Customer Reviews

Can We Trust the New Testament?: Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Knowledgeably written by G. A. Wells (Emeritus Professor of German, University of London), Can We Trust The New Testament? Thoughts On The Reliability Of Early Christian Testimony is a meticulous exploration of whether the testimony that traces back to the origin of Christianity is truly reliable. Examining the sharply antagonistic sects that divided early Christianity from its very beginnings, and using the power of logic to evenhandedly evaluate the New Testament, Can We Trust The New Testament? is a skeptical, scholarly, and recommended for Biblical Studies collections and reading lists for it's practicality and for the intellectual necessity of pointing out what few other references to Biblical times do with respect to the reliability of these basic formative texts that have shaped the Christian movement from the first century A.D. down to the present day.

I had a difficult time reading this book. I'd characterize the writing style as "choppy": it doesn't flow. All in all reading it made me dizzy. I'd suggest reading the exceptionally clear Robert M. Price (e.g. Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?) instead.

This book is worth owning. While Wells is not employed as a religious apologist, nor does he use his scholarship as a launch pad for religious ax grinding. He is indeed a competent scholar and Professor in his field, and his more than 40 years of rigorous study of Christian origins, theology, and New Testament makes him an authoritative voice urging reason and rationality regarding the question of whether the NT canonical Gospel stories can be trusted as nominally historical. Taking note of the vast chasm in meaning between the preexistent cosmic Christ Jesus being of pure consciousness that somehow became a man in an unspecified time, place, and setting imagined by Paul versus the schizophrenically diverse redactional impressions of late first/early second century Hellenistic Jesus cults, Wells clearly identifies the facts that prove fatal to assigning trust to the NT as history. The silence of the genuine Pauline epistles of any detail of the Gospel Jesus stand with the equally resounding silence of the deutro-Paulines, the general epistles including those of Peter, James, John, Jude as well as that of the anonymous letter to the Hebrews. However, the canonical but pseudepigraphical forgeries, 1st, 2nd Timothy, and Titus, followed by the writings of Ignatius and 1st Clement (regardless of whoever actually did pen them) do show traces of the Gospel stories indicating a time span wherein the details of Gospel Jesus were propagated subsequent to Mark's invention of them. Throughout CWTTNT, Wells refers the reader to supporting arguments in his other books while deconstructing and demonstrating falsification of counter arguments offered by various religious scholars or apologists. Professor Wells also points out the misgivings of many Christian scholars regarding the complete dearth of evidence for historicity of the Gospel Jesus. This short book does answer the question titling it with an unqualified no. The faulty argument of other reviewers notwithstanding.

Professor Wells here again seeks - as in a series of earlier books - to defend his highly idiosyncratic views about the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. His position has shifted slightly over the years, in that he no longer truly belongs to the Christ-myth school of sceptics about the historicity of Jesus. But he still does not consider that the Jesus presented in the Gospels [assuming he has any historical basis at all, which Wells now conceeds is possible] could have any real connection with the Jesus Christ presented in the NT Epistles.

How is Wells even to begin to defend such a view? One way is to argue for a wide time difference between - on the one hand - the Pauline Epistles which he considers 'early' [i.e., before 60AD], and other NT Epistles [including Hebrews and the so-called deutero-Paulines, including Colossians and Ephesians] which he dates 'before 70' and - on the other hand - the Gospels which he thinks were all written in the 90s [though he grudgingly admits that Mark might be earlier].

Wells describes his assigning of dates to the NT documents as 'not controversial' [p.xi], though this is far from true. Certainly, most agree that the Pauline epistles were mainly written between about 49AD and 62AD [though the Pastorals, if genuine, are a few years later]. But most modern NT scholars now assign Mark to the mid to late 60s, and Luke and Matthew to the 70s [and even here, there are some who produce a good case for regarding them as even earlier].

What is the net effect of Wells' dating scheme? He seeks, not only to drive a coach and horses between the 'early' epistles and the 'late' Gospels, but also to convince us that these two periods are so distinct that we cannot even assume that they are about the same phenomenon.

NT scholars [Wells is an amateur in the field] have not been convinced by his hypothsis, which can only have the slightest chance of success if a great deal of other relevant historical considerations are conveniently ignored. He writes as if there were no historically continuous movement that runs from the time of the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus, through the events of his death and resurrection [probably in 33AD] to the founding of the Church 50 days later, to the conversion of St. Paul, probably in 36AD and the intense missionary activity in the following years, of which we learn from the Book of Acts [which Wells does his unconvincing best to paint as a late and largely fictional work] and the Pauline Epistles.

Paul, a zealous Pharisee who hated the new Christians and their message, was converted while en route on a mission from the Jerusalem High Priest [probably Jonathan, 36-37] to Damascus. He tells us in Galatians that it was three years before he returned to Jerusalem [ca.38/9]. It was probably not safe to return until after Jonathan was out of the office [to which he returned briefly in 43, and again - following a brief Sadducean interruption - in 44]. But when Paul did first return to Jerusalem, he tells us [Gal.1.18-20] he spent 15 nights staying with Cephas [Simon Peter] and also met 'James the Lord's Brother' [neither of whom, in the mind of GA Wells, had ever met Jesus - so much for all the highly inconvenient evidence to the contrary!]

So there is a direct line from Jesus and his Apostles, several of whom Paul met, to the foundation of the catholic Church, including people like Ignatius of Antioch, who became a Bishop in his early 30s, probably in 67AD, the very year Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Ignatius has left us a series of very important letter written during his journey to Rome where he was martyred about 107AD. Clement of Rome, head of the Church there for most of the 90s, has also left us an important letter written within 30 years of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

All Wells can do to support his tenuous case is ignore or downplay the mass of early Patristic evidence with which he has made no really serious engagement. Papias of Hierapolis, fragments of whose works are preserved by Eusebius, has long been a target of GA Wells, who relies on the more sceptical German scholarship of a generation or two ago to dismiss as 'worthless'. But Papias is actually a very important witness, as Richard Bauckham - among others - has demonstrated in his massive study 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' and his other writings.

Sadly, Wells offers us only second- and third hand scholarship, all selectively garnered from those who can be used to lend support to his theories, and all filtered through his own rationalist prejudices. His work is best seen as a contribution to 'counter-apologetics': it tells us nothing new, and nothing which even helps to make sense of the NT and early Christianity. He has allowed his prior beliefs to determine his conclusions, and he offers us only a threadbare hypothesis which is unlikely to convince any who have a better knowledge of the subject matter than partisans who rely on assorted internet infidels.

So can we trust the New Testament? Unless we come to it with the mindset of a blinkered fundamentalist thinking that it must either be absolutely true or completely worthless, then the answer is: Yes, we certainly can!
But we need to undertand it in its historical, social, and theological context. Perhaps more than any other ancient document, it does not reveal its treasures all at once, and certainly not to those who come to it only determined to engage in debunking. There are plenty of good books to guide the reader in this quest: Wells' is not one of them.