Why Wells had read P.-L. Couchoud better than Doherty and Carrier

[ABuddhist]

Forgive me for being so bold as to repeat my question to the august body of this thread which I have profound respect for and who I hope think my question is pertinent to this thread: Did Wells ever factor in the demonology found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I have actually done as I suggested to you - not the first time that this has happened - and have finded a summary of Wells's claims, entitled "Earliest Christianity” , copyright © 1999 by G.A. Wells. It can be readed here: https://infidels.org/library/modern/g-a-wells-earliest/

From it, I gain the following facts, which may help you.

"R. Eisenman and M. Wise (in their The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Shaftesbury (Dorset): Element, 1992, pp. 2431) observe that at Qumran the use of the noun ‘Salvation’ or the verbal noun ‘His Salvation’ is both ‘fairly widespread and much underrated’. They instance a phrase such as ‘the children of Salvation’, and they point to ‘the personification of this concept in the Gospel presentation of Messianic events in Palestine in the first century’. Another factor which may well have contributed to the naming of Jesus is that, in Greek, ‘Joshua’ is rendered as ‘Jesus’, and Joshua was the model for some who claimed (or were expected to come and claim) supernatural powers. Details in my Did Jesus Exist?, 2nd edition, London: Pemberton, 1986. p.69 n.28."

This passage reveals that Wells discussed the Dead Sea Scrolls in his arguments.

The document in question contains no reference to demons, but it is only a 5,600 word summary rather than a complete book or even an index to a book by Mr. Wells.

[ABuddhist]

It seems to be no difficult task to make one's self seem to be an expert in mythicism compared to John T! All that one must do is provide quotations and citations from multiple commentators about the Bible and be willing to cite mythicists' words!

[ABuddhist]

A further counter-blast to John T's condemnation of G. A. Wells as a pseudoscholar comes from the fact that Wells, like I, abandoned mythicism in favour of a minimal historical Jesus whom mainstream biblical scholars would reject as too minimalistic - although his Jesus was based upon Q rather than upon a crucified criminal as my Jesus is.

Sources (derived from wikipedia's citations):

Can We Trust the New Testament? by George Albert Wells (2003) ISBN 0812695674 pp. 49–50

Can We Trust the New Testament? by George Albert Wells (2003) ISBN 0812695674 p. 43

[Giuseppe]

Wells, like I, abandoned mythicism in favour of a minimal historical Jesus

precisely, Wells detected a historical Jesus behind the source "Q", not behind the Paul's Jesus, about which he was always on the side of pure mythicists.

I think that if Wells was survived enough to see how Klinghardt has confuted definitely Q (by absorbing it entirely in Ev*), then even his historical Jesus behind Q would be disappeared entirely from a historical pov.

[John T]

Of course mythicists don't believe Wells own words but for those who do care, here is Wells expressing his frustration that others claim he concluded that Jesus did not exist.


Wells, George (1 December 2013). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court Publishing Company. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-8126-9867-1. "[Eddy and Boyd (2007)] distinguish (pp. 24f) three broad categories of judgment, other than their own, concerning Jesus: 1. that “the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional.” 2. that Jesus did exist [but with limited historical facts]... 3. that a core of historical facts about the real historical Jesus can be disclosed by research... Eddy and Boyd are particularly concerned to refute the standpoint of those in category 1 of these 3, and classify me as one of them [i.e. category 1], as “the leading contemporary Christ myth theorist” (p. 168n). In fact, however, I have expressly stated in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004 that I have repudiated this theory, ...I have never espoused this view, not even in my pre-1996 Jesus books, where I did deny Jesus’s historicity. Although I have always allowed that Paul believed in a Jesus who, fundamentally supernatural, had nevertheless been incarnated on Earth as a man."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

All that to say, Wells denied being a mythicist and did not appreciate being labeled (libeled that way). But hey, since when do atheist/mythicists care about the truth?

[Giuseppe]

Of course mythicists don't believe Wells own words but for those who do care, here is Wells expressing his frustration that others claim he concluded that Jesus did not exist.

you are an idiot insofar the same your quote goes to confute directly your point:

Although I have always allowed that Paul believed in a Jesus who, fundamentally supernatural, had nevertheless been incarnated on Earth as a man."

"fundamentally supernatural" means 100% MYTHICAL.

For Wells, the origin of the Gospel tradition was historical. The historical Jesus of Q was later identified with the independent 100% mythical Jesus of Paul.

Learn the difference and stop your ignorance that is only identical to your arrogance.

[ABuddhist]

Of course mythicists don't believe Wells own words but for those who do care, here is Wells expressing his frustration that others claim he concluded that Jesus did not exist.


Wells, George (1 December 2013). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court Publishing Company. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-8126-9867-1. "[Eddy and Boyd (2007)] distinguish (pp. 24f) three broad categories of judgment, other than their own, concerning Jesus: 1. that “the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional.” 2. that Jesus did exist [but with limited historical facts]... 3. that a core of historical facts about the real historical Jesus can be disclosed by research... Eddy and Boyd are particularly concerned to refute the standpoint of those in category 1 of these 3, and classify me as one of them [i.e. category 1], as “the leading contemporary Christ myth theorist” (p. 168n). In fact, however, I have expressly stated in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004 that I have repudiated this theory, ...I have never espoused this view, not even in my pre-1996 Jesus books, where I did deny Jesus’s historicity. Although I have always allowed that Paul believed in a Jesus who, fundamentally supernatural, had nevertheless been incarnated on Earth as a man."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

All that to say, Wells denied being a mythicist and did not appreciate being labeled (libeled that way). But hey, since when do atheist/mythicists care about the truth?

1. Please provide citations that mythicists (multiple) did not believe Wells's words that he accepted that Jesus had not been a historical person.

2. You are wrong when you claim that Wells did not conclude that Jesus never existed upon the Earth. Indeed, the very words which you quote reveal that at 1 time Wells asserted precisely this: "in my pre-1996 Jesus books, where I did deny Jesus’s historicity". To deny Jesus's historicity is, according to your own definition of mythicism, to be a mythicist. Therefore, according to the very words which you quote (in combination with your definition of mythicism), Wells was a mythicist until 1996.

3. Once again, you erroneously conflate atheism and mythicism - and suggest that neither group cares about the truth. Leaving aside the paranoia underlying such a worldview, it suggests another reason for you to read what mythicists argue rather than asking other mythicists for summaries of these arguments.

[ABuddhist]

"fundamentally supernatural" means 100% MYTHICAL.

With all due respect, you are wrong. To say that a person is "fundamentally supernatural" is not the same as asserting that the person is mythical. Rather, categorizing a person as "fundamentally supernatural" is a claim which may be made about people who are undeniably real people. Leaders of religious cults, for example, are often claimed by their followers (and may claim to be) "fundamentally supernatural", but they are often documented by other, reputable, sources as historical figures. A recent (and still living) example of this is Bentinho Massaro.

[lclapshaw]

All that to say, Wells denied being a mythicist and did not appreciate being labeled (libeled that way). But hey, since when do atheist/mythicists care about the truth?

You are an idiot!

[Giuseppe]

"fundamentally supernatural" means 100% MYTHICAL.

With all due respect, you are wrong. To say that a person is "fundamentally supernatural" is not the same as asserting that the person is mythical. Rather, categorizing a person as "fundamentally supernatural" is a claim which may be made about people who are undeniably real people. Leaders of religious cults, for example, are often claimed by their followers (and may claim to be) "fundamentally supernatural", but they are often documented by other, reputable, sources as historical figures. A recent (and still living) example of this is Bentinho Massaro.

having the book Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity, where Wells abandons officially 'pure' mythicism, I will quote from it the point where Wells appears to think clearly that Paul (and the Pillars before him) believed in a Jesus lived in a remote past (definition, for me, of a mythical Jesus, in alternative to a outer space Jesus). Later, the members of the community behind Q identified their own founder (historically existed, according to Wells) with the mythical Jesus adored by Paul and the Pillars. (Obviously that identification was made in a time when Paul couldn't reply because he was dead, by then).