Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zenaphobe · 03-21-2008, 08:40 PM

I picked this book Historical Evidence for Jesus, G Wells (or via: amazon.co.uk) up at the library and was wondering if anyone knows if the info in it is on pretty solid ground. It was published in 1988 and I wasn't sure if it is a good choice, or if there might be a book based on more recent scholarship out there.

Thanks for any input.

punkforchrist · 03-21-2008, 11:21 PM

My own opinion will obviously be biased, so keep looking around, but most of Wells' theses in that book have not been accepted by the community of NT scholars. Michael Martin, one of the few to embrace some of Wells' conclusions even admits, "Wells's interpretation [that James was not the historical brother of Jesus] may seem ad hoc and arbitrary." (Case Against Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 55).

I think a good skeptical source would be E.P. Sanders. A good Christian source would be N.T. Wright.

Toto · 03-22-2008, 01:16 AM

G.A. Wells is represented in the Infidels Library - his page is here, and you can see that he has written much more since 1988.

Earl Doherty is the latest to write on the issue. You might want to read the Jesus Puzzle if you are interested in the issue of mythicism. Check out his website at www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net.

The NT guild has not accepted Wells, but has not refuted him.

Toto · 03-22-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkforchrist

My own opinion will obviously be biased, so keep looking around, but most of Wells' theses in that book have not been accepted by the community of NT scholars. Michael Martin, one of the few to embrace some of Wells' conclusions even admits, "Wells's interpretation [that James was not the historical brother of Jesus] may seem ad hoc and arbitrary." (Case Against Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 55).

James is the "Brother of the Lord" in Paul's letters, and there are many reasons not to assume that this refers to a biological brother or half brother. This issue has been discussed on this forum extensively.

Quote:

I think a good skeptical source would be E.P. Sanders. A good Christian source would be N.T. Wright.

EP Sanders is not a skeptic in general. He has a purported methodology for extracting information about a historical Jesus from the mythology and story telling in the gospels, which many skeptics find to be ad hoc and arbitrary.

NT Wright believes in the Resurrection. He is a theologian, not a historian.

R.T. France wrote a slim volume on The Evidence for Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) as a reply to Wells. The book was discussed in this thread.

Ted Hoffman · 03-22-2008, 02:39 AM

Quote:

I think a good skeptical source would be E.P. Sanders.

Read this preview.

Clivedurdle · 03-22-2008, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

I think a good skeptical source would be E.P. Sanders.

Read this preview.

Publish for the lurkers!

Quote:

ntroduction

It is typical of New Testament (NT) scholars involved in the quest for the historical Jesus to crown the years spent in historical Jesus research with a book presenting their personal reconstruction of who the historical Jesus was. Because of the way the gospels were written, this effort involves painstaking separation of fact from myth and fiction. Whereas they have assiduously attempted to prevent their confessional interests[1] from intruding upon their research, their religious beliefs have doggedly militated against their best efforts, forcing them to question the objectivity their own scholarship.[2] One of the notable figures in the third quest, J. D. Crossan, lamented that the "historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke"[3] while his compatriot, J. P. Meier, who believes that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected, openly admits in an interview that "it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history."[4]

Lacking a reliable methodology and dogged by confessional interests, the result of their efforts has been a confusing profusion of divergent portraits of who the putative historical Jesus was[5], a competitive affair that Peter Steinfel of the New York Times has named "the Jesus wars." It is in this backdrop that we review Professor Ed Parish Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus (hereafter known as HFoJ). In HFoJ, Sanders presents the historical Jesus as a radical eschatological prophet[6], a portrait that has increasingly gained acceptance amongst those that believe a historical Jesus existed, hence the need to scrutinize HFoJ.

One of a whole series of species Jesi! (What would a biological classifiation look like?)

Roger Pearse · 03-22-2008, 05:36 AM

Wells is not, of course, a historian; he writes as an interested amateur.

spin · 03-22-2008, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Wells is not, of course, a historian; he writes as an interested amateur.

So, if you want to ignore him, you now have a semblance of a reason. Argumentum ad hominem.

spin

Amaleq13 · 03-22-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Wells is not, of course, a historian; he writes as an interested amateur.

Wells is a Emeritus Professor of German. So, more "scholar working outside his field" than "interested amateur" I would say.

Roger Pearse · 03-22-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Wells is not, of course, a historian; he writes as an interested amateur.

Wells is a Emeritus Professor of German. So, more "scholar working outside his field" than "interested amateur" I would say.

True: likewise with the majority of the writers listed earlier, of course.

What rubbish all this 'appeal to authority' stuff is, eh?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

03-21-2008, 08:40 PM	#1
Zenaphobe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: In the NC trailer park Posts: 6,631	G. A. Wells The Historical Evidence for Jesus I picked this book Historical Evidence for Jesus, G Wells (or via: amazon.co.uk) up at the library and was wondering if anyone knows if the info in it is on pretty solid ground. It was published in 1988 and I wasn't sure if it is a good choice, or if there might be a book based on more recent scholarship out there. Thanks for any input.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2008, 11:21 PM	#2
punkforchrist Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,545	My own opinion will obviously be biased, so keep looking around, but most of Wells' theses in that book have not been accepted by the community of NT scholars. Michael Martin, one of the few to embrace some of Wells' conclusions even admits, "Wells's interpretation [that James was not the historical brother of Jesus] may seem ad hoc and arbitrary." (Case Against Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 55). I think a good skeptical source would be E.P. Sanders. A good Christian source would be N.T. Wright.

03-22-2008, 01:16 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	G.A. Wells is represented in the Infidels Library - his page is here, and you can see that he has written much more since 1988. Earl Doherty is the latest to write on the issue. You might want to read the Jesus Puzzle if you are interested in the issue of mythicism. Check out his website at www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net. The NT guild has not accepted Wells, but has not refuted him.

03-22-2008, 05:36 AM	#7
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Wells is not, of course, a historian; he writes as an interested amateur.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.