Ian Wishart is a tool

So I've read (or at least had a glance through) the first three editions of Investigate magazine. Not a bad read at all, particularly if, like me, you like to lay down on the couch when you read. Because then you can lay down on your left side to balance out the world view you are being given.
There is a column in each edition written by a chappy named Ian Wishart, Ian Wishart is full of shit. In the first edition he takes aim at The Da Vinci Code. Fair enough. I've never read the book and I'm not interested in doing so. However in putting shit on the book, Wishart resorts to statements which are disingenuous and misleading to the point of dishonesty.F'rinstance, he makes the point that Dr> John A.T. Robinson doesn't believe the 'old' view that the Gospels were written 'up to' a hundred years after Jesus died. He fails to mention that the 'old' view is still the opinion most popularly held by scholars. Father Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction To The New Testament gives the dates of authorship for the Gospels as:
Matthew: c. 70 - 100, although some conservatives put a pre- 70 date forward
Mark: c. 68 - 73
Luke:c. 80 - 90
John: c. 90 -110 (These dates are not Browns but come from C.K. Barrett. Most scholars believe that John was written in stages, with many arguing for multiple authors.
Somewhat different to Wishart.
Wishart would also have you believe, as a matter of undisputed fact, that non-canonical Gospels (note lack of parentheses surrounding that phrase) didn't appear until at least halfway through the second century A.D., which is a minority opinion, even amongst fundies. Some scholars put a cautious date on Thomas, for example, in the middle of the first century, before the Synoptic Gospels. To his own downfall, Wishart wants you to pay attention to the detail in the big four. Details surrounding the crucifixion perhaps Mr. Wishart? You know, the crucifixion which you believe proves the Divinity of the christ? The central plank of the Christian platform? They don't even agree on His final words - Matthew and Mark: My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? Luke: Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. John: It is finished.
Not all that reliable as witnesses, are they? Johnny Cochrane wouldn't even bother cross-examining.
Wishart would further have you believe that Gnosticism is/was a unified religion, rather than a collection of fairly similar sects, which is what every scholar I've read thinks. He would also have you believe that the bible is a mammal, born fully formed and complete, without any editorial input from anyone, which is bullshit. Even today there isn't a universal bible. Some printers put books called Apocrypha between the Testaments, some don't. At one stage these books were compulsory insertions, but have fallen out of favour in the last couple of hundred years.
I gotta go to work, I'll sling more shit at Wishart later.
In the meantime, you should also read the column by Ann Coulter, a somewhat shrewish looking woman of modest talent (going on her three columns so far) sometimes known as the darling of the right. Don't know why.