This work argues Paul’s letter to Galatians effectively marks the birth of Christianity. [Eric Zuesse has since commented that I am flat wrong here — see his comment below. 12:00 pm]
I had a different perspective on the book that I may discuss some time here, but till then have a look and a think about David’s views.
One note from David:
I found Eric’s methodology to be interesting, but not quite convincing. He is onto one thing though: even scholars who claim to not be captured by confessional interests still do not question all of their assumptions, such as the assumption that Paul was (or was not) honest.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
6 thoughts on “Christ’s Ventriloquists”
Neil, you misrepresent my Christ’s Ventriloquists, when you say “This work argues Paul’s letter to Galatians effectively marks the birth of Christianity.” It does not argue that; it contradicts that and is inconsistent with that.
Till or unless Eric responds, I have had another look at Eric’s manuscript and am reminded that he argues that Paul used the letter to Galatians to describe the event that effectively started Christianity — Galatians 2:11-21, Paul’s conflict with the James party at Antioch.
I think Eric does say that the letter does describe how Pauline and later Christianity started, but that it did not start Christianity as such as he choses to call the pre-Pauline movement which he thinks Jesus started Christianity also.
From my reading, I would say that Galatians was not the start of Christianity, but it describes the events from 2-3 years prior that did amount to the creation of Christianity. Galatians supplies the justification and the best evidence.
Neil, you misrepresent my Christ’s Ventriloquists, when you say “This work argues Paul’s letter to Galatians effectively marks the birth of Christianity.” It does not argue that; it contradicts that and is inconsistent with that.
Sorry Eric. My memory obviously failed me. You are welcome to post a correction to explain what it does argue and how it is inconsistent with that.
Till or unless Eric responds, I have had another look at Eric’s manuscript and am reminded that he argues that Paul used the letter to Galatians to describe the event that effectively started Christianity — Galatians 2:11-21, Paul’s conflict with the James party at Antioch.
Which amounts to the same since the event being narrated is pure fiction.
I think Eric does say that the letter does describe how Pauline and later Christianity started, but that it did not start Christianity as such as he choses to call the pre-Pauline movement which he thinks Jesus started Christianity also.
From my reading, I would say that Galatians was not the start of Christianity, but it describes the events from 2-3 years prior that did amount to the creation of Christianity. Galatians supplies the justification and the best evidence.