Sounds tin-eared to me …

… Too Original | Commonweal Magazine. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

Reading further through Ruden’s lengthy introduction, I became increasingly uneasy about her claim to “straightforwardness.” She starts by providing a characterization of each Gospel that is, in the main, unexceptionable, if not always accurate. She gives no indication, for example, that the Gospel of Luke is (with the Acts of the Apostles) part of a two-volume composition, and she thinks that this most non-docetic narrative was influenced by Gnosticism. She similarly states that the Gospel of John has the “strongest links to Gnosticism,” a view that few if any scholars after the time of Bultmann would maintain. Unless Ruden has access to evidence unavailable to the general run of competent New Testament scholars, one would have to declare these statements simply erroneous.8