7 of 13 people found the following review helpful
historical evidence at face value,
This review is from: The Jesus Myth (Paperback)
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.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 25, 2008 3:57:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 25, 2008 8:18:04 AM PDT
D. M. Ohara says:
If the writer of this review cares to turn to page xi, he will see that the author acknowledges my assistance [along with three others] "for helpful comments on the manuscript of this book which guided me during my rewriting of it".
Having saved the author from several elementary mistakes, I was surprised to find a further howler had subsequently been introduced on page 58, where it is stated categorically that: "Within the NT, the title 'Jesus of Nazareth' is used only in Acts [of the Apostles]". Now, a glance at a Concordance would have shown that is untrue. The title occurs in all four Gospels: once in Matthew, four times in Mark, three times in Luke and four times in John. This is just one example, but it shows that Wells is not a careful scholar. Rather, he is concerned above all to prove a prior position, irrespective of the evidence. It is easy to be fooled by his display of apparent erudition, but his judgements are always tendentious, his conclusions assumed at the outset, and such evidence as he is prepared to consider tortured in Procrustean fashion to fit his presuppositions.
For a thorough assessment of his work, I suggest J.P Holding's recent book: Shattering the Christ Myth .
In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 3:50:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 15, 2013 10:59:58 AM PDT
It is laughable that you put Holding/Turkel in the same category as G. A.Wells.
It also proved your a-priori to denigrate Wells to the maximum.
You sound like a modern Judas, helping the author in proof reading his galleys (with rather defective assistance, according to your own declaration), and then demolishing the book in your Amazon comments.
I don't think your condemnation reflects anything else than your own biases. There's not a single valid criticism in all your comment.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›