George Albert Wells - Who was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record

W HO WAS JESUS?

To order books from Open Court, call toll free 1-800-815-2280 .

This book has been reproduced in a print-on-demand format from the 1991 Open Court printing.

Open Court Publishing Company is a division of Carus Publishing Company.

1989 by Open Court Publishing Company.

First printing 1989

Second printing 1990

Third printing 1991

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Open Court Publishing Company, La Salle, Illinois 61301.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wells, George Albert, 1926

Who was Jesus?: a critique of the New Testament record/G. A. Wells.

p. cm.

Includes index.

ISBN 978-0-8126-9868-8

1. Jesus Christ Rationalistic interpretations. I. Jesus Christ Historicity. 3. Jesus Christ History of doctrines Early church, ca. 30-600. 4. Bible. N.T. Criticism, interpretation, etc.

I. Title.

BT304.95.W45 1989

225.6'7dc20

89-3285

CIP

C ONTENTS

Scripture quotations are (except where otherwise indicated) from the Revised Version (which I call RV), published 188185, of the Authorised Version or King James Bible of 1611 (which I call AV). Other English versions are referred to as follows:

I use the terms Matthew, Mark, etc., sometimes to designate the author of the relevant gospel and sometimes to designate that gospel itself. Which meaning is intended will be clear from the context.

My three earlier books on Christian origins are designated as follows:

The following abbreviations denote frequently-cited works:

In each of my chapters, once details of a work have been given in a note, further references to it are given simply as page references in the text or notes of that chapter.

Serious criticism of the New Testament began to be common in Protestant theological faculties of German Universities from the end of the eighteenth century, and there are good reasons for their remarkable candour. First, political disunity entailed many universities, all independent of any central authority, whereas in England at that time the only two universities were controlled by the established Church. Second, the arguments of these innovating theologians were tolerated so long as they remained learned discussions which did not reach the populace at large. And third, the theologians themselves were apt to claim that their criticism of events central to the traditional faith, such as the virgin birth and the Resurrection, did not impugn the religious value of these doctrines, which was to be defended on philosophical, not historical grounds. Hence it was with every justification that Schopenhauer characterized this period of German cultural history as one of sceptical theologians and orthodox philosophers.

Catholic theologians have been slow to follow the lead of their Protestant colleagues. Today they are allowed considerable freedom by the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, but this is a very recent development, and as Brownhimself a Catholic priesthas noted (p. 9) historical criticism of the New Testament is relatively new on the Catholic scene. It seems that the scholarly elements in the Roman Church, fretting because the Papal condemnation of modernism early this century restricted them to uncritical piety, have become powerful enough to effect their own unleashing.