I’ve gotten several emails like this:

Shame on you Jonah. As someone who is well-aquainted with the maleability of facts, especially in the hands of liberal authors, you ought not to be uncritically repeating claims like those of Ms Fredriksen. The differences in the gospels have been the subject of debate for millenia, and there have been few conservative Chrisian scholars who felt the differences are irreconcilable. Just because Ms Fredriksen doesn’t give the other side of the story doesn’t mean there isn’t another side.
I’ll leave it to your more knowledgeable readers to acquaint you with the other side (as I’m sure they will, in great detail), but I want to point out that you should have immediately seen something strange in her claim about Rome wanting Jesus dead. Crucifiction was used as the common form of execution in the Roman empire, not only for rebels, but also for deserters, murderers, escaped slaves, and thieves. The claim that the crucification indicated an interest from the imperial capital is laughable. This was the first century you know, the fastest form of communication was the trireme, which is just a really big rowboat with a pathetically inadequate sail. Governers in outlying regions couldn’t pop off a quick email to Rome to get their opinion on every paltry execution.

And this one:

Subject: There aren’t any inconsistencies I know of in the New Testament
You’ve already admitted your ignorance, so just play smart and leave the subject alone.
A friend