Toto

I thought that was your line, Layman. Acts was not based on Paul's letters. But look at all the similarities - it must confirm Paul's letters.

And who made me a postmodernist? I cling to science and Enlightenment values, in the face of the onslaught from both evangelicals and postmodern deconstructionists, who seem to be in league with each other half the time. That's why I don't want to argue for Robbins' case here. I stand by everything I wrote in my original evaluation, that Robbins has an interesting bit of literary criticism and his critics have reacted hysterically because they think it undermines the slim bit of evidence that Acts might be historical at least in part. I think it will take someone without the emotional reaction that Layman has, and with a comparable academic background to Robbins, to actually evaluate his case.

And no, Bede, I could not will myself to believe in God or recite the Nicene Creed, nor do I stick pins in a little doll of Layman (which would be equally effective).

But enough hijacking of this thread.

Ted Hoffman

Oh, that is so exclusivist!

Ted Hoffman

I mean exclusionary!

Secular Pinoy

Returning to the OP, I don't understand why Vork would not recommend TJM by Wells. It's the first book I've read on the Historical Jesus topic, and I don't find it too hard. Maybe to a complete newbie it would be difficult, but an intermediate reader could find it useful as a summary of the skeptic position.

Answerer

Just wondering, how many of you here had read the book, " bloodline of the holy grail" by Laurence gardener?

Vorkosigan

1. Everything in it is covered elsewhere, especially on the Net, and in Wells' writings.
2. Wells is still operating under the old paradigm. The new paradigm is literary, comparative, and sociological. Wells' opposite number is NT Wright, Price's believing alter ego is Dom Crossan. Wells simply exhaustive reviews the major pieces of Jesus outside the NT that have been discussed since Origen, and remains firmly in the NT. He doesn't really reference the whole of Christian writings the way other writers might.
3. It's damn dull, defensive, in fact, in places I was a bit embarrassed by it.
4. Wells has no idea how Christianity got here. He has correctly identified the two major strains in the NT -- the Jerusalem and Galilean traditions, but really fails to integrate the many different strands that other writers do. He doesn't pay much attention to the Nag Hammudi stuff, and the DSS. The Gnostics don't really seem to fit real well into his thinking, at least, I can't see how he thinks about them. Maybe in one of his other books.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan