Jean Cardinal Daniélou (1905-74), the great patristic scholar and theologian, wrote about Paul’s understanding of Jesus in Christ and Us (Sheed & Ward, 1961). He argued that "it was completely pointless to insist on the human details of the life of Jesus; first, because they were not questioned in Paul’s circle, and second, because they were not what mattered most."

So, if Paul had mentioned those details, would that now be regarded as an anomaly? Would orthodox scholars be scratching their heads and asking, "Why in the world would Paul have brought up those pointless human details?"

That's certainly poisoning the well, isn't it. With an intro like that can one expect an impartial critique? A quick read confirms the negative. Why do people present such facile false dichotomies? If Paul had a revelation—whatever that might have been in reality—about Jesus, why must the gospel that came from it have been "a shameless, self-serving ruse" and not logically consequent to his understandings of the problem of sin and the need for redemption?

You can't run a race if you trip at the first hurdle.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism

He has become an outspoken defender of the Faith. I wonder if he regrets now the anti-Christian books he wrote that will continue to circulate.