Anmeldelse af Colleen Shantz, Paul in Ecstacy

Nemledelse af Shanz, Paul in Ecstasy (Cambridge University Press 2009). Boegns anliggende vurderes positivt mht. dens fokus på 'religiøs efaring', på Paulus' mentale operationer og hans brug af 'body language'. Skepsis er tilrådelig over for at udtale sig om bestemte former for trance hos Paulus eller for forsøg på at korrelere mellem forskellige typer trance, samfundstyper og sociale funktione

Paulus retro?

The article discusses claims made in a recent Danish bookentitled Paul Plus – Four Prisms on Paul: Paul & Paul, & the Jews, &Luther, & Nietzsche (ed. Anna Vind; Copenhagen: Publications of theFaculty of Theology 30, 2012). Against the contributors, who are basicallypresenting a traditional, Lutheran understanding of Paul in oppositionto the ‘New Perspective on Paul’, it is fi rst argued that not only wasPaul a Jew: he also continued to see himself as a Jew and took the newChrist faith to be an eminently Jewish phenomenon; and secondly thata number of further features of a ‘New Perspective’ on Paul (he speaksethnically about Jews and Gentiles, not about human beings vis-à-visGod; and he envisages an actual fulfi llment of the Mosaic Law amongChrist believers, not a continued state of being simultaneously ‘justifi edand a sinner’) follow directly from the fi rst basic feature

Paulus og neurobiologien

This review discussion of Colleen Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy etc. describes the main argument of the book, criticizes various details of its argumentation and concludes with a general assessment, which basically applauds the focus on ‘religious experience’ and the attempt to bring in both contemporary neuroscience and social anthropology to elucidate Paul and Pauline Christianity, but also queries whether these modern disciplines are at present sufficiently precise for it to be possible to draw any firm conclusions regarding the historical material

Om de dødes (eller i det mindste åndens) nærvær før, under og efter Jesu død ifølge Johannesevangeliet: Replik til Jesper Tang Nielsen

Replik til Jesper Tang Nielse