The Jesus Legend

Rating:
Summary: Obvious scholarship, but not for the non-theologian
Review: I'll open with the caveat that it is clear that this book is prime intellectual material; however, if you don't know the whos, wheres, and why nots of Christianity and Judaism, including the complete biblical vocabulary, then this might not be the book for you. I purchased The Jesus Legend hoping to learn an objective lesson about the life and times of Jesus and the creation of the church. Unfortunately for me, and I would assume anyone without a substantial grounding in theology and the history of Christianity, it quickly becomes obscure. Don't try to read it on an airplane without a dictionary, for example. Furthermore, the author spends a great deal of time defending his earlier works and counter attacking his critics, so it isn't a good first entry into an understanding of the historical Jesus. I would appreciate any emailed suggestions from other interested secular surfers on what that book might be.

Rating:
Summary: Even handed, fair, repetitious
Review: Once you have read one of Professor Well's books you have read them all. They are like a Symphony in which every movement is a variation of the same theme. That being said, each is a good reads.

The author knows the details of the Gospels better than 99% of most preachers. He also knows the historical setting, the language and cultural landscape. While I may or may not agree that a historical person existed from whom a religion emanated, I will agree that there is no evidence (besides the Bible) that a "God" lived in Palestine, rose from the dead and ascended to his new home in the clouds.

Wells has made the same arguments numerous times - Paul wrote before the Gospels and knew nothing of a historical Jesus, the Gospels began the biography of the Messiah and each succeeding Gospel not only grew more elaborate but harkened back further in time. Mark started at the Baptism, Mathew and Luke at the birth and John at the beginning of time. There are no valid historical documents on this person which seems strange if folks were raised from the dead or made to walk or 5,000 people were fed from a small lunch.

I should add that Wells is extremely fair and even empathetic to his scholastic foes. He is always respectful, never crude or angry. He even allows them to speak in their own words before demolishing their argument. Get one of the books and enjoy.

Rating:
Summary: Well-researched, well-written, fair, repetitious
Review: Once you have read one of Professor Well's books you have read them all. They are like a Symphony in which every movement is a variation of the same theme. That being said, each is a good reads.
The author knows the details of the Gospels better than 99% of most preachers. He also knows the historical setting, the language and cultural landscape. While I may or may not agree that a historical person existed from whom a religion emanated, I will agree that there is no evidence (besides the Bible) that a "God" lived in Palestine, rose from the dead and ascended to his new home in the clouds.

Wells has made the same arguments numerous times - Paul wrote before the Gospels and knew nothing of a historical Jesus, the Gospels began the biography of the Messiah and each succeeding Gospel not only grew more elaborate but started further in the past. Mark opened with the Baptism of the adult man, Mathew and Luke at the birth and John at the beginning of time ("In the Beginning was the Word..."). There are no verifiable historical documents on this person which seems strange if folks were raised from the dead or made to walk or 5,000 people were fed from a small lunch.

I should add that Wells is extremely fair and even empathetic to his scholastic foes. He is always respectful, never crude or angry. He even allows them to speak in their own words before demolishing their argument. Get one of the books and enjoy.

Rating:
Summary: Even handed, fair, repetitious
Review: Once you have read one of Professor Well's books you have read them all. They are like a Symphony in which every movement is a variation of the same theme. That being said, each is a good reads.

The author knows the details of the Gospels better than 99% of most preachers. He also knows the historical setting, the language and cultural landscape. While I may or may not agree that a historical person existed from whom a religion emanated, I will agree that there is no evidence (besides the Bible) that a "God" lived in Palestine, rose from the dead and ascended to his new home in the clouds.

Wells has made the same arguments numerous times - Paul wrote before the Gospels and knew nothing of a historical Jesus, the Gospels began the biography of the Messiah and each succeeding Gospel not only grew more elaborate but harkened back further in time. Mark started at the Baptism, Mathew and Luke at the birth and John at the beginning of time. There are no valid historical documents on this person which seems strange if folks were raised from the dead or made to walk or 5,000 people were fed from a small lunch.

I should add that Wells is extremely fair and even empathetic to his scholastic foes. He is always respectful, never crude or angry. He even allows them to speak in their own words before demolishing their argument. Get one of the books and enjoy.

Rating:
Summary: A thoroughly well-argued exposition
Review: Packed with scholarly support for his position, Wells' latest book is not only the best of his other books on the same subject, but also confronts and refutes the various objections made to his theory by conservative scholars and apologists. Time and again, Wells shows how their objections either fail to take all of the relevant evidence into account or miss the point altogether. Anyone interested in investigating the truth about the historical evidence for Jesus should buy the book.

Rating:
Summary: A serious study of how the christian beliefs were developed
Review: Professor Wells exposes quite persuasively the sham made by some catholic and protestant Bible comentators in order to hide the historical unreliability of the New Testament and their characters. People tend to believe that something which everybody is familiar with has to be true, but even at the end of last century people and scholars satirized Darwin because of his unbiblical version of the creation of man - well, nowadays, people don't think still that Adam and Eve were real historical characters. Scholars of every scientific field have shown the Bible to be innacurate in several ways, including in History, yet the christian Churches still resist to give up some pieces of our History which were written exclusively on the Bible and that have no sort of consistency whatsoever. I think that the historical pursuit of thr real Jesus or the legend that was built around a purely mythical Christ will have a meaning so great in the field of History, as the discoveries of Galileo and Darwin had in the field of Science. Wells builds his argument about how the legend of Jesus developed by trying to see the implications of the theological evolution seen if we put the early epistles of Paul, the sayings attributed to the Q gospel, the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John in their correct chronological order (as I have ordered them). Then we can see how the notion of the existence of Jesus Christ changed in this short period of 50 or 60 years: from a supernatural risen Christ with no specific historical existence in Paul and a kind of Cynic teacher in Q appeared several inconsistent stories about a Son of God cruxified by Pilate. The writers of the gospels weren't ancient historians as many people believe - their writings reflected the problems of their small community and the theological goals of their leaders: for every problem which aroused a christian prophet built a saying of Jesus or a miracle made by him which supported his own point of view on the issue. And so appeared so many contradictory sayings of Jesus with no specific chronogical order or geographical background in the gospels. If we believe that the gospels show us the real teachings of Jesus, then we had to say that Jesus at the very same time was: a Jewish who obeyed the Law, an anti-Semitic leader, a miracle-worker who acted for the crouds and at the same time a man who tried to act anonimous (but how can a great miracle-worker who acts for the crouds be anonimous?). Also, the writers of the gospels show us a group of 12 incredibly stupid apostles and don't date the Passion at the same time. Many of the events described in the New Testament appear to be things just build to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. Yet, I think that there were several things forgotten by Wells: the inconsistent dating made by the gospels of Jesus supernatural birth and the inconsistency of the Passion events in the Roman world background: Pilate was a cruel man and wouldn't defend a man accused of social disorder; also, Pilate wouldn't deliver Jesus to Antipas, the lord of Galilea, because he had no kind of power in Jerusalem. Also, Wells should have given some further discussion of the thesis made around the Dead Sea Scrolls and the book can, perhaps, confuse a reader somewhat less informed in this matter because of its many citations of other scholars and the several critics made to their books. Wells finishes his book criticizing the distortion of the Scriptures made by christian Bible commentators for support of their conservative ethics: they only pick up some epic phrases, get rid of some complicated sayings by explaing that they're only methaphorical or with no significant meaning and convince others of a great, uniformal moral written on the Bible. Yet, there is no uniformal moral on the many books of the Bible, because they were written by several different people, in many different backgrounds and in the course of many centuries. However, we have to resist this view of the great morals given by the Bible, because the teachings of Jesus and the Jewish prophets are not as pacific as they say: in the Old Testament God says to Moses to kill all the homossexuals, the worshippers of idols, the adulterous and maim the criminals, then God tells David to massacre every living person of the unjewish population in the land of Israel - including women and children; finally, Jesus prohibits the divorce between christians and says he is the only way to God and that the Jews will all be condemned to Hell - some epistles even say that everyone who doesn't worship Jesus Christ is a son of the Devil. Clearly, the precepts of the equality of all men in God's eyes were only meant to christian believers and not to unbelievers (who are described as the assassins of Christ and sons of the Devil). I believe that most people never read one piece of the Bible, because if people did so they wouldn't still think that Jesus was a peaceful man and that the Bible teaches only good things which can be applied in our real lives.

Carlos madeira 20th of July of 1999

Rating:
Summary: No Evidence, No Belief
Review: This is addressed to all believers in JC. The matter with JC isn't so much whether or not a mere mortal human being existed at some point in the distant past. The claim made by the believers is that Jesus Christ was not at all a mere human being, but that he was son of a god, that he possessed supernatural abilities, and that he is really alive in some form even today. Is it not a bit silly that the believers implore all to believe in the reality of JC by appealing to so-called historical evidence while all that's required for all to believe in JC (or God, the Almighty) is for the real Jesus Christ or God to materialize berfore each one of the unbelievers and thus put the matter to rest? If it is so utterly important for God that we believe in him, then why doesn't he produce a very current living evidence by appearing brfore us? May the real God or Jesus Christ rise and introduce himaself? Look, it isn't much for an almighty god to do this favor - please come forward and introduce yourself and show us that you are indeed an almighty god! Why would you want to hide yourself from our senses and yet want us to believe in you by looking at unverifiable historical documents purporting the exeistence a god or JC?

Rating:
Summary: Exemplary study of the "Historical" Jesus.
Review: Wells challenges us with his title of the "Legend" of Jesus. Having obtained our attention, he proceeds with the skill of an historical surgeon. Having laid out his sharp instruments of arguement, he then cleanly cuts into the body of historical reference. Like a conjuror, he performs his magic with flourish and we are left with the bare bones. Being left with the skeleton of a figure left me deprived of seeing the musculature. While I enjoyed the book very much, I was however left with the feeling that I had taken apart the mechanism of my expensive watch - and was no nearer comprehending Time! This book should be read alongside the revelatory and compulsive "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these authors appear to be in harmony with their view of the human being that we refer to as Jesus, but Patton not only shows us the musculature of body, he even makes it breathe! Wells has done us all a great service in objectifying how the Jesus we have been presented with by the 'establishment' has been manipulated and can be proven to be so. Well worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: No Evidence, No Belief
Review: Wells is totally out of his field. He is neither a historian nor a New Testament scholar - he's a German professor, for heaven's sake! How anyone can accept his theories when it goes against almost all current NT scholarship is beyond me.

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." Sanders echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." Dunn provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells'thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith. Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, is a friend of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.