Clearly I forced myself to read this book. I usually read the writings contrary to my ideas, and I do agree partially, but then I really had to work on myself to finish it.
I summarize in one sentence, and then I go into details: Paul is right, the other wrong, and Constantine is a usurper.
Why do I say that? Just because a historian:
- Three-quarters of his quotes from the Gospels and the remaining quarter comes from some close writings, following the same intellectual tendency of the author,
- Which carefully avoids any questioning the veracity of the author of the writings of the Gospels and Epistles (and yet there: the Q document, the rewrites, the will to change the facts, discussions on the recognition of Paul's epistles to quote the main problems)
- Which sweeps a backhand push misogyny of Paul, saying that this passage was written by someone other than Paul WITHOUT EVEN further reflection on the problems that arise in the argument of the author,
- Which sets out hypothetical facts and list only part of the set of possible interpretations: when the author presents a doubt, it issues only one subtext that is hers and that settles it for the rest of the book,
- Who does not bother to explain some passages that are not evident to understand (the location of some cities, explanations of local customs etc.).
I think this is not a historical work. I clearly felt that this book has as the only interest to be reassured that Paul is right and others are wrong.
If you want to push your thinking and have a more rigorous approach, I invite you to read this book because it will bring you all the intellectual bricks to understand early Christianity: Jacques, brother of Jesus
Also, the Arte documentary that will bring you many different opinions and rewarding well as anti-Pauline pattern emerges:
- The origin of Christianity: 4 DVD box set
- The Apocalypse: 4 DVD box set
With these three works, you will know much more than what brings this book.
