Tilberian, it's not just Simply Christianity that is creating a buzz (maybe in your area it is limited to that).  But he has completed three volumes in a series that, among other things, seek to establish Judaism and the belief in bodily resurrection (that is, the belief espoused by Early Christianity and Pharisaical Judaism) as something unique in the age of antiquity.  He attempts to demonstrate that the Hellenistic influences ascribed to early Christianity and late-antiquity (maybe just- "antiquity'?) Judaism are, in fact, false assumptions that do not correspond to the evidence from that time period. 

Perhaps this is not anything useful for you; but I figured if you were not going to read any of Wright's works, this might give you an idea of what is occurring in this particular realm of academia. 

P.S.  Not a shot at Rook or anything, but keep an eye on some of his biblical interpretation.  Some of its very good; some of it is quite debated assumption (for example: Paul and his theology of a spiritual resurrection; that  the author of Mark was a Hellenized Jew in the Diaspora)

I'll take your word for it, but the writers here (southern Ontario) have been claiming that Wright is presenting evidence that the physical resurrection actually happened. They seem to be making the leap to say that if belief in bodily resurrection was unique to the early Christians, that must mean it is connected to a historical incident. Is this Wright's assertion or just something they have read into it?

The whole question of whether bodily resurrection was a uniquely Christian idea induces jaw-cracking yawns in me. Certainly the idea of resurrection and life-after-death predates Christianity by millennia, so if the Jews came up with a little twist on it, I'm not impressed. If anything, bodily resurrection is a simpler idea, requiring less a less sophisticated imagination, than the various kinds of spiritual resurrection, including reincarnation.

Even if bodily resurrection had never been contemplated by earlier religions, so what? There is a first time for everything. The Death Star had never been contemplated before Star Wars: should this lead us to believe that George Lucas really got caught in a tractor beam?

I have read quite a bit of so-called "high level Christian scholarship" and found that most of it wouldn't pass the laugh test in any real school of history or archeology. Certainly much that I read here is better than anything "Christian scholarship" has produced. The name itself should be your tip-off: "Christian scholarship" proceeds in the first place from an unwarranted assumption that God exists and that some element of Christian doctrine is true. It is then tainted by the constant need to swerve away from findings that might challenge its basic presumptions. This is not science, nor even honest inquiry.

I did flip through the first few pages of SBH and found it immediately falling into the same old tired theist errors. Wright refers constantly to our "feeling" that this should be so or the world should be thus. He is basically stating his intention upfront: to justify that which he feels is true and wants to believe. I simply have no time for pretend scholars who decide on a conclusion before beginning their inquiry. Especially when those conclusions are based on feelings about morality and justice which are based, in turn, on millennia of religious cultural engineering! Talk about self-referential.

The idea that Mark was a hellenized Jew in the Diaspora is not debated by any scholars I know.  Please name some, aside from the religious nuts who want Mark to be an eyewitness? 

Point to where I have done this. What I said in my post is that Christian scholars that I have read (ie I did regard them) have not been worth my time. So I have graced many, many people who I disagree with with my regard. I hope that you will forgive me for not wanting to waste my time any further.

I couldn't agree more. I think you will find that even most Christian scholars and theologians don't give any credence to the idea that Jesus rose from the dead as a historical fact.

Point to where I made one reference to my feelings. My desire to avoid wasting my time with Wright is based on my prior experience with writers of his ilk.

This only works when there has been a viewpoint articulated in the first place. In the case of Christian apologetics, the viewpoint is invariably inarticulate.

Point to where I claimed victory anywhere, over anything. If anything, I'm asking for someone else to fight the battle for me.

Your entire post amounts to a giant act of projection.

Could they just be cynically trying to drive sales of the book? Naw, that would be evil...

If its only one or two, then what are they and why are they fallacious?  honestly, the format of this site makes developing any argument more than a few paragraphs long painful.  You get mired in conversations over word meanings and retarded nitpicking without ever really engaging the argument.  That is why i'd rather have someone read them in their entirety and then respond with substance rather than the common the bible god is fiction etc. straw men that are purveyed as damning arguments on this site.