would say about him? Now if they gave archbishop rembert weakland of Milwaukee a free hand to discuss OConnors lack of support for him with this problems with rome, that would have been interesting]. In all, a well done,though curiosly unsatisfying collection, too much warm fuzziness, not enough exploration.For those who admired him,a very good book. see also Nat Hentoff's ear;lier Biography{also very flattering] for more sources. A loyal soldier of the church.

I am admittedly a very devoted friend of the late Cardinal. I miss him greatly as a former regular Mass-goer at St. Patrick's Cathedral in the late 90's. I miss him still more as my old guardian angel who did more than one favor for a skinny little kid from Brooklyn, without recompense. Nor did he seek it, except for my soul, and the hope that I would always love Jesus. So if you ever admired this man, his honesty, his frankness, his gift for trying his best in every circumstance, even if you did not agree with everything he said, you will indeed like this book. He was, as his friends reminisce, a mensch. You will hear his words, recognise his wit, recall his stature. I miss him too much, this man who fought tooth and nail, for whatever he thought was truly important for the well being of body and soul of his flock. But then, anyone in New York, or anyone in his line of sight was his flock. Oh, I miss him, and I am glad to hear from him again. Requiescat in pace.

Best friends are complex characters. Both sides develop a synergy which goes beyond clear tangibles and virtues. When your best friend is famous, and that person dies, the surviving friend has an obligation to seek perspective. Eugene Kennedy needed more time and distance to adequately honor his friend, the late Cardinal Bernadin. Kennedy's emotions are too raw. He seeks sainthood for his friend. After setting that standard, the book becomes defensive. Kennedy tries to be poetic, but he can not sustain that type of prose for 175 pages. In the end Mr. Kennedy tried to honor his friend with emotions and flowery prose. It would have been better if the author had more confidence in Cardinal Bernadin's own words and deeds. We would have learned more about a great man than the slim concepts gained from this endeavor.

Like my fellow reviewers, I agree that Kennedy is hardly an objective, dispassionate biographer. As he makes clear from the outset of the book, he and Cardinal Bernardin were close, personal friends for many years, and the latter's death in 1995 was a deep personal loss to the author. I certainly would have appreciated a few more words about Bernardin's personal flaws, a subject which Kennedy glosses over. Nonetheless, Eugene Kennedy is one of America's most highly respected Catholic thinkers and, if this book is somewhat lacking in evenhandedness, I remain convinced that what appears within its covers is accurate and reliable. Because of his direct access to Bernardin, Kennedy is able to give us a "behind the scenes look" at some of the most fascinating episodes in recent church history: the 1978 election of Popes John Paul I and II; the scandal involving John Cardinal Cody, Bernardin's predecessor as Archbishop of Chicago and the target of a federal criminal investigation; the politics surrounding the drafting of the bishops' pastoral letter on nuclear arms; the shocking allegations of sexual misconduct by Bernardin (later retracted by the accuser); and the Cardinal's courageous handling of the news that he was dying of cancer. But this book is more than just an ecclesiastical "tell-all"; it's also a loving account of a very special man and priest. What I find so extraordinary about Bernardin -- and EVERYONE who knew him attests to this -- was his humility, gentleness, and total lack of pretension. How, I wondered, does a man who rises so high in both Church and society remain so down-to-earth, so unaffected by the honors and the "hype". Somehow, Joseph Bernardin knew how to do this.

Writing a memoir about friendship is a tricky endeavor. Events and conversations, times of consolation and alienation, moments of intimacy -- all those elements that go into making up the best of relationships -- are suddenly on display. Living through them, you somehow thought they would never catch the light of day. Now they are out there for all to see. Eugene Kennedy's poignant and inspiring tale about his more than thirty years of friendship with Joseph Bernardin, the late archbishop of Chicago, convinces us that it is worth the risk to share the details about these precious relationships. Anyone who has ever had a best friend will cherish this book.

My Brother Joseph, however, is much more than the tale of a friendship between two men. The book also provides us with an understanding about how Bernardin grew into a much-admired and loved churchman who provided energetic and visionary leadership to the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Catholic church in the United ! ! States.

Kennedy helps us appreciate that Bernardin was niether a dealmaker nor a crafter of compromises; he was instead a genuine consensus builder. His genius as a leader lay in his ability to maintain that delicate balance between loyalty to the institution and respect for the person. Bernardin also refused to typecast people. This capacity helped him work effectively with fellow bishops holding different points of view and was one of the gifts he used eventually to produce the US bishops' pastoral letter on war and peace.

Most memorable in Kennedy's book, however, is the very human person who emerges in its pages. We see Bernardin in those unguarded moments that we all have with good friends -- moments when, free of self-censorship, we say exactly what's on our mind. We are also privileged to witness the growth of his ever deepening spirituality.

The friend that Kennedy had in Bernardin was no plaster saint. Yes, he was ambitious. While still Archbishop of Cincinnat! ! i, for example, he confided to Kennedy that he would very m! uch like to head the Chicago archdiocese. While tolerant of others, their idiosyncractic behavior was not lost on him. He cloaked his reactions to these annoyances, however, in subtle humor.

Kennedy has done us an enormous favor in sharing with us his years of friendship with Bernardin. We come away from this book convinced that God did have a dream for Joseph Bernardin and that this exceptional man spent his life discerning just what that dream was about and living it out. Each step along the way helped make him what he was at the end: an extraordinary leader, a compassionate pastor, a dear friend. Simply put, he was the very best of men.