Customer Reviews

The Jesus Myth

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

 

 

Professor Wells has studied Christian origins since the late 1950's, his thesis, like any scientific theory, has undergone change as the weight of evidence has mounted. The Jesus Myth is a continuation of this evolution in his thinking, when combined with his other texts, no sober thinking individual can possibly claim that the Jesus, who is worshiped by hundreds of millions is anything other than an imaginary friend, as so little can be know of him. This book is outstanding, no lesser verdict can do it justice!

When it comes to books about the evidence for Jesus, authors will never be able to provide an adequate argument to convince the religious that their belief is not based on reality. You cannot overcome conditioning with just written words. G.A. Wells is more intelligent than any conditioned person whether they are lay people or employed by the church as is the "Rev." "Dr." Gregory S. Neal, Pastor of the Beverly Drive United Methodist Church whose members, combined, have the I.Q. of zero.You would think that it would be up to the claimants that Jesus was real to provide the evidence for him. But, alas, it is always up to people such as Mr Wells to do their homework. This books is as good as it gets as are Mr Wells' other efforts. Denying the truth is the church's position since if they were to come clean the church would dissolve and the pope and all of his minions would have to find other lines of work, aside from molesting children.whatever you do for yourself, do not be misled into thinking that religion is based on truth, it is far from it. Besides, what are humans achieving by believing in something that was created by man to fool and control humans?When you read reviews about Mr Wells' books you are either going to accept what he writes because you are intelligent and can tell truth from fiction or you are going to dismiss truth in favor of fiction. When you dismiss the truth, you are no better than those who sell religion to the gullible. Are you gullible? I'm not. Thank you Mr Wells.

For readers interested in the story behind one of the most influential religious figures this book is a must. Wells neatly presents all factual "evidence" of a historical Jesus and discusses it throroughly adhering to strict scholarly rules. Although I was aware the historicity of the Jesus figure had been subject of some controversy before starting this book, I was completely surprised to learn how little -if any- factual evidence actually supports the historical Jesus hypothesis. It all boils down to two meager mentions in a text by a Jewish historian (Josephus) and even those are subject to considerable debate amongst respected scholars of the field. Needless to say that the apparent deafening silence regarding Jesus in historical sources outside of the christians texts came as quite a surprise to me (This for me is very hard to grasp given the dramatic events surrounding the life of such a significant figure). I would recommend this book to anybody (religious or not) interested in the subject of Jesus because it provides the necessary balance in order to come to a well informed opinion regarding christianity.

For me, books of this kind have become more and more something of a mixed blessing. I look at the net result: First, in his books before this one, (I read them all) Mr. Wells had maintained that Jesus was an utter myth, on a same footing with Wilhelm Tell, the supposed to be founding father of an entire nation. Latter day tourists can visit now all the sites and even have a look at the church register - but sorry folks: the whole thing is just a hoax. Well, on second thoughts, Wilhelm Tell's story is most definitely fiction - but what about the people who swore an oath of independence on the "Rutli"? After all Switzerland is real, it gained its independence through war, and most of the time remained independent ever since. Would an acknowledgment that the founding story is just a tall tale, change this fact?

Now, Mr. Wells has changed his position on Jesus (not on Tell, poor bloke,) and he gives us a guy slouching along on bast sandals somewhere, sometime, in the historical limbo and quite separated from his story that took on a life of its own Ð the gospels. Does this really make any noticeable difference, say, to Mr. Doherty's position? (see my review on "The Jesus Puzzle.") You tell me. As was to be expected from him, Mr. Wells has put into it an immense amount of hours in the library. I used to like Wells. His books are well written and make good compendia to quickly find a reference, but they can't substitute for going to the sources yourself, if you wish to form an educated opinion of your own. This would require time, inclination, and training, and last, but certainly not least, the leisure and means to follow your interests. It also requires a modicum of intellectual integrity and honesty - can I live with myself on received authority alone, or will I take pains to do my own share of work and research? Is the methodology of my enquiries up to scientific standards? Do I have the time to care?

Mr. Wells follows the common practice of theological debates and presents his case in a barrage of quotes and cross-references in the footnotes. I wonder what this can do to us common blokes and lasses who are busy with building bridges or raising children as a single parent. I can't see us very likely to go through the tedium of finding out what makes a "son of men" different from a 'messiah,' or a 'Christ;' and if you come home from your second job at the check-out counter in Publix, the subtleties of addressing God either as Jahwe, Elohim, or Adonai will be completely lost on you, because back home you are so darn tired that you could cry in your sleep.

At the bottom-line everything depends on criteria which have absolutely nothing to do at all with biblical scholarship. In the cause for Christianity, it comes down to just one thing: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." The facts as presented by two millennia of Christian history, should speak for themselves. Had the assailant who had knifed a mother at the entrance to an abortion clinic, suffered from a lack of scholarship? I don't think so. He followed Lk 19:27 to the letter: "... those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Over the last two millennia this is probably the least quoted and most practised line of the entire New Testament. (And no I did not quote out of context: especially in this instant the context does absolutely nothing to salvage the tenor of this message and anyway it corresponds well with Mt 10:34-37, Lk 12:49-53, and parallels.)

In fact it corresponds well with entire sections, especially the fundamentalist's favorite read: "Revelations." Repeatedly we read the invocation that the Lord should come real soon and make an end to this world right now. Pagan critics of the second and third century had a reason to accuse Christians of hating the world and all mankind. I think they got it right. Anybody, capable to read the New Testament with his brains on full alert, will find in it the usual hate message of hysterically religious but very common fanatics - with "love" and "charity" as the candy wrapper. I don't see Mr. Wells addressing this issue properly when he, no doubt in the best traditions of polite enlightenment, tries to debunk the message, by establishing its roots in "mere" myth. What do we care about myth, as long as it is scripture? The real issue here is whether we can afford to let faith rule over our own better judgement. But perhaps there is no better judgement in the first place, and faith fills a moral vacuum? That would be scary! The fact that the physical and mental health of us infidels is safe only because of Christian laxness and ignorance of the finer points in the professed faith, is truly unsettling. In a world where glass-teat and church are the only available alternative to illegal substance abuse, there is a very good chance that this may change real soon, and I don't see that Mr. Well's book should come across as an effective deterrent.

So who will read this book? Well those who have always read Mr. Wells' previous books, and they don't need to be convinced. If you are one of them, you won't get a ripping good read, but good honest research and a reliable index to secondary opinions on primary sources, collected and presented in Mr. Wells' characteristically lucid style.

It was a good read, well-written. However, it really didn't introduce anything new to the subject area than what has been rehashed over the past 20 or 30 years.

This book is by G.A. Wells [1926- ], an emeritus professor of German at the University of London and a long-time 'rationalist'.

I was once an associate of GA Wells, who thanks me on page xi for 'helpful comments on the manuscript of this book'; but it is now obvious to me - as it should have been all along - that this is a thoroughly unreliable and tendentious work. Space permits me to dwell on only one example in detail. Wells admits, on page 79 that "It is important to my purpose to argue the case for a late dating for the Pastorals [1 and 2 Timothy and Titus] and so for regarding the linking of Jesus with Pilate as a definitely post-Pauline development in Christology." [Edit, 9.1.09: Even if there were a strong case for a later dating of the Pastorals, that in itself would not justify "regarding the linking of Jesus with Pilate as a definitely post-Pauline development in Christology."]

Why is it important? Because Wells wishes us to think that Paul knew almost nothing about the historical Jesus, and to have imagined that he had lived, unknown, in a different century! That is thoroughly bizarre, and needs to sink in to the brain of any reader who may be tempted to follow Wells further. But in 1 Timothy 6.13, Paul refers to Jesus making 'the good confession' before Pontius Pilate. If this really is Paul speaking, than Wells' whole thesis is blown out of the water, as he has himself acknowledged. So what confidence can we place in Wells' arguments against Pauline authorship? He purports to offer twelve reasons for rejecting their authenticity, though in fact he provides only ten. These I shall summarise, with brief comments on each.

1. The question of the earliest citations of these works by other authors.
2. The paucity of early manuscripts containing the Pastorals
3. Paul's status as an authority among his readers
4. The alleged lateness of the heresy being argued against in them
5. The non-confrontational nature here of Paul's opposition to heresy
6. Their alleged `banality'
7. Their differences in verbal usage compared to earlier epistles
8. A shift in the teaching on predestination
9. Their lack of reference to the Crucifixion
10. Their more advanced ecclesiology

I will deal with these ten objections in order:

1. It is arguable, though not certain, that the Pastorals are quoted or cited by both Ignatius and Polycarp, both of whom were writing in the first two decades of the second century. A stronger case can be made for Justin Martyr (ca. 150AD) knowing them. There is no space here to outline the textual arguments on both sides, though it has to be recognised that Professor Wells' assertion that the Pastorals are not evidenced until late in the Second Century (he mentions Irenaeus, and presumably also has the Muratorian Canon in mind) is not uncontroversial. Even if the Pastorals were not as widely known and circulated as early as some of the other Pauline letters, there are two good possible reasons for this: (1) they were written rather later (about 65-67) than the others (ca. 51-62), and (2) whereas the other letters (with the arguable exception of Philemon) were all addressed to congregations, or groups of congregations, the Pastorals were private letters to individual friends and co-workers. Thus while we might expect that, from a very early date, the letters to congregations would have been widely read, copied and circulated between churches, those to Titus and Timothy might have been regarded by their recipients as too personal to be treated in like manner. Tradition has Titus dying, aged 95, in 107AD - so it is at least conceivable (but not, of course, necessary) that the letter to him was not released for general circulation until after his death. The same might apply to Timothy's two letters.

2. The paucity of early MS may also owe something to the considerations outlined above, though it is also the case that the great Pauline themes are more vigorously set forth in works like Romans and Galatians, which we should expect - quite apart from their earlier availability - to have a wider circulation at an earlier date. What we do know, however, is that the Pastorals were included in the earliest collection of Pauline letters of which we have any knowledge; and they were never in dispute in the early Church [as 2 Peter was, for example].

3. Paul's status as an Apostle was, early on, hotly contested among some of those who had embraced the Christian faith, as we can see in Rom.1.1; 1 Cor. 9.1; 2 Cor.11.22-31 and Gal.1.1. Thus he needed firmly to establish his Apostleship in them, and did so. There was no such need with Timothy and Titus, who had both long been his trusted co-workers and who thus fully accepted his authority, though he still states his Apostolic credentials in the first verse of each letter.

4. The alleged nature of the heresy referred to in the Pastorals, or Paul's allegedly different attitude to it, is highly conjectural. Wells says (p.81): "The real Paul [in contrast to the imposter he thinks wrote the Pastorals] was not concerned with a future generation, but expected the end to come in his lifetime." It is certainly the case that in his earliest letters, written ca. 51AD (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5.2), Paul expects the end very soon. But as time goes on, he gets less sure that he will see it; and by the time - ca. 62AD - he writes Philippians (1.21-23), he is clearly expecting to die before the Parousia. With his last letter, 2 Timothy, written ca. 67AD, shortly before his execution, he is clearly ready for death (4.6-8), having run the race and fought the good fight to the end.

5. Paul does not need to be confrontational in these letters. Some members of the congregations to which his earlier letters were addressed were clearly in danger of embracing false teachings of various sorts, creating dissent and adopting moral antinomianism. This is not a danger with Titus and Timothy, who will know well enough from their long association with Paul the sorts of difficulties they are likely to encounter, and the proper way of dealing with them. These letters are primarily instructions and personal encouragement to long-standing colleagues who have recently taken over new and onerous responsibilities as Church leaders.

6. The alleged `banality' of these letters is in the eye of the beholder. Paul had long since set out his teaching to the various churches with fervour: in personal notes to old friends he no longer needs to go over the whole of that again. Even so, there is still a lot of fundamental teaching included in these epistles. They were, indeed, among the most frequently quoted and cited Pauline epistles in the writings of church fathers in the second and third centuries.

7. This seems to me a red herring. Paul's earlier letters had been written at white heat some ten to fifteen years earlier. Now he is older [approaching 60, if the traditional birth-date of 8AD is accepted], and facing death (2Tim.4.6-8), writing to old friends, and possibly having to write in his own hand. [If an amanuensis was used, he or she is not mentioned as such, and may thus not be a co-worker in the sense that those joined with Paul in the greetings and farewells of many of the earlier letters certainly were. We must note, however, that in 2 Timothy 4.11, he says `only Luke is with me', so it is possible that Luke acted as amanuensis for this letter.] Circumstances have changed, Paul is older and wiser, and we should not expect his verbal usage to be identical to that of earlier letters. It does, however, raise the intriguing possibility that the last of the genuine Pauline Epistles was actually written after - or no more than a couple of years before - at least the earliest of the Four Gospels: not a possibility that would be likely to recommend itself to Professor Wells!

8. Is there really a shift in Paul's views about predestination? The idea that God makes vessels of honour and dishonour occurs in both Romans 9.19-29 and 2 Timothy 2.20-22. In Romans, Paul is clearly deriving his teaching from Hosea and Isaiah, so it should not be surprising if this understanding continues. Thus I do not consider that this objection has any real substance.

9. References to the Crucifixion. Whereas the crucial importance of the crucifixion had to be rammed home hard to some of those to whom the earlier epistles were addressed (e.g., 1 Cor. 1.23, 2.2; Gal 3.1, 6.14), there is no such burning need in these private letters to trusted colleagues who already understand the importance of the cross. Nevertheless, Paul is insistent in 2 Tim 4.2 that Timothy should `preach the word, [and] be urgent in season and out of season'. And what is that `word', if not the word of the Cross? Clearly, it is still utterly central for Paul.

10. The objection based on the Pastorals' alleged advanced `proto-Catholic' ecclesiology, which one finds in anti-Catholic polemicists at least from FC Baur onwards, seems to me to beg more questions than it answers. [Even Harnack, who cannot be accused of pro-Catholic bias, accepted the Pastorals as genuine; so did the Anglican divine, JB Lightfoot, the greatest Pauline scholar of his century; and so does Luke Timothy Johnson - a convert to the traditional view - in his exemplary 2001 Anchor Bible volume (reissued by Yale UP in 2008) on the two Letters to Timothy.]
Clearly with the impending departure of the generation of those most closely involved in the earliest Christian mission, structures have to be put in place to ensure the continuity of the Church in a new age. Among these, Paul stresses the importance of both Scripture (2 Tim.3.16) and Apostolic order (1Tim 5.22).

It should be clear from the above that I do not consider the objections of Wells to be substantial or cogent, and I have to question their ingenuousness on at least one point. On page 79, after mentioning 19th century and later objections to the authenticity of these letters, Wells says: `EVEN the hypothesis that some genuine Pauline fragments are included in them is now seldom entertained (emphasis added)'. The impression given is that, while once their authenticity was uncritically accepted, the time came when this could no longer be plausibly maintained, and in a rearguard action, conservative scholars tried to maintain that at least some genuine Pauline fragments were included in what Wells calls these `otherwise pseudepigraphic epistles', but that even this untenable compromise has now been almost universally abandoned.

The true situation is rather different. In spite of his long footnote 31on page 269f., Wells fails to mention PN Harrison, the main proponent and defender of the `Pauline Fragments' hypothesis, but instead mentions only those (including AT Hanson and himself) who have since given up this uncredited, and by now discredited, hypothesis. The truth is that Harrison's theory posed as a solution to a perceived `problem', and in time it became clear that it was no good: either because it was not a satisfactory solution, or because the original problem was by now recognised as a pseudo-problem. It should thus not be implied that Harrison's theory was the last vestige of a vain attempt to save at least some genuine Pauline fragments in the Pastoral Epistles: it was always a gimcrack solution to a non-problem. Nowadays, virtually all scholars correctly recognise: either that it was no solution (e.g., Margaret Davies and AT Hanson), or that there was no real problem in the first place (e.g., NT Wright and James Dunn). [P.S. Donald Guthrie's Commentary on the Pastorals - which I read only after writing this review - gives a full and balanced treatment of the evidence.]
In failing to make this clear (and indeed in implying something quite different), Wells has seriously misled his readers. The Pastoral Epistles have never lacked able, scholarly defenders of their integrity and authenticity since they were first challenged in the 19th Century. But one might not get that impression from Wells. Indeed, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that his real basis for rejecting them stems from the fact that 1Tim.6.13, if genuine, would - as he admits - undermine his whole theory.

This is a good book. It should be noted that the review here by "revtompaine" is actually by Rev. Dr. Gregory S. Neal, from Neal's article entitled, "Who is G. A. Wells", and therefore probably should not be in an amazon.com review.

As has been true with all of Wells' works in the field of the "un-Historical Jesus," the problem with this book is not so much the author's lack of standing as a Scholar in the field of New Testament Biblical Criticism as it is his utter failure to apply the standard tools and controls of the Historical-Critical field. It is this failure which has doomed Wells to abject obscurity among the REAL scholars of modern liberal Historical-Criticism. Sadly, most of his arguments are built upon a tangled web of "silence," and it is such arguments that fail the test of parsimony and leave Wells out in the cold.

For example, one of the principle claims of this book is that Paul didn't know anything about a real-life, Historical Jesus. Indeed, according to Wells, Paul cooked up Jesus out of the Jewish figure "Wisdom." Never mind the fact that, in Hebrew literature, wisdom is usually personified as a female -- known, in the Proverbs, as "Lady Wisdom" -- Wells speculates that a personified "Wisdom" is at the heart of Paul's theological proclamation. Now, as absurd as this theory sounds, the grounding for his argument that Paul didn't know anything about a real-life Jesus is equally absurd ... it is based upon Paul's near-total silence regarding the Historical Jesus. Wells asserts that, because Paul doesn't tell us anything about the life and teachings of Jesus, Paul must have been ignorant of such information. His conclusion is the grounding for much of his entire theory regarding the nonexistence of Jesus ... and, as such, is crucial in his argument. What Wells cannot obfuscate, with his elaborate theory regarding Jesus really being Lady Wisdom, is that his theory is fallacious from its foundation in Paul's supposed ignorance of the historical Jesus. Arguments that are built entirely out of silence usually are. For instance, Paul's silence can be FAR more easily and parsimoniously explained by realizing that Paul's letters are occasional literature, written in response to questions and problems that had come up in Paul's churches. As such, it was not Paul's intention to lay out the detailed content of the kerygma in the context of his letters ... that material was better presented in preaching ... and so his silence on such topics should not be construed as indicating an ignorance on such matters. Other reasons for Paul's silence have been presented, and all of them are far more reasonable than Wells' conclusion that Paul's silence = Paul's ignorance. Wells' argument from silence, in the end, comes up empty.

This should go a long way toward illustrating the problem which exists with most of Wells' theories; he takes valid observations and correct information -- in this case, the near-silence of Paul on the Historical Jesus -- and draws conclusions that are neither the only valid conclusion, nor are they even most likely ones. He does this regarding Paul's silence, as well as regarding the silence of most secular authors from the period. Indeed, even where we have historically relevant data from non-Christian sources like Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, Wells always leans toward the least likely, anti-Christian, conclusions.

The vast majority of "high-powered critical scholars," whom Wells quotes and twists in his attempts to prove his points, NEVER cite Wells nor recognize his argument as being valid. Indeed, for the most part, scholars have considered Wells' work to be the result of unbridled hyperskepticism ... hardly a balanced approach to the question of the existence of the Historical Jesus. Fundamentally, the problem with Wells is that he assumed his conclusion before he began his "search" ... and then he only searches under certain rocks, and in such a way, so as to ensure that he won't find an Historical Jesus. Wells begins with the assumption that Jesus didn't exist, and then proceeds to prove his assumption utilizing the content of critical scholarship, true, but without the controls that make critical scholarship so very sound. He has set out to prove that Jesus didn't exist, and then only accepts as valid the evidence which he can interpret to prove his point. In other words, his bias has predetermined his conclusion. Don't buy this book; it is not an example of New Testament Critical Scholarship. Rather, if you want to see TRUE scholars at work, click over to the writings of Sanders, Johnson, Kee, Crossan, Hayes, Funk, or Mack, and purchase one of their books. Wells' theories are out beyond Pluto.