More Jim West comments
Jim has continued to review Why Christianity Happened and has summarised it very fairly. Interestingly there is not much conflict, even though some might (I don't know, actually) think we'd be poles apart on his bringing in the role of God. I wouldn't actually make a judgement on the divine when discussing issues like conversion but I bracket the divine out of the equation because it is beyond what I can possibly do given my academic worldview: the divine is beyond proof in such matters. But then, and Jim can correct me if I am wrong, Jim (and his Protestant tradition?) would agree with that in terms of historical enquiry but not in terms of a faith based worldview. I'm thinking out loud (or whatever the blog equivalent is) here but I think the reason why Jim can critically engage with a lot of scholarship that many have a problem with, e.g. Luedemann and the so-called minimalists, is because of his kind of neo-Bultmann-ism, where faith does not really (or cannot? - my theological learning is fading too fast...) rely on history. Am I right?
UPDATE: see Jim's comments on 'Paleo-Zwinglianism'