Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God

[Peter Kirby]

I saw that Ben Witherington was blogging through this book and titled his post Part 40. I thought that was a joke at first, but then I saw Part 41:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandcu ... forty-one/

It goes without saying that this is a massive work, even by the standards of NT scholarship. At least by the page count, anyway!

Has anyone here got any opinion on Wright or his work on Paul?

[ficino]

I didn't think I needed to read much more after I got to this of Witherington's: "It is the disciples he sends out into the world, and later of course Saul of Tarsus." This is not, in my opinion, the way to phrase things if one means, "later of course Saul of Tarsus claims to have been sent by Jesus." And if W. means literally what he writes, I don't need to read more right now.

[outhouse]

I saw that Ben Witherington was blogging through this book and titled his post Part 40. I thought that was a joke at first, but then I saw Part 41:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandcu ... forty-one/

It goes without saying that this is a massive work, even by the standards of NT scholarship. At least by the page count, anyway!

Has anyone here got any opinion on Wright or his work on Paul?

Way to apologetically biased for me.

I view it as a scholarship "poisoniong the well" so to speak.


Dont much like Bens views either for apologetically inclined thought as well.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wright is just William Lane Craig with a British accent.

[Hawthorne]

I didn't think I needed to read much more after I got to this of Witherington's: "It is the disciples he sends out into the world, and later of course Saul of Tarsus." This is not, in my opinion, the way to phrase things if one means, "later of course Saul of Tarsus claims to have been sent by Jesus." And if W. means literally what he writes, I don't need to read more right now.

Both the original statement and the reworked statement presume that the Gospels + Acts document actual history, unless here we are discussing what happens in a storybook (for example, later Gandalf sent Frodo to destroy the ring in the fires of Mount Doom). There's no independent witness that there were any disciples of Jesus, at all. The only source for the fable that Paul was once Saul of Tarsus is the fictional Acts of the Apostles. Any use of the term "Saul of Tarsus" in connection to actual history that occurred should send up red flags. Generally, if any work on Paul mentions he is from Tarsus or was once called Saul, i I pretty much assume it will be a waste of time.

[hjalti]

Wright is just William Lane Craig with a British accent.

...and without an editor.