<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<GoodreadsResponse>
	<Request>
		<authentication>false</authentication>
		    <method><![CDATA[]]></method>
	</Request>
	<review id="42347567">
    <user id="988608">
    <name><![CDATA[David]]></name>
    <location><![CDATA[Lansing, MI]]></location>        
    <url><![CDATA[http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/988608-david]]></url>
  </user>
      <rating>1</rating>
  <votes>1</votes>
  <sell_flag>true</sell_flag>
  <spoiler_flag>false</spoiler_flag>
  <shelves>
      </shelves>
  <recommended_for><![CDATA[]]></recommended_for>
  <recommended_by><![CDATA[]]></recommended_by>
  <read_at>Thu Apr 30 00:00:00 -0700 2009</read_at>
  <date_added>Thu Jan 08 08:22:44 -0800 2009</date_added>
  <date_updated>Mon Jul 06 13:23:46 -0700 2009</date_updated>
  <read_count></read_count>
    <body><![CDATA[There's a problem with 19th century religious studies texts is the blatant &quot;my research is better, and oh by the way, read this other work I've written.&quot;  Not only that, he admits that he's rewritten a lot of the translated texts, to keep with his &quot;feeling&quot; of what the &quot;intent&quot; of the Italian was.  His bias is basically shoveled into the work.<br/><br/>I have to admit that there's some useful stuff in there, but I can't really recommend it.]]></body>
    <url><![CDATA[http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/42347567]]></url>
</review>

</GoodreadsResponse>