Javier, Scholarly evidence is not based on one's religion but on the quality of the information presented. Therefore, my personal religious beliefs nor Eugenio's are not the issue, but what is the quality of the content? To imply that a person's comment is irrelevant because of their supposed religious beliefs is silly. For example, Bart Ehrman (who is agnostic) is a Biblical scholar regardless of the fact that he does not feel there is evidence of God and thus to him the Bible is the work of man. (He is a great textual scholar as was he late teacher Metzger) The quality of one's arguments are what matters. Knowing one's background and how it could influence someone's writings is fine, but to dismiss a work because it is written by someone's who's theology doesn't agree with ours is not scholarly. This is what not only Eugenio has done but it seems that you have approved of and even dismissing what I have written not based on content but on guilt by association which is also another logical fallacy. Reviews should be based on the publication and Eugenio's is sorely lacking plain and simple. If you want a scholarly work about Witnesses of Jehovah then I might suggest: Knox, Zoe. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Secular World. However, I personally would not give that one 5 stars either but it is at least scholarly even with its errors something that Eugenio's book clearly is not.