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

~ (Author) "The gospels included in the New Testament (NT) are widely agreed to have been written between A.D. 70 and 100..." (more)
Key Phrases: early epistles, missionary speeches, supernatural personage, New Testament, Jesus Christ, Asia Minor (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Can We Trust the New Testament? questions the historical accuracy of widely held views of early Christianity. In this book radical Bible scholar G. A. Wells examines Biblical accounts of the lives of the apostles Peter and Paul and presents evidence that the events described in the New Testament were written over time to support the agendas of the Christian church. He embarks on a close analysis of the Book of Acts, questioning its authorship and casting doubt on the events it and the gospels describe.

Product Details

• Paperback: 254 pages
• Publisher: Open Court (November 26, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0812695674
• ISBN-13: 978-0812695670
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,139,963 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

38 of 45 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Skeptical, scholarly, and recommended, March 10, 2004

By	Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

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.

26 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Careful , May 12, 2005

By	calmly - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

Amazon Verified Purchase

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.

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars An unreliable guide, August 25, 2008

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

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.