Reframing Paul in my opinion is a good book - not a 'nice' or 'comfortable' book, but one worth reading, especially if you aspire to having a "Berean" spirit -which implies a willingness to have your ideas about the New Testament (NT) and church challenged. But there is also comfort in this book - it gave shape to my increasing unease (over the last ~ 15 years) about the gap between what the NT seems to say - and what we do, and assert as 'biblical'. I no longer feel quite as alone.

But the book is not easy going in some places (unless you are skilled in reading Graeco-Roman philosophy/history). Someone suggested to me this reading plan: " Read chap 1, then 18, then skip 2-3 (or even 2-5), read the rest (feel free to skip around) and come back to the early ones last. They are important context setting, but a bit tough".

But where to from here? The book does not offer easy solutions. (As a former Australian Prime Minister said: "Life wasn't meant to be easy" ;-) By the way, I admired the author's transparency/willingness to be vulnerable. I think that adds to the book. A book read by humans - a book written by a human.

Mark Strom has written a critique of much current evangelical practice. He outlines the world Paul operated in, a world where elitism and abstraction ruled, he then shows how the apostle Paul challenged this world. His critique is that, ironically, much contemporary evangelical practice more closely resembles the world Paul was challenging than Paul himself. A challenge worth sitting up and listening to.

A daring book has appeared at a precipitous moment in history. Mark Strom's Reframing Paul rushes to the rescue of modern churches hopelessly lost in a postmodern world. With rare exception, that's every church! We are still trying to see that the baggage dragging us down is our own culture-a culture more dependent on the classical tradition than on the Judeo-Christian. Whenever religion gets too close to culture, tragic ignorance prevails. With breathtaking clarity, Mark Strom reveals this cultural blindness to Paul's true message. Reframing Paul is a beacon of hope for the future.

Though thought-provoking at times, this exchange ultimately falls flat on the unwillingness (which many will interpret as inability) of the liberals to give more than a cursory, self-satisfied justification of their views. One would assume from their half-hearted effort that the liberals have no "facts" to back themselves up, but that is not my understanding of their position. The few factual arguments they did raise were ruthlessly shot down by Craig. And they barely tried refuting Craig's own factual assertions, so Craig could only point out their omissions and could not develop the debate any further.

There are some illuminating thoughts here, especially from the responses and Craig's concluding reflections -- thus, three stars. But those looking for "meat" should look elsewhere. I liken this book to an "all-star game" -- neat concept, but not to be taken too seriously.

One concluding note: even to this "conservative" reader Buckley's partisan "mediating" was inappropriate and distracting. His smug comments about Jesus making Crossan disappear "in a puff of smoke" and his attack-dog questioning of Crossan made the "debate" look like a 2-on-1 mugging. Craig would have done just fine by himself.

As a conservative (not fundamentalist), I found this book to give good insight into the beliefs of extreme liberals. I can't say I didn't have misconceptions. SO in that aspect I found the debate extremely helpful.

The major problem with this book is the liberals themselves. William Lane Craig and Claig Blomberg simply destroy the liberals in terms of arguments put forth. That is the problem -- the liberals do a good job of expressing their views and beliefs, but they spend a very minimal amount of time actually putting forth arguments for their beliefs. Here is a brief summary of the book:

William Craig's opening statement -- Bill does his standard debate arguments. Solid foundation, yet still quite simplistic. A good opening for the conservatives.

John Crossan's Opening -- He talks about his perspectives a lot, but put forth's almost no factual data.

William's response -- Craig criticizes Crossan's metaphorical interpretation a bit, and goes over his original arguments in a bit more detail.

Crossan's response -- Again, Crossan puts forth little new empirical facts and claims. Disapointing.

Discussion -- They talk a bit. The moderator is too biased...he is a conservative and shows it.

Closing statements -- Craig criticizes some points that Crossan put forth in the chat; Crossan gives no actual data.

Robert Millet's essay -- Robert gives good insight into that apologetics are usually designed for the people they represent (i.e. Christian apologists impress Christians much more than athiests). He also attempts to criticize the account of people raising from the dead in Matthew. The fatal flaw is that it's fine that Millet isn't convinced but WHY DIDN'T HE THEN RESPOND TO WILLIAM'S ARGUMENTS IF THEY WERE SO UNIMPRESSIVE!?

Craig Blomberg's essay -- Craig reviews the debate. Craig is suprisingly critical of William, but since Will won the debate so much it is still evident (in the essay and debate) that Will won.

Borg's essay -- Borg gives great insight into his belief's, and it was very interesting, but puts forth little data.

Witherington's essay -- Withington demonstrates using the Bible that the Bible does show that the resurrection was not metaphorical, but instead literal. The problem is, is that the Jesus Seminar rejects most of the Bible so it is irrelevant.

Closing -- Crossan again puts forth little data but talks about his beliefs. William does his standard good job of puting forth evidence.

----------- This book was very interesting and worth a reading, though the liberals put forth very disapointing arguments. Conservatives win. Woorah.

This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.
Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.
The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous.
The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.

I was excited to get this book - when it arrived, I liked it immediately. It is handsomely bound, with a beautiful glossy cover, in a comfortable size and weight, and with a very user-friendly typeface.

I've been searching for a good, modern, doctrinally neutral history of the Bible text from ancient manuscripts to compilation/recension to modern translation, and thought I might have finally found it. But I was mistaken.

After four chapters worth of heavy-handed doctrinal polemics, I decided to close the book and look elsewhere. I want a research thesis, not a Sunday School theology lesson! The author seems unable to set aside his desire to promote his own pet theological bias (and to denegrate all others), and just focus on the objective history of the Bible text. Which is fine for a church lesson-book, but inappropriate in a scholarly treatise in layman's language.

I bought the book based on the strength of several of the reviews I read here on amazon's site, as well as the praise from the back cover, all from sources I respect. But I just couldn't go with the crowd on this one, I have to call it as I see it. A real disappointment.

I got much more benefit from OUR AGELESS BIBLE by Thomas Leishman and THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT by Edgar Goodspeed, both of which are basic introductory texts, but unfortunately out-of-print.

A handsome book! 462 pages in a smyth-sewn hardcover for under [price], the paper is not however, certified ANSI acid-free stock.

Wegner does a fine job of introducing the average Christian to the sources of their English Bibles. It is clearly written and professionally laid out (despite some lingering software/printing errors). It has numerous images and charts, many of important persons (Westcott, Gerrit Verkuyl et cetera) and of numerous Biblical manuscripts (many from the Van Kampen collection in Florida). The book is a fine work for use in a classroom situation as well as private learning. It also serves as a quick general reference text for data related to the text and editions of the English Bibles.

My only complaint is that Wegner is biased towards the text as found in Egypt, as seen in his discussion of the KJV debate beginning on pages 337 ff.. His language downgrades the Byzantine text-type, which is too bad. He does admit that just because the Egyptian text-type has been discovered, and is dated as the earliest text or manuscripts -- does not automatically mean that it/they must therefore be the most accurate, but he unfortunately does not abide by his observation! He laments that no early copies of a Byzantine text has yet been found (yet papyri P46, P66 and many other MSS found in Egypt do DISPLAY Byzantine readings) [or, more technically - Antiochian readings]. He is a good writer, but he should have withheld his uninformed judgment here! Also he seems to be unaware of the many errors lying in the apparatuses of the Nestle/Aland and UBS Greek New Testament text editions!

A fine book, useful and well worth the price. Be sure to purchase the corrected edition -- on the publication data page it will say -- "Corrected printing, December 2000", in which many images and layouts are corrected. Some still remain, yet a small hinderance they be. ...

Nicely written, with excellent illustrations, sidebars, charts, &c., this book will guide complete novices into a better understanding of where their favourite English version(s) came from. Technical subjects (for example, textual criticism) are handled simply, but not simpistically. Wengert most successfully realizes his goal--to "enable those in the church to determine the validity of charges leveled against modern versions, as well as to instill an appreciation of the difficulties of producing new translations of the Bible" (p. 17).

This book is an argument for the proposition that Jesus Christ did not exist as a man and that the tradition of his life was made up. The argument in the book is a reasonably familiar one and has been advanced by other sceptics. Basically there is very little historical evidence for the existence of Christ. Mentions of him by contemporary authors are both ambiguous and probably forgeries. The Gospels themselves are probably written about a hundred years after his death.

Cutner suggests that the creator of Christianity is Paul. His letters are the first surviving material to suggest the existence of Christ. Paul of course never met Christ but had visions of him. Cutner suggests that the construction of the Christian myth has been based on religious concepts that were current at the time. Krishna, Dionysius, Krishna and Osiris all had similar careers. That is being divine personages, born as men, killed and then risen from the dead. The story of Christ seems derived from these similar legends. Cutner does not explain the mechanics of the process he just suggests that it is the overwhelming likelihood.

The structure of the book is to look at the evidence for Christ in the ancient authors and in the bible. The material and approach is similar to another book The Christ by Remsberg. Of the two, Remsbergs book is probably better written and is a much clearer exposition of the theory. This book however has a chapter looking at Jewish sources and it also has a chapter dealing with the response to the Myth theory of Jesus.

The book is not bad but it appears to have been written some time ago. The forward of this version suggests a publication date of 2000 but the style suggests that it is much older. I preferred Remsberg. Still this is interesting for its greater discussion of the Jewish material.

In 1950, mythicist Herb Cutner published his excellent work, "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?," which not only explores the mythical nature of Jesus Christ but also provides a rare and much-needed summarization of the debate between mythicists and historicizers over the past few centuries. Contrary to popular belief, the idea that Jesus Christ is a mythical character is not new: In fact, the questioning and doubting of the gospel tale started at the beginning of the Christian era and has been continued by thousands, if not millions, since then. The historicization and carnalization of the Christ character was fought by the Docetic Gnostics, and the disbelief was addressed by early orthodox Christians as well, including the writers of the canonical epistles of John. Indeed, 1 John 4 condemns as "antichrists" those "spirits" who do not confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," as does 2 John 7. Many, says 2 John, have contested the historicity of Jesus Christ, even by his day.

The writings of early Christians also verify that Christ was perceived by the Pagans as a typical sun god, an idea that came to fruition in the works of French scholar Charles Dupuis at the end of the 18th century, when he wrote his multivolume "Origine de tous les cultes." Dupuis was followed by Count Volney, another brilliant French mythicist, and the floodgates opened, with the German School of biblical criticism kicking into full gear, the Dutch throwing their hats into the arena, and the British making a tremendous impact that is likely responsible for the extremely low rate of church attendance in Britain today. Particularly notable among the British were Godfrey Higgins, Rev. Robert Taylor, Gerald Massey and JM Robertson, although Higgins was apparently a "sincere Christian" and not a mythicist in the strictest sense of the word. The German school culminated in the excellent works of Arthur Drews, while the French also produced Couchoud and Dujardin. The mythicists made such inroads that by the end of the 19th century the Right Reverend JP Lundy acknowledged the bulk of their arguments as truthful - up to the point where they claimed Christ to be a myth. Lundy was not at all alone in his acknowledgement of the Pagan origins of Christianity; indeed, some decades later Christian apologist Sir Arthur Weigall composed his work "The Paganism in Our Christianity," in which he repeatedly admitted the unoriginality of the Christian fable but declared nevertheless that Christ's Passion, at least, really did happen and was a miracle.

In his remarkable book, Cutner not only provides an abstract of the debate to his day but also establishes - or reestablishes - a number of the most important contentions and facts exposed by mythicists and other Bible critics, including the fact that the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, appear nowhere in the historical/literary record until the end of the second century, despite the claims and wishful thinking of Christian proponents, many of whom, unbelievably, still maintain that these gospels were written by the apostles/disciples themselves and are "eyewitness accounts." These apologist assertions are simply wrong, as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the centuries by the ablest of scholars and scientists, many of whom were Christians.

It has always mystified believers and assorted other historicizers that the story of Jesus Christ appears in no contemporary historical record. Of at least 40 writers of the first several decades of the Christian era, including philosophers and historians, not one mentions Christ, Christians or Christianity. With such a suspicious development concerning a man who "supposedly shook up the world," apologists have been forced to resort to a few pitiful and inadequate "references" in non-Christian sources dating to decades later. Cutner provides an astute analysis of the purported references to Jesus in secular literature, including supposed Jewish "testimony" such as the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Talmud. In the first place, the authors of these texts are not witnesses at all, having lived many decades to centuries after the supposed advent of Christ. Secondly, it is evident that (non-Christian) Jews of the second century had no clue as to any "historical" Jesus.

Having established that there is no evidence of a "historical Jesus," Cutner proceeds to the Christian mythology at the center of the debate, reiterating the solar-mythos thesis, with its virgin birth and so many other motifs found within Christianity. Regarding astrology or astrotheology and biblical stories and rituals, Cutner remarks:

"...Nearly all the solar deities had a Virgin for a mother... The birthday of Jesus, like that of Mithra and other solar gods, was about December 25, and his twelve Apostles certainly correspond to the twelve signs of the Zodiac. When Jesus (who was the Sun of Righteousness) was 'crucified,' the Sun naturally died; it was eclipsed. And of course, Jesus rose with the Sun on the day of the Sun. It would have been out of the question for him to rise on any other day - say on Moon-day. 'Every detail of the Sun Myth,' says R.A. Proctor, the famous writer on astronomy, 'is worked into the record of the Galilean teacher.' It could hardly have been otherwise." (144)

Cutner ends his book with a further discussion of the history of the debate between historicizers and mythicists, a very necessary and revealing synopsis. He details the arguments on both sides, including further responses to various claims by proponents and opponents as the controversy progressed over the decades and centuries. It is important to note that the arguments put forth today against the mythicist perspective are the same as those used in the past, even though they have been thoroughly addressed and refuted many times. "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?" is a valuable work which handily shows that the subject has been hotly contested behind the scenes and over the heads of the masses, who are almost completely unaware of its existence, to the point where mythicists today are considered oddities who seemingly pop up out of nowhere, a false impression, to say the least.

Acharya S, author "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" and "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled."

Professor Horsley has repeatedly offered us books impeccably researched and annotated in great detail. Yet despite the promise of those works, Horsley has too often hidden his gifts behind an impenetrable wall of technicalities and minutia. In his attempts to demonstrate his intelligence, Horsley has sometimes made his writing obtuse and inaccessible to the average reader.

This, however, is not one of his failures. Here Horsley finally gets it right. Here Horsley fulfills the promise of his other works.

Examining the politics, sociology, psychology and religion of the renewal movements founded by John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul of Tarsus, Horsley and Silberman weave an exhilarating narrative that exposes the historical roots of Christianity. Thoroughly comprehendible by the lay reader, without sacrificing scholarship, this book demonstrates that the authors can strike an appropriate balance between academia and popular reading.

Harsley and Silberman provide a social and economic setting of the time of Jesus and Paul (10 BCE - 70 CE) and the "Jesus Movement". Without addressing the religious truth of Christianity, they describe its social context and the impact it had on Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean.

The authors draw on recent archaeological finds to present a picture of life during this time. Along with the Bible and writings of Josephus, they use non-canonical early Christian writings, and Roman documents and inscriptions.

Bibliographical Notes in addition to the Bibliography make it easy to refer to more original sources in topics of interest.

The book is somehat hard to read, visually. This edition uses a very light serif font, and the paragraphs are rather long. Some familiarity with Biblical accounts of Jesus and Paul would be helpful for the reader.

Not for the casual reader or those unfamiliar with historical-critical method, this collection of essays provides remarkable insight into the most recent work in Pauline exegesis. Unfortunately, like some of Professor Horsley's other texts, this book is sufficiently techinical so as to effectively limit itself to the academic community. Once again, Horsley has failed to reach the masses.

In Paul And Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, Richard Horsley has assembled an impressive collection of contributors arguing against the traditional thinking of the past and dealing in original and provocative fashions with several interrelated issues running through Paul's letters and their subsequent interpretation within the context of Christian history. These issues include Paul and the politics of interpretation; Paul and the politics of the Roman Empire; Paul and the politics of Israel (with reference to the relations of Jews and Gentiles); Paul and the politics of churches)with respect to relations of men and women, slaves and freemen). Very highly recommended for personal and academic Christian history and theology reference collections and reading lists, Paul And Politics is a seminal and scholarly work that will prove an admirable springboard for group study and seminar discussions.

This compilation of essays on Paul and his theology, especially as it was influenced by his Damascus road experience, is well done, covers all the important issues in Pauline theology (eschatology, christology, ethics, law, women, spirit), and includes contributions from an impressive lineup of evangelical heavyweights.

Notable are the chapters by I. H. Marshall (eschatology), James Dunn (justification), Stephen Westerholm (law), Seyoon Kim (reconciliation), Gordon Fee (spirit), and Judith Gundry-Volf (women).

This collection would serve adequately as an introduction to Pauline theology.

The conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus has captured the imagination of many artists and writers down through the centuries. Indeed, the idea of a `Damascus road experience' has become part of the English language. However, it has also been the source of much scholarly debate and critique from an historical, sociological or psychological perspective (witness Krister Stendahl's 1963 essay `The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West'). This book is designed to examine the biblical material and ascertain the impact his experience might have had on Paul's understanding of Christology, Eschatology, his Gentile Mission, Justification, Reconciliation, Covenant Theology, the Mosaic Law, the Holy Spirit, Women and Ethics. On the whole the authors do a good job (although I cannot agree with Donaldson's views of Paul's Gentile Mission, which work so hard to avoid the idea that Paul was given the mission by Christ at conversion that he misses the mark altogether). The material is well thought through and, despite some of the technical sounding titles, the language is clear and understandable. Seyoon Kim on Reconciliation and Gordon Fee on the Holy Spirit were particularly thought provoking. This book is well worth a read by pastors, theological students or educated lay people who want to think about the impact that the scriptural record of Paul's conversion has had upon their understanding of the Christian faith.

This book is pretty interesting, and I learned a lot about Satanism and all that. Check out this book if your interested in reading it. It was worth it to me.

I was pretty disappointed with this book, because I was expecting a thorough investigation of Paul's Pharasaism, use of rabbinic exegesis, keeping of the law, etc.

Instead, Young spends most of his time simply asserting that Paul was a Jew and remained a Torah-observant Jew his whole life. There is hardly any attempt at establishing an exegetical foundation. He does not look in any detail at Phil 3, Rom 9-11, or any of the other obviously important texts.

This is such a fertile area in scholarship right now that Young's book truly pales in comparison with the work currently being done by others, not to mention even the previous contributions of Davies and Sanders, etc.

Dr. Young has a generally interested premise. One which is important and obviously must be considered when dealing with Pauline literature - namely that Paul always, to his dying day, considered himself a Pharisee and identified his theology with that of the Pharisees.

The major downfalls are twofold. The first problem is that he doesn't have a lot of interaction with contemporary scholarship. I realize that among Messianic Jews, or even gentile Christians interested in Jewish roots, Bultman is a menace. It doesn't follow that we throw out the research and scholarship of more liberal schools, rather we should interact with them. ... Regardless, of the positioning of his opponents, the only area in his book that he even attempts to interact with other scholars is in the end notes. Kind of leaves a dry taste in you mouth.

The second problem is the lack of discussion of problem texts. Young interacts with Matt. 5:17 (which isn't even Pauline, the subject of the book) acceptably, and has some interesting points on occurances in Acts, but leaves out discussing problem texts in Galatians, Colossians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians.

Dr. Young's thesis is by no means original, so it would have been nice if he had made some contributions to the discussion, but the book was generally just restating the same arguments that have always been presented from the Jewish roots supporters. In the future I'd like to see Dr. Young write a more technical book such as other Jewish roots scholars are doing (alla Nanos) and actually make contributions to the discussion instead of restating the same ol' arguments.

All of Dr. Young's books are wonderful, and great for reading as well as for in-depth Bible study groups. This book is more then interesting, its a must read! Too long has the Church looked with "Greek eyes" at "Jewish things." Dr. Young teaches that the allegorical interpretations of the parables of Yeshua (Jesus) as taught by early Church fathers are far from the Roots System, Judaism. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, His means of teaching was indeed Hebraic, and not Greek as so many believe it to be. When He returns, He will still be Jewish, Dr. Young's books all point to this fact. We at Mayim Hayim Ministries rate this book 5 stars, and our prayer would be that it would be read by many many more pastors and teachers. Great book for home schooling.

Paul W. Roberts has written a thoroughly engaging book about the Magi's quest for the infant Jesus. The ill tempered Iranian guide was all too real. Having actually traveled this route myself, I have to say Roberts has captured the mood and atmosphere very accurately. The other book that I recently read which also captured the accuracy of this time and place is the wonderful and controversial "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these books evoke a forgotten and magical route. If your taste is present commentary on historic times, your choice should be "In the search of Jesus". If you want a riveting and original account of the man, choose "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years". For the best of all worlds, buy both these remarkable books.

Just finished "In Search of the Birth of Jesus". I'm a layman with a casual interest in the subject, and I was intrigued by the book. Paul is an excellent writer, but boy oh boy, his editor didn't help any. Major shortcomings: the book desperately needs a map, or maps, showing Paul's route (deduct 1 mark); also, how about a bibliography or list of references, 'cause Paul quotes numerous sources (deduct 1/2 mark); and pictures-you know, a picture's worth a thousand words, and in spite of Paul's admirable descriptive passages, hey, it's the 20th century, soon to be the 21st (deduct 1/2 mark); and finally, a glossary would have been useful, e.g., some background on Zoroaster, and the myriad of other historical figures mentioned throughout the book. So much for constructive criticism. So what's good about the book? Paul's a good story teller, and has done his research. For the amateur religious historian there is lots of new perspective provided on old questions. As a travelogue there are many amusing passages, as well as interesting revelations, particularly about Iran. A good read in spite of the book's shortcomings.

Paul W. Roberts has written a thoroughly engaging book about the Magi's quest for the infant Jesus. The ill tempered Iranian guide was all too real. Having actually traveled this route myself, I have to say Roberts has captured the mood and atmosphere very accurately. The other book that I recently read which also captured the accuracy of this time and place is the wonderful and controversial "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these books evoke a forgotten and magical route. If your taste is present commentary on historic times, your choice should be "In the search of Jesus". If you want a riveting and original account of the man, choose "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years". For the best of all worlds, buy both these remarkable books.