Rating: 
Summary: let another classic by wheless
Review: A judge/lawyer doth not a bible scholar make..... However a judge/lawyer who can speak eight languages, including hebrew, greek and latin doth make a bible scholar. I Have noticed something about all the negative reviews of this book, they all attack the author, not his argument. Oh by the way, please do us a favor and dont cut and paste Turkel's criticisms of Wheless, that man has a slight honesty problem(among many others, bad logic being another huge problem), if you wish to explore that honesty problem please go to infidels.org.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitely worth reading...
Review: Books such as this one really help provide an in depth understanding of how the New Testament and the subsequent beliefs and traditions (though these are not necessarily independent) as we have them were hammered out. This book provides a necessary corrective to the oftentime overblown 'traditional' accounts. As such, authors like Wheless have done much leg work that the average individual would not be able to do. As it has been said we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.I do recommend reading this one. However, while I found much of it enlightening, the tone of the author is rather disheartening. He casts his judgment at will (as, I suppose, I lawyer does) and his vitriol toward the entire religion is not masked. There are also elements that lead me to believe he is anti-religious all the way around, attacking not only paganism and Christianity but Judaism and even Islam as well. This being said, he has done an amazing job on bringing forth quotes and revealing a very human side of the founders of the Christian faith. Yes Christianity has its flaws, as does any institution, and men have capitalized upon the power inherent in a religion such as Christianity to the abuse of its loyal followers, but he goes just a little too far and his claims are a little too grandiose about the impact his book here will have. But I do recommend it. This is information (much like the Jesus Mysteries and other books like it) that everyone, including believers, should know.
Rating: 
Summary: Tabloid "Scholar"
Review: In the modern discourse between those of faith and the skeptic, it is possible to have rational/analytical discussions without regressing into mean-spirited diatribes. The are countless books available written by skeptical biblical scholars of such nature. Our society is replete with biblical scholars who don't have axes to grind and are devoted to studying scripture in a scholarly manner. MR. WHELESS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. A judge/lawyer does not a biblical scholar make. So far as I know, N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg don't write books on the U.S. Constitution. Stick with the real scholars, not angry lawyers.
Rating:
Summary: A Sizzling Indictment!
Review: In this classic expose of the fraudulent origins of Christianity, Joseph Wheless expertly dissects the New Testament using its writers' and compilers' own admissions. Like the keen legal eagle that he is, Wheless indicts the early Church fathers as "pious" forgers of the various biblical texts, as well as the numerous "apocrypha" that have been tossed out of the canon because they are embarassingly obvious forgeries. All this, as endlessly admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia itself! It is fashionable among Protestant apologists to utterly dismiss the astonishing admissions of the Catholic Encyclopedia that virtually every non-canonical Christian text is bogus, including those trumpeted by apologists as "evidence" of the existence of Jesus. These biased dismissals occur simply because these admissions come from the Catholic Church, which Protestants, of course, view as the "adversary" that "corrupted pure Christianity." However, the fact remains that Protestantism is a very late development in Christianity, and that up until Luther Catholicism WAS Christianity. Hence, the Catholic Encyclopedia is indeed an authoritative source to be gleaned and cited, particularly where it indicts the origins of its own religion. In reality, it was CATHOLICS who wrote these various biblical texts that Wheless so astutely exposes as forgeries. Wheless's various works, such as this one and "Is It God's Word?", are devastating to the foundation of Christianity and its parent Judaism. With a fine scientific mind not fraught with superstition and puerile belief, he is able to see clearly what I call "The Christ Conspiracy." His conclusion, like that of all thinking persons who demand extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, and who are not so easily duped and hypnotized by fantastic stories, is that Jesus Christ is a fictional character, a revelation that has liberated many from an oppressive anti-human philosophy. Kudos to the late Wheless and all others for having the courage to state the obvious, i.e., that the Emperor is naked, at the risk of facing the unpleasant vitriol from the unlearned and fanatical masses. Acharya S, Archaeologist, Historian, Mythologist, Linguist; Author, "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold"
Rating:
Summary: Scarier Than Clive Barker
Review: Joseph Wheless does an excellent job of putting the vast history of the Christian churches into historical context. I have read many books on the topic and this one is the most complete I've seen. A benefit is that the book was written about 75 years ago and the language of that time was more formal and resonant. Much of it reads like poetry in the best sense of the word. The greatest impact the book had on me was the clear revelation that all our learning and science stand as a fragile tower that could someday be toppled by hordes driven to madness by superstition and fear. The book was in the "Used" section and it shipped from Kessinger. The book arrived promptly and in good shape. Now I'll loan it to my best friends.
Rating:
Summary: A classic
Review: Joseph Wheless was a gentleman and a scholar. The only "fault" I could find with his book was the tone, which makes it abundantly clear that Wheless considers revealed religion to be poppycock, and the people who push it to be powermad frauds. You could perhaps soften the argument to include the self-deluded and the Pollyannas, but every single fact presented in this book would still stand. The mighty "God" -- the great monotheistic God of the Old Testament -- is in fact frequently a translation of the Hebrew word "elohim" -- "gods." The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by those authors, as we all know. But the key thing about this book -- the absolutely brilliant tactic chosen by Wheless -- is that ALL the evidence in the book, ALL of it, comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Other sources are cited, but basically nothing goes in unless the CE agrees to it. This includes amazing stuff, like exhortations to lying and forgery (when they are in the cause of the faith.) There's nothing left of Judaism and Christianity, folks, except some memories of burning witches, horrible histories of religious warfare, the nutty cult of relics, an abiding belief in faith-healing, and the Millerite nonsense about the imminent coming of the end of the world. That stuff, and some rousing music, is left among the ruins.
Rating:
Summary: The mote in your neighbour's eye
Review: Joseph Wheless was not a scholar, but an attorney, and his intention is to put Christianity on trial by proving that the fathers are all deliberate liars. This, to put it mildly, is not the stuff of scholarship! He used a small selection of works, together with older literature such as Robert Taylor's "Diegesis", as sources.
In such an enterprise, accurate citation is everything. Unfortunately, those who verify his quotes come away with a feeling of discomfort.
Firstly, they are often verbally correct. However, it is not uncommon for him to practise the lawyers' trick of deceit by selection. In a number of cases, he stops quoting, just before a sentence which explicitly denies the suggestion he wishes his readers to suppose the father (or whoever) is giving.
An examination of the introduction gives some 25 citations from the fathers or the Catholic Encyclopeda. I looked all of these up, as the CE and the Ante-Nicene fathers are all online these days.
28% of the references are wrong; 28% are inaccurate or otherwise can't be checked from his reference; and only 24% of the quotes correctly represent the author's views! In the latter case, few of these really support his thesis.
He abuses St. Augustine, for instance as credulous -- but has not noticed that the 'quotes' he gives are not by this author, but from a medieval piece of narrative fiction.
If someone writes a book to prove his neighbour a liar, it is an absolute requirement to be 100% accurate himself, and to be give the victim the benefit of any doubt. Otherwise, the work is a piece of hate-literature. But Wheless distorts and misleads, relying on the inaccessibility of the sources he uses, in the pre-internet era, in order to abuse his neighbour.
Most atheists today are aware that Wheless cannot be trusted where facts are concerned. This book highlights the dangers of uncritical acceptance of theories, simply because they are congenial. Avoid, unless you are willing to verify everything yourself.
Rating:
Summary: The mote in your neighbour's eye
Review: Joseph Wheless was not a scholar, but an attorney, and his intention is to put Christianity on trial by proving that the fathers are all deliberate liars. This, to put it mildly, is not the stuff of scholarship! He used a small selection of works, together with older literature such as Robert Taylor's Diagesis, as sources. In such an enterprise, accurate citation is everything. Unfortunately, those who verify his quotes come away with a feeling of discomfort. Firstly, they are often verbally correct. However, it is not uncommon for him to practise the lawyers' trick of deceit by selection. In a number of cases, he stops quoting, just before a sentence which explicitly denies the suggestion he wishes his readers to suppose the father (or whoever) is giving. An examination of the introduction gives some 25 citations from the fathers or the Catholic Encyclopeda. I looked all of these up, as the CE and the Ante-Nicene fathers are all online these days. 28% of the references are wrong; 28% are inaccurate or otherwise can't be checked from his reference; and only 24% of the quotes correctly represent the author's views! In the latter case, few of these really support his thesis. He abuses St. Augustine, for instance as credulous -- but has not noticed that the 'quotes' he gives are not by this author, but from a medieval piece of narrative fiction. If someone writes a book to prove his neighbour a liar, it is an absolute requirement to be 100% accurate himself, and to be give the victim the benefit of any doubt. Otherwise, the work is a piece of hate-literature. But Wheless distorts and misleads, relying on the inaccessibility of the sources he uses, in the pre-internet era, in order to abuse his neighbour. Most atheists today are aware that Wheless cannot be trusted where facts are concerned. This book highlights the dangers of uncritical acceptance of theories, simply because they are congenial. Avoid, unless you are willing to verify everything yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Time Traveling with Joseph Wheless
Review: Okay, let's admit it right away: Wheless has a huge ax to grind: he hates all religions, ancient and modern--they're all frauds and impositions on the gullible faithful who buy far-fetched, fictitious fabrications made out of whole cloth in the interest of greed and power. Well, whew--that's a tough nut to swallow, and why would anyone want to mess with a book the tone of which is sometimes almost comical, it's so venemous? The committed faithful, especially those who take the Christian story literally, will probably want to bypass this book. It's long, it's dense, and it rejects the story out of hand. However, for those who can value the hard and intelligent research and the look into early Christian writings, the book is a great reward. To begin with, Wheless argues what (nearly) all Christians would also argue--that every non-canonical writing associated with both Judaism and early Christianity is a forgery--if it's non-canonical, it simply didn't form part of the canon. Many, many writers produced texts and attributed them to well-known figures in or outside of the Bible. What will rankle the faithful is the argument that the gospels themselves are also "forgeries," though that is now acknowledged by much mainstream Christian Bible scholarship. That is, no one knows who the actual authors of the gospels were; the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are simply traditionally accepted attributions. Wheless is definitely interesting and rewarding in his discussion of the Antenicene Fathers--the early Christian writers--and their arguments on behalf of Christianity. They were pagans converted to Christianity themselves, and Wheless quotes excerpts that I've never seen in other, more recent discussions of their ideas. For example, in his discussion of Irenaeus, he quotes this early Christian father of Church dogma to the effect that pagans ought to accept what seems absurd in Christianity--the resurrection, the virgin birth--because such circumstances abound in the pagan world. Wheless argues that someone like Irenaeus, early Christian apologist though he is, believes those stories, believes in the powers of pagan magic, as fundamental to his argument to other pagans. He and other early writers simply credit the pagan examples of hard-to-believe stories about divinities and semi-divinities (resurrection, virgin birth) to demons, while Jesus is the true semi-divinity, born of a virgin, resurrected by the true God. Even more interestingly, much of the support for his arguments, Wheless draws from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, which often, though sometimes hesitantly, acknowledges the undependability of the documents that form the foundation of Christian doctrine. I haven't been able to find a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia yet to check these quotes, but Wheless is good about citations, as he is about the citations of the Antenicene Fathers. Irenaeus is even quoted as arguing that the idea of Jesus being crucified at an early age is tantamount to blasphemy, since it nullifies the possibility that the savior of all mankind should have had such a short life in which to carry out his mission. Indeed, Irenaeus refers to hearsay that Jesus lived into the late years of the first century (85-90 AD). Now this certainly will be an alien idea to any traditional believer. Wheless's citations go to show that when it comes to selective quotation, Christian apologetics applies the same techniques to the early church fathers that it does to the gospels. The value of this book, I believe, is to further substantiate the fact that early Christianity was entirely diverse in its beliefs (even moreso than contemporary Christianity, where--to the regret of many--differing beliefs abound, ranging from the entirely literal acceptance of the Biblical texts to their interpretation as symbolic and metaphorical, not to mention polemical). Wheless's strident tone and prejudices aside, this is a valuable book for its genuine and factual insights into early Christianity and the nature of its earliest texts. One final note: Wheless argues that the earliest dates for the gospels as we know them must be mid-second century, since none of the early writers (Papias, Irenaeus) seems to know them as other than scattered notes, recorded from hearsay and memory before that time. Current mainstream scholarship dates the gospels from around 70 CE (Mark) to somewhere in the 90s (John), with Luke and Matthew probably in the eighties. I have not seen any scholarship accounting for the stages by which the lower dating has been reached, but that would be interesting. The lowest dating possibility I have seen would be shortly after Jesus' death, making the gospels "eyewitness" accounts much more believable. But this is a very conservative dating, apparently depending on the willingness to accept the prophetic passages as true prophecy rather than as accounts of or references to events that have already transpired (e.g., the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE) or events that are impacting the later congregations of believers for whom the gospels were written.
Rating:
Summary: Time Traveling with Joseph Wheless
Review: Okay, let's admit it right away: Wheless has a huge ax to grind: he hates all religions, ancient and modern--they're all frauds and impositions on the gullible faithful who buy far-fetched, fictitious fabrications made out of whole cloth in the interest of greed and power. Well, whew--that's a tough nut to swallow, and why would anyone want to mess with a book the tone of which is sometimes almost comical, it's so venemous? The committed faithful, especially those who take the Christian story literally, will probably want to bypass this book. It's long, it's dense, and it rejects the story out of hand. However, for those who can value the hard and intelligent research and the look into early Christian writings, the book is a great reward. To begin with, Wheless argues what (nearly) all Christians would also argue--that every non-canonical writing associated with both Judaism and early Christianity is a forgery--if it's non-canonical, it simply didn't form part of the canon. Many, many writers produced texts and attributed them to well-known figures in or outside of the Bible. What will rankle the faithful is the argument that the gospels themselves are also "forgeries," though that is now acknowledged by much mainstream Christian Bible scholarship. That is, no one knows who the actual authors of the gospels were; the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are simply traditionally accepted attributions. Wheless is definitely interesting and rewarding in his discussion of the Antenicene Fathers--the early Christian writers--and their arguments on behalf of Christianity. They were pagans converted to Christianity themselves, and Wheless quotes excerpts that I've never seen in other, more recent discussions of their ideas. For example, in his discussion of Irenaeus, he quotes this early Christian father of Church dogma to the effect that pagans ought to accept what seems absurd in Christianity--the resurrection, the virgin birth--because such circumstances abound in the pagan world. Wheless argues that someone like Irenaeus, early Christian apologist though he is, believes those stories, believes in the powers of pagan magic, as fundamental to his argument to other pagans. He and other early writers simply credit the pagan examples of hard-to-believe stories about divinities and semi-divinities (resurrection, virgin birth) to demons, while Jesus is the true semi-divinity, born of a virgin, resurrected by the true God. Even more interestingly, much of the support for his arguments, Wheless draws from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, which often, though sometimes hesitantly, acknowledges the undependability of the documents that form the foundation of Christian doctrine. I haven't been able to find a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia yet to check these quotes, but Wheless is good about citations, as he is about the citations of the Antenicene Fathers. Irenaeus is even quoted as arguing that the idea of Jesus being crucified at an early age is tantamount to blasphemy, since it nullifies the possibility that the savior of all mankind should have had such a short life in which to carry out his mission. Indeed, Irenaeus refers to hearsay that Jesus lived into the late years of the first century (85-90 AD). Now this certainly will be an alien idea to any traditional believer. Wheless's citations go to show that when it comes to selective quotation, Christian apologetics applies the same techniques to the early church fathers that it does to the gospels. The value of this book, I believe, is to further substantiate the fact that early Christianity was entirely diverse in its beliefs (even moreso than contemporary Christianity, where--to the regret of many--differing beliefs abound, ranging from the entirely literal acceptance of the Biblical texts to their interpretation as symbolic and metaphorical, not to mention polemical). Wheless's strident tone and prejudices aside, this is a valuable book for its genuine and factual insights into early Christianity and the nature of its earliest texts. One final note: Wheless argues that the earliest dates for the gospels as we know them must be mid-second century, since none of the early writers (Papias, Irenaeus) seems to know them as other than scattered notes, recorded from hearsay and memory before that time. Current mainstream scholarship dates the gospels from around 70 CE (Mark) to somewhere in the 90s (John), with Luke and Matthew probably in the eighties. I have not seen any scholarship accounting for the stages by which the lower dating has been reached, but that would be interesting. The lowest dating possibility I have seen would be shortly after Jesus' death, making the gospels "eyewitness" accounts much more believable. But this is a very conservative dating, apparently depending on the willingness to accept the prophetic passages as true prophecy rather than as accounts of or references to events that have already transpired (e.g., the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE) or events that are impacting the later congregations of believers for whom the gospels were written.
|
