The Jesus Myth (Paperback)

~ G. A. Wells (Author) "It has been repeatedly claimed that the evidence concerning Jesus is greatly superior to the testimony about other figures of antiquity, whom we nevertheless accept..." (more)
Key Phrases: early epistles, supernatural personage, conservative apologists, Jesus Christ, New Testament, Jewish War (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Is the New Testament story of Jesus history or pure legend? Clearly seeking to provoke controversy, Wells (The Jesus Legend: What's in a Name?) contends that the accounts of Jesus in the canonical Gospels contradict not only one another but also the earliest Christian documents, which never present Jesus as an itinerant preacher, a miracle worker, born of a virgin or executed under Pilate. Combining literary criticism, textual criticism and historical criticism, Wells examines the evidence about Jesus by probing the Gospels and independent testimonies of Jesus's life from the first century A.D. such as the Gospel of Thomas and Q. The author also examines the letters of Paul and contends that Paul bases his portrait of Jesus on the Jewish figure of Wisdom, who sought acceptance on earth but was rejected and returned to heaven. In a detailed and convincing fashion, Wells argues that the Gospel stories of Jesus are myths composed to satisfy the religious longings of the Gospel writers' audiences.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review

"In THE JESUS MYTH, the latest in G.A. Wells's series of eagle-eyed scrutinies of the Gospels and of contemporary New Testament scholarship, the author once again takes the role of the Diogenes of the theologians. Charitable yet unflinching, Well's analysis forces one to the inevitable conclusion that the apologists for the historical Jesus are less researchers than spin-doctors, apparatchniks for an ecclesiastical Politburo. His refreshing intellectual honesty is witnessed by the fact that his own views are amenable to evolution and revision." -- Robert M. Price, Editor, The Journal of Higher Criticism

This is a book for believers and unbelievers alike, in fact, for anyone who is a serious student of the bible or of the Christian faith. [Wells's] hope is that his readers will come to an informed opinion about the historical reliability of the New Testament, its writers and the life of its central character, Jesus. -- Independent Publisher, 4/15/99

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 350 pages
• Publisher: Open Court (December 30, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0812693922
• ISBN-13: 978-0812693928
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #938,525 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The book of the 90's, December 11, 1998

By A Customer

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!

41 of 71 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A candle in the dark, March 16, 2003

By	Edward Lopez (The Big Apple, NYC) - See all my reviews

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.

7 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars A tendentious and unreliable work, August 25, 2008

By	D. M. Ohara "Dan O'Hara" (Cleveland, UK) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.]
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... Read more ›