There is a scandal in American churches far deeper than the occasional shenanigans of televangelists or the ongoing crisis afflicting the Catholic priesthood.

The truth is that almost none of the serious historians, theologians, or scholars within the Christian churches believes that the doctrines proclaimed from the pulpit every Sunday are actually true.

G. A. Wells' book, "The Jesus of the Early Christians," explains in layman's terms why it is that no competent and honest scholar within the Christian churches can any longer be a true believer.

This is not a bitterly polemical book out to destroy all vestiges of Christianity or Christian behavior: As Wells has written elsewhere, "I have tried to avoid the rancor which mars much that atheists have written on Christianity...Nearly all the authorities whose views I quote...are Christian theologians...In the few instances where I have been able to meet some of these theologians personally, I have learned to respect them not only as scholars but as men."

While critical of the contemporary Christianity of the Sunday pulpit, Wells' book is therefore neither an attack on Christian ethics nor an expose of Christian practices. Wells is solely concerned with the factual, historical claims made by the New Testament about Jesus of Nazareth and with the historical and textual evidence uncovered by scholars concerning whether those claims are true. To those with no concern as to whether the Gospel reports are actually true, Wells has remarked, in a different context, "If however the believer is prepared to disregard questions of mere historical fact, and concentrate on some kind of 'higher' truth which is embodied in the gospels, then my views need not concern him, any more than his concern me."

What "The Jesus of the Early Christians" does do is reveal in straightforward, readable prose all of the little secrets which the Christian theologians have kept out of the Sunday sermons.

For example, as Wells presents in detail (p.34) Matthew i and Luke iii both present detailed genealogies for Jesus; unfortunately the two genealogies contradict each other. Grossly. At least one of the evangelists was faking it.

Similarly, Wells shows that the census under Caesar Augustus "that all the world should be taxed" "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria" and "in the days of Herod the king of Judaea" was simply an historical fiction constructed by the author of Luke to get the Holy Family from Nazareth to the Biblically blessed City of David. Wells further shows that the slaughter by Herod of all children two and under described in Matthew ii is also contrary to history: somebody made the story up.

But the book goes beyond merely exposing Biblical errors and contradictions. Wells discusses in detail the origin of the Gospels, explores the relation of the letters of Paul to the Gospels, explains pagan precedents and sources for Christians' beliefs, and discusses more broadly the issues of how we can discover historical truth and untangle myth from reality.

In short, this is, for the layperson, simply the best and most readable introduction to New Testament studies and the historical origins of Christianity that I have yet seen (and I have looked at many). It is the only such introduction that I know of which is based neither on a religious precommitment to Christian dogma nor on a dogmatic hatred or contempt for Christianity but which is rather based on a desire to simply and uncompromisingly explore the unvarnished truth.

Twenty years ago, a friend of mine who was a committed evangelical fundamentalist entered (a very conservative) seminary with the goal of becoming a preacher. By the time he had completed his studies, he confessed to me that he no longer had his fundamentalist faith: after learning New Testament Greek, studying the original texts of the Gospels, and being exposed to the scholarly research of the last three centuries, it was impossible for him any longer to believe in the literal truth of the New Testament.

What my friend learned traumatically and painstakingly through his seminary experience, you can learn less painfully by reading "The Jesus of the Early Christians."

You may not end up agreeing with all of Wells' conclusions: Wells himself, in later books, changed his opinions on various points (the relative importance of pagan vs. Jewish influences on Christian myths, the likelihood that Jesus was purely mythical rather than a real figure about whom various legends later grew up, etc.).

But, if you read this book, you will no longer be in the dark concerning information which all serious scholars of Christianity take for granted but which is rarely mentioned to the ordinary man or woman sitting in the pew on Sunday morning.

As the Man from Galilee is said to have declared long ago, "The truth shall make you free."

(Sadly, this book is currently out of print. Although Wells' later books on this subject are also worth reading, this is still the best introduction and is worth obtaining from a university library or a used book shop. I also recommend Dungan and Cartlidge's "Documents for the Study of the Gospels," which nicely complements Wells' book and is happily available here on amazon.)

-- David H. Miller

To make this short, The best book on Jesus using historical facts

New Testament scholars, quick to dismiss evangelical leanings toward belief that the Gospels are verbatim accounts by eyewitnesses, should think again if they think they have silenced their critics.

Wells has shown that questioning a few assumptions can lead to vastly different conclusions. The assumption he questions is that the general framework of the gospel accounts is based in fact. His different conclusion is that the Jesus that Christians know and love is mostly or all a legendary character.

Basically, taking Paul's earliest writings (which predate the gospels), Wells examines the growth of a tradition which added more and more on to the idea of Jesus, which is how myths work.

Scholars have turned their nose up to this theory, citing that Wells is not accepted in scholarly circles and that he is just a German professor, instead of providing some reasons that Wells's inference from the known data CAN'T work.

Read and enjoy. Crossan, eat your heart out.

Wells reaches highly skeptical conclusions which are, nevertheless, based on a suspect epistemology, viz. empiricism. One of empiricism's recurrent problems lies implicit in the text: How to construe reality in terms of sensations. Wells asserts, on one hand, that reality takes its meaning from details always available to further discovery - an idealist-like interpretation of real objects. On the other hand, he admits that language of perception cannot be reduced to language of sensations. There's a genuine inconsistency here, of the type that has plagued 'reality=sensations' for centuries.

Distinguishing the book's attack on Christian apologetics are the sections on de Wette and Strauss, those 19th century historians who subjected Biblical fact to withering historical criticism. By highlighting the naive phase of Christian belief, Well's takes dead aim on Fundamentalism which insists on the literal truth of the Bible. Since Fundamentalist nonsense has undergone a recent emotional revival in America, it's not a mere academic exercise to insist that the Bible be examined for historical accuracy.

Another notable contribution points out how Fundamentalism and Christian Liberalism benefit from each other, often a central point overlooked by critics. Fundamentalism benefits from the intellectual respectability Liberals provide; Liberals benefit from Fundamentalism's raw recruiting power. His discussion of Christianity's survival power also includes social and psychological factors such as the Soviet-American Cold War, which indicates the author's well-rounded understanding.

Fundamentalist beliefs may be debunked by historical criticism; however, attacking metaphysical beliefs requires a philosophical position. Here Wells employs the aforementioned empiricism, an epistemology oriented against metaphysics of all types. Moreover, his brand appears to emulate the purist tradition of Hume and Mill in their construal of knowledge and science. The difficulties with this classical tradition are historically well known. Oddly missing, however, is any recognition of those more recent varieties of anti-metaphysics contained in linguistic philosophy, leading to the conclusion that Wells is just as interested in defending an eclipsed epistemology, viz. empiricism, as he is in attacking Christian apologetics. Eighteenth century battles, it seems, are still being waged by the same armies, unchanged, except for the faces. All in all,it's still a worthwhile read for believer and non- alike.

For me, books of this kind have become more and more something of a mixed blessing. I look at the net result: First, in his books before this one, (I read them all) Mr. Wells had maintained that Jesus was an utter myth, on a same footing with Wilhelm Tell, the supposed to be founding father of an entire nation. Latter day tourists can visit now all the sites and even have a look at the church register - but sorry folks: the whole thing is just a hoax. Well, on second thoughts, Wilhelm Tell's story is most definitely fiction - but what about the people who swore an oath of independence on the "Rutli"? After all Switzerland is real, it gained its independence through war, and most of the time remained independent ever since. Would an acknowledgment that the founding story is just a tall tale, change this fact?

Now, Mr. Wells has changed his position on Jesus (not on Tell, poor bloke,) and he gives us a guy slouching along on bast sandals somewhere, sometime, in the historical limbo and quite separated from his story that took on a life of its own Ð the gospels. Does this really make any noticeable difference, say, to Mr. Doherty's position? (see my review on "The Jesus Puzzle.") You tell me. As was to be expected from him, Mr. Wells has put into it an immense amount of hours in the library. I used to like Wells. His books are well written and make good compendia to quickly find a reference, but they can't substitute for going to the sources yourself, if you wish to form an educated opinion of your own. This would require time, inclination, and training, and last, but certainly not least, the leisure and means to follow your interests. It also requires a modicum of intellectual integrity and honesty - can I live with myself on received authority alone, or will I take pains to do my own share of work and research? Is the methodology of my enquiries up to scientific standards? Do I have the time to care?

Mr. Wells follows the common practice of theological debates and presents his case in a barrage of quotes and cross-references in the footnotes. I wonder what this can do to us common blokes and lasses who are busy with building bridges or raising children as a single parent. I can't see us very likely to go through the tedium of finding out what makes a "son of men" different from a 'messiah,' or a 'Christ;' and if you come home from your second job at the check-out counter in Publix, the subtleties of addressing God either as Jahwe, Elohim, or Adonai will be completely lost on you, because back home you are so darn tired that you could cry in your sleep.

At the bottom-line everything depends on criteria which have absolutely nothing to do at all with biblical scholarship. In the cause for Christianity, it comes down to just one thing: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." The facts as presented by two millennia of Christian history, should speak for themselves. Had the assailant who had knifed a mother at the entrance to an abortion clinic, suffered from a lack of scholarship? I don't think so. He followed Lk 19:27 to the letter: "... those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Over the last two millennia this is probably the least quoted and most practised line of the entire New Testament. (And no I did not quote out of context: especially in this instant the context does absolutely nothing to salvage the tenor of this message and anyway it corresponds well with Mt 10:34-37, Lk 12:49-53, and parallels.)

In fact it corresponds well with entire sections, especially the fundamentalist's favorite read: "Revelations." Repeatedly we read the invocation that the Lord should come real soon and make an end to this world right now. Pagan critics of the second and third century had a reason to accuse Christians of hating the world and all mankind. I think they got it right. Anybody, capable to read the New Testament with his brains on full alert, will find in it the usual hate message of hysterically religious but very common fanatics - with "love" and "charity" as the candy wrapper. I don't see Mr. Wells addressing this issue properly when he, no doubt in the best traditions of polite enlightenment, tries to debunk the message, by establishing its roots in "mere" myth. What do we care about myth, as long as it is scripture? The real issue here is whether we can afford to let faith rule over our own better judgement. But perhaps there is no better judgement in the first place, and faith fills a moral vacuum? That would be scary! The fact that the physical and mental health of us infidels is safe only because of Christian laxness and ignorance of the finer points in the professed faith, is truly unsettling. In a world where glass-teat and church are the only available alternative to illegal substance abuse, there is a very good chance that this may change real soon, and I don't see that Mr. Well's book should come across as an effective deterrent.

So who will read this book? Well those who have always read Mr. Wells' previous books, and they don't need to be convinced. If you are one of them, you won't get a ripping good read, but good honest research and a reliable index to secondary opinions on primary sources, collected and presented in Mr. Wells' characteristically lucid style.

When it comes to books about the evidence for Jesus, authors will never be able to provide an adequate argument to convince the religious that their belief is not based on reality. You cannot overcome conditioning with just written words. G.A. Wells is more intelligent than any conditioned person whether they are lay people or employed by the church as is the "Rev." "Dr." Gregory S. Neal, Pastor of the Beverly Drive United Methodist Church whose members, combined, have the I.Q. of zero.You would think that it would be up to the claimants that Jesus was real to provide the evidence for him. But, alas, it is always up to people such as Mr Wells to do their homework. This books is as good as it gets as are Mr Wells' other efforts. Denying the truth is the church's position since if they were to come clean the church would dissolve and the pope and all of his minions would have to find other lines of work, aside from molesting children.whatever you do for yourself, do not be misled into thinking that religion is based on truth, it is far from it. Besides, what are humans achieving by believing in something that was created by man to fool and control humans?When you read reviews about Mr Wells' books you are either going to accept what he writes because you are intelligent and can tell truth from fiction or you are going to dismiss truth in favor of fiction. When you dismiss the truth, you are no better than those who sell religion to the gullible. Are you gullible? I'm not. Thank you Mr Wells.

I have read nearly everything Dr. Wells ever wrote including some works never intended for public consumption. I have corresponded with him and he wrote me a 2 page (front and back) hand written letter. What a nice guy!

Dr. Wells goes out of his way to answer his critics. He kindly responds, but seldom responds in kind. The nastier they are with him, the nicer he is to them (that is,usually --there have been exceptions). He points out the absurdity of their criticisms without making them feel stupid (again usually) and he tries his best to answer every significant question put to him.

Some reviewers and readers who must only have a passing knowledge of Well's views suggest that his arguments are from silence, when in fact Prof. Wells says over and over again, as he has for the last 30+ years, that silence is only significant when it extends to the subject that the author has endeavored to undertake. If someone were to write a history of the American Revolution and in doing so, they failed to mention the Stamp Act, that would be significant. One would be forced to suppose that this writer did not know about the Stamp Act. One would be forced to suppose that said historian is undeserving of the title.

Such criticisms of Well's work can only be made by people who have marginal reading comprehension skills. These are the same people who pretend as if they think that Wells rules out the Church's party line on Jesus based on a priori dogma. Usually Prof. Wells critics are not good at presenting a better argument, they are only good at raising a bigger cloud of dust.

The most profound demonstration of Wells un-dogmatic approach to NT studies is the fact that his theory has evolved over the last 30-odd years, a claim that his close minded critics couldn't possibly make. In fact, the Wells that I initially encountered in his first book on the subject (The Jesus of the Early Christians) and the Wells who wrote the Jesus Myth and the Jesus Legend seem as different as the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels.

This book and Wells other books (especially, The Jesus Legend and the Historical Evidence for Jesus) are excellent and bullet proof antidotes to the shoddy scholarship and mental gymnastics one must endure when reading the works of many conservative christian NT scholars.

One can read Josh McDowell (for example) and then read Wells and see that the latter is careful and considered and the former is sloppy and dogmatic.

All in all a great book. Highly recommended.