What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jesus Legend
Did Jesus actually exist as a historical personage roughly corresponding to the various stories given in the four New Testament gospels and other Christian documents? Was he really born in Bethlehem and crucified by Pilate?In The Jesus Legend, G.A. Wells shows how the story of Jesus developed through telling and re-telling, from an early version in the letters of Paul (who does not mention Jesus in connection with any specific time or place) to the more elaborate and detailed picture later presented in the gospels.
"G.A. Wells knows thoroughly the works of those scholars who, like himself, have devoted much of their lives to asking, 'Who is Jesus Christ?'. In The Jesus Legend, he once again exemplifies first-rate historical investigation and praiseworthy biblical scholarship. I know of no author who has shed more light on the question of how Christianity came into being." -- J.E. Barnhart University of North Texas
"G.A. Wells knows thoroughly the works of those scholars who, like himself, have devoted much of their lives to asking, 'Who is Jesus Christ?'. In The Jesus Legend, he once again exemplifies first-rate historical investigation and praiseworthy biblical scholarship. I know of no author who has shed more light on the question of how Christianity came into being." -- J.E. Barnhart University of North Texas
287 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1996
39 people want to read
About the author
George Albert Wells
24 books4 followersGeorge Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. After writing books about famous European intellectuals, such as Johann Gottfried Herder and Franz Grillparzer, he turned to the study of the historicity of Jesus, starting with his book The Jesus of the Early Christians in 1971. He is best known as an advocate of the thesis that Jesus is essentially a mythical rather than a historical figure, a theory that was pioneered by German biblical scholars such as Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews.
Since the late 1990s, Wells has said that the hypothetical Q document, which is proposed as a source used in some of the gospels, may "contain a core of reminiscences" of an itinerant Galilean miracle-worker/Cynic-sage type preacher. This new stance has been interpreted as Wells changing his position to accept the existence of a historical Jesus. In 2003 Wells stated that he now disagrees with Robert M. Price on the information about Jesus being "all mythical". Wells believes that the Jesus of the gospels is obtained by attributing the supernatural traits of the Pauline epistles to the human preacher of Q.
Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968.
Since the late 1990s, Wells has said that the hypothetical Q document, which is proposed as a source used in some of the gospels, may "contain a core of reminiscences" of an itinerant Galilean miracle-worker/Cynic-sage type preacher. This new stance has been interpreted as Wells changing his position to accept the existence of a historical Jesus. In 2003 Wells stated that he now disagrees with Robert M. Price on the information about Jesus being "all mythical". Wells believes that the Jesus of the gospels is obtained by attributing the supernatural traits of the Pauline epistles to the human preacher of Q.
Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 28, 2024
ANOTHER BOOK BY THE MOST PROMINENT "JESUS MYTH" ADVOCATE
George Albert Wells (born 1926) is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He also wrote books such as 'The Historical Evidence for Jesus,' 'Did Jesus Exist?,' 'Who Was Jesus?,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1992 book, "My earlier books have naturally met with a very mixed reception. Numerous scholarly reviews have allowed that I had pointed to important issues and problems, although they could not agree with my conclusions... I have felt obliged, in this present book... to allow that the obscure Jesus of the Pauline and other early letters is not the only historical or quasi-historical figure from which the very different Jesus of the gospels developed... Readers will see that in this book as in previous ones I owe a great deal to the painstaking work of the scholarly and critical theologians, and have not ignored that of their more traditionally-minded and conservative colleagues." (Pg. xxix-xxxi)
He says, "It is tiresome to have to set out, once again, the relevant data, but it is the only way to deal effectively with misrepresentation. Not only the Pauline letters, but all early Christian epistles... fail to confirm what is said of Jesus in the gospels. They do not portray his life as mythical, but do not set it in any historical context." (Pg. 12)
About the authorship of Mark, he comments, "If Peter is ultimately behind Mark's portrait of him, then he was very negative about himself... Apologists maintain that only Peter himself could have reported so negatively. But Mark portrays all the disciples negatively for what... have been called 'dogmatic reasons.' Matthew and Luke accept Marcan references to Peter so as to present him more favourably ... I give numerous instances in this book of where they adapt other Marcan material equally freely; and they would surely not have done this is Mark had been accepted as based on Peter's first-hand experience." (Pg. 76)
Of Frank Morison's book, 'Who Moved the Stone?', he comments, "to what extent his views carry weight can be estimated from his claim that we know Jesus's twelve disciples 'better than any other single group of persons in antiquity,' when in fact no NT lists of the twelve contain even identical names, and most of the twelve are hardly mentioned at all except in these lists." (Pg. 114)
He concludes on the note, "Sermons and religious broadcasts are nearly always worded as though New Testament scholarship did not exist. Most believers are never informed of just how flimsy is the historical evidence for the stories about Jesus they take for gospel." (Pg. 208)
Wells [as well as Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle'] is probably the best advocate of the "Jesus Myth" theory today, and his writings (which overlap considerably, unfortunately) are "must reading" for anyone studying this matter.
George Albert Wells (born 1926) is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He also wrote books such as 'The Historical Evidence for Jesus,' 'Did Jesus Exist?,' 'Who Was Jesus?,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1992 book, "My earlier books have naturally met with a very mixed reception. Numerous scholarly reviews have allowed that I had pointed to important issues and problems, although they could not agree with my conclusions... I have felt obliged, in this present book... to allow that the obscure Jesus of the Pauline and other early letters is not the only historical or quasi-historical figure from which the very different Jesus of the gospels developed... Readers will see that in this book as in previous ones I owe a great deal to the painstaking work of the scholarly and critical theologians, and have not ignored that of their more traditionally-minded and conservative colleagues." (Pg. xxix-xxxi)
He says, "It is tiresome to have to set out, once again, the relevant data, but it is the only way to deal effectively with misrepresentation. Not only the Pauline letters, but all early Christian epistles... fail to confirm what is said of Jesus in the gospels. They do not portray his life as mythical, but do not set it in any historical context." (Pg. 12)
About the authorship of Mark, he comments, "If Peter is ultimately behind Mark's portrait of him, then he was very negative about himself... Apologists maintain that only Peter himself could have reported so negatively. But Mark portrays all the disciples negatively for what... have been called 'dogmatic reasons.' Matthew and Luke accept Marcan references to Peter so as to present him more favourably ... I give numerous instances in this book of where they adapt other Marcan material equally freely; and they would surely not have done this is Mark had been accepted as based on Peter's first-hand experience." (Pg. 76)
Of Frank Morison's book, 'Who Moved the Stone?', he comments, "to what extent his views carry weight can be estimated from his claim that we know Jesus's twelve disciples 'better than any other single group of persons in antiquity,' when in fact no NT lists of the twelve contain even identical names, and most of the twelve are hardly mentioned at all except in these lists." (Pg. 114)
He concludes on the note, "Sermons and religious broadcasts are nearly always worded as though New Testament scholarship did not exist. Most believers are never informed of just how flimsy is the historical evidence for the stories about Jesus they take for gospel." (Pg. 208)
Wells [as well as Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle'] is probably the best advocate of the "Jesus Myth" theory today, and his writings (which overlap considerably, unfortunately) are "must reading" for anyone studying this matter.
August 14, 2019
Had to read portions for class, ended up reading the entire work. Great material for sermons in here. And also great material to just think about.
September 25, 2011
Author G.A. Wells is among a group of bible scholars who argue that we have no reason to believe that Jesus ever existed. Naturally, this puts him on the fringes of mainstream bible scholarship. Perhaps because of this, Wells starts out on the defensive here. For the first hundred pages or so Wells does very little but respond to his critics. Unfortunately, he doesn't respond very well. For the most part he just engages in endless quote mining. It's tedious!! And its just plain awful!!
Just when I was about to give up on this book, however, Wells changed gear and began to present some original ideas. The quality of his arguments are inconsistent, but they're often interesting. I also have to say that he does a better job of arguing the "Jesus as myth" position than some of his contemporaries, such as ex-preacher Robert Price. The main problem with the second half of this book is that it jumps around quite a bit. One gets the impression that Wells just started writing without a plan and then threw everything together once he had enough pages to make a book. In the end it doesn't result in a very satisfying read.
The primary value in this book, and in others that take the "Jesus as myth" position, is that it points out many of the glaring flaws in the arguments of the more mainstream scholars and apologists. Thus, Wells and his colleagues perform a valuable service even when they're own arguments aren't entirely convincing.
Just when I was about to give up on this book, however, Wells changed gear and began to present some original ideas. The quality of his arguments are inconsistent, but they're often interesting. I also have to say that he does a better job of arguing the "Jesus as myth" position than some of his contemporaries, such as ex-preacher Robert Price. The main problem with the second half of this book is that it jumps around quite a bit. One gets the impression that Wells just started writing without a plan and then threw everything together once he had enough pages to make a book. In the end it doesn't result in a very satisfying read.
The primary value in this book, and in others that take the "Jesus as myth" position, is that it points out many of the glaring flaws in the arguments of the more mainstream scholars and apologists. Thus, Wells and his colleagues perform a valuable service even when they're own arguments aren't entirely convincing.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews