• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Priority Of John?

BibleWelt

Student
B
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
45
I've been lurking here for ages. I signed up recently, in order to use the search function. I'm (slightly) surprised to find no mention of Evan Powell's book "The Unfinished Gospel".

Has anyone here read this? The author puts forth a number of ideas I've not heard before, and he walks through each of them with extremely compelling arguments. I'm sure most of the posters here know much more about this stuff than I - but I've not come across any other book which is so convincing.

Basically, he's laying out a case for John 21 being the missing end of Mark (spiced up with Johannine words, a Nathaniel, etc.). The jacket blurb reads "Once the text of John 21 is restored to Mark, these two gospels reveal a momentous power struggle between rival disciples of Jesus within the primitive church."

Also included are intriguing arguments against the existence of Q and the late dating of John. The contention is that John was a slam on Peter and Mark was a response to that. The real twist here is that John appears to be the most historical of the writings, once the angels & other assorted madness is stripped away. The book concludes with the proposal that Jesus may have had a (an?) NDE & that the author of John was reporting what he believed to be accurate.

I'm no expert in this area. I'm wondering if any others here have checked this out. I pored through the thing, trying to debunk - but I'm pretty convinced this challenge to the Jesus Seminar is on the money.

Thanks to anyone who can help!
 
BibleWelt said:
I've been lurking here for ages. I signed up recently, in order to use the search function. I'm (slightly) surprised to find no mention of Evan Powell's book "The Unfinished Gospel".

Has anyone here read this? The author puts forth a number of ideas I've not heard before, and he walks through each of them with extremely compelling arguments. I'm sure most of the posters here know much more about this stuff than I - but I've not come across any other book which is so convincing.

Basically, he's laying out a case for John 21 being the missing end of Mark (spiced up with Johannine words, a Nathaniel, etc.). The jacket blurb reads "Once the text of John 21 is restored to Mark, these two gospels reveal a momentous power struggle between rival disciples of Jesus within the primitive church."

Also included are intriguing arguments against the existence of Q and the late dating of John. The contention is that John was a slam on Peter and Mark was a response to that. The real twist here is that John appears to be the most historical of the writings, once the angels & other assorted madness is stripped away. The book concludes with the proposal that Jesus may have had a (an?) NDE & that the author of John was reporting what he believed to be accurate.

I'm no expert in this area. I'm wondering if any others here have checked this out. I pored through the thing, trying to debunk - but I'm pretty convinced this challenge to the Jesus Seminar is on the money.

Thanks to anyone who can help!
Click to expand...

I haven't read this book, but from what you say, I can already tell you this:

He's making it up.

There is no way to tell if John 21 is the "ending" to Mark. He has no evidence. Therefore, it is another example of the bare assertion fallacy.
Most theist arguments come down to this.
 
I can't see how Mark is a response to anything, much less John. I think current scholarship shows a much less cohesive picture of the early church, and John is just one piece of that puzzle. Each of the four gospels addresses a different group within the early Christian church, as does Paul's epistles. Calling the discrepencies between John and Mark "a momentous power struggle" seems to be a bit of hyperbole good mainly for selling books.
 
Most theist arguments come down to this? That may be true. I'm an atheist. The book seems rather atheistic in nature. This is no "Luke was a woman" or Acharaya S. (sp?) or whatever - it's an extremely well written book. Seems awfully (predictable, I feared) to get this type of response so quickly.

Hopefully someone here has read this book.
 
BibleWelt said:
Most theist arguments come down to this? That may be true. I'm an atheist. The book seems rather atheistic in nature. This is no "Luke was a woman" or Acharaya S. (sp?) or whatever - it's an extremely well written book. Seems awfully (predictable, I feared) to get this type of response so quickly.

Hopefully someone here has read this book.
Click to expand...

Well, if you hang around here long enough, you get used to the fact that most arguments on the factuality of the Bible, or the truth of god's existence, or whatever religious topic is in fashion at the moment, come down to bare assertion. Get used to it. It ain't changin' any time soon.

:cs:

PS: Welcome to the JREF!
 
BibleWelt said:
Most theist arguments come down to this? That may be true. I'm an atheist. The book seems rather atheistic in nature. This is no "Luke was a woman" or Acharaya S. (sp?) or whatever - it's an extremely well written book. Seems awfully (predictable, I feared) to get this type of response so quickly.

Hopefully someone here has read this book.
Click to expand...


Which theist arguments are you talking about? I am simply saying that the arguments I have read regarding the dating of the gospels do not show any clear evidence that Mark was written as a response to anything. Quite a bit of this has been gone over in the Scriptural Literacy thread. There were a number of alternative theories discussed, including the "Luke was a woman", among others. Ironically enough, almost none of the participants in that thread were theists.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120440
 
BibleWelt said:
I've been lurking here for ages. I signed up recently, in order to use the search function. I'm (slightly) surprised to find no mention of Evan Powell's book "The Unfinished Gospel".

Has anyone here read this? The author puts forth a number of ideas I've not heard before, and he walks through each of them with extremely compelling arguments. I'm sure most of the posters here know much more about this stuff than I - but I've not come across any other book which is so convincing.

Basically, he's laying out a case for John 21 being the missing end of Mark (spiced up with Johannine words, a Nathaniel, etc.). The jacket blurb reads "Once the text of John 21 is restored to Mark, these two gospels reveal a momentous power struggle between rival disciples of Jesus within the primitive church."


Also included are intriguing arguments against the existence of Q and the late dating of John. The contention is that John was a slam on Peter and Mark was a response to that. The real twist here is that John appears to be the most historical of the writings, once the angels & other assorted madness is stripped away. The book concludes with the proposal that Jesus may have had a (an?) NDE & that the author of John was reporting what he believed to be accurate.

I'm no expert in this area. I'm wondering if any others here have checked this out. I pored through the thing, trying to debunk - but I'm pretty convinced this challenge to the Jesus Seminar is on the money.

Thanks to anyone who can help!
Click to expand...

I haven't read this book either. I'll see if Michael Shermer wants me to reveiw it for Skeptic. Can you tell me when it was written?

Even without having read the book, I find problems with any part of John originally being part of Mark. Bible scholars have noted that the Greek of John is rather polished, while that of Mark is rather crude.

A problem with the idea of the primacy of John is that we would expect increasing sophistication of the theology of the gospels over time and an increase in in the deification of Jesus. Consider that, in Mark, Jesus is presented at the begining of the gospel as an ordinary mortal who comes to John the Baptist to be celansed of his sins and who has a very personal and subjectivepiphany when he comes up out of the water. Matthew and Luke each take pains to make the epiphany public and objective - and to make Jesus more divine than does Mark. Notably, John doesn't even have the Baptist dunk Jesus in the Jordan, and no wonder. Right from the beginning, that gospel has made Jesus divine, identifying him with the Logos (Gr. [spoken] word), who was with God and who was God. Had John been the first gospel written, then we would have to explain the curious devolution of Jesus from John's God-in-the-flesh to mortal God-man to mortal in the Synoptic gospels.
 
TimCallahan said:
Even without having read the book, I find problems with any part of John originally being part of Mark. Bible scholars have noted that the Greek of John is rather polished, while that of Mark is rather crude.
Click to expand...


Wow, headshot from 30 miles away! :)
 
BibleWelt said:
The real twist here is that John appears to be the most historical of the writings, once the angels & other assorted madness is stripped away.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of the gospels are particularly historical, but that John is the most historical is pretty incredible. It portrays Jesus as a non-Jew intellectual (like a Greek philosopher).

The case for Q is pretty darn strong. You've got several different writings that use virtually the same wording, but evidence that the authors weren't aware of each other's writings. They must've shared a source.

The later dating of John is also a pretty strong case.

I'm curious as to what sort of evidence is offered to make the case for these claims that run contrary to scholarly consensus.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't think any of the gospels are particularly historical, but that John is the most historical is pretty incredible. It portrays Jesus as a non-Jew intellectual (like a Greek philosopher).
Click to expand...


To be fair, John does make the timing of events around the Crucifixion sound much more reasonable than in the synoptics. Having major things take place on Passover is somewhat implausible.
 
Hokulele said:
To be fair, John does make the timing of events around the Crucifixion sound much more reasonable than in the synoptics. Having major things take place on Passover is somewhat implausible.
Click to expand...

But it's also implausible that a Jewish teacher would refer to "the Jews" as "sons of the devil" (8:44) or refer to Jewish Law as "your law" (8:17).

Where the synoptics have Jesus preaching as a rabbi (parables and short sayings), John has him giving long discourses.

I just found a quote from Marcello Craveri:
The fourth gospel is of exceedingly little worth as a historical document and the Christian theologians themselves describe it as "pneumatic"--that is, spiritual--Gospel because it can be accepted only as a philosophical Christological dissertation
Click to expand...
From a book (sorry, no interweb link other than Amazon), The Life of Jesus p.312.

In the synoptics, Jesus turns the tables on the money lenders at the temple and is arrested and crucified within a week. In John (2:14ff), Jesus does such an outrageous thing right at the beginning of his public life, 3 years before his arrest. I find that more difficult to believe.

As I said, I don't find any of them to be good historical chronicles, but I think John reads much less like an attempt at historical chronicle than the synoptics.
 
Last edited:
I've just re-read the part of John that concerns the arrest, trial and crucifixion.

Even though it has the questioning by Caiphas on the day before passover, there's this passage:
John 18 said:
27Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. [i.e. it's now Passover]

28Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Click to expand...
From that point on, Jesus remains in Pilate's custody until the crucifixion.

The common apology for why he wasn't tried by Jewish authorities (for the crime of heresy) was that they didn't have capital punishment--and of course that's false. Handing a heretic over to the Romans makes no sense if we're after historical accuracy. For that matter, neither does arresting him the night before Passover.
 
Johannine priority has certainly been argued many times. Did not John T Robinson argue for it at one stage? Many people have, with various degrees of success in making their case. This is no matter of theistic assertion - after all, there are many clues within the texts, and plenty of ways one can hope to decide the order of the Gospels writing. I think a number of scholars are sympathetic to the idea that John may contain early sources, but that is not the same as saying John is the earliest Gospel - but this author may not be arguing that anyway?

I've not seen this book. I'd have to look at my commentaries to see if there is anything characteristically Marcan about John 21. However there is something a bit odd about it - John 20 could easily end the story there. Somwehere i have an article on the Resurrection appearances in John which might throw some light on this. I recall there is some logical difficulty, I just can't recall what, in the framing of the narrative here.

I'm not convinced by the "John must be late because of the theological complexities" argument. The "theological Christ is a mythic accretion" arguiment smacks of 19th century German rationalism, but it's deeply illogical given that our earliest sources, the seven authentic Pauline epistles are far MORE theological in their handling of Christ: logic dictates therefore that theological complexity tells us nothing about the order of writing of the gospels.

Anyway we know from plenty of modern cults that very "high christologies", by which I mean complicated theological interpretations of the meaning and significance of the founders, can arise while those people are still alive, or very soon after their death. LIkewise the quality of the Greek overall which si sometimes argued as bette rin John, tells us nothing accept the author came from a different milillieu to Mark

So is John 21 an appendage? I am not convinced: the wikipedia article is good here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_21 Is it Marcan? Doubt it, but if the author makes a convincing case I'm interested. I'll read it and see for myself.

cj x
 
Thank you everyone for the responses - I hadn't checked back and I'd thought this thread died straight away. I don't have the book nearby right now - and I'm falling asleep - but I'll look into it again tomorrow.

There are reviews at Amazon that for the most part reflect my feelings on the book (none of them are written by me) - one says "Near the end of a ten year study on the Bible and Christianity, involving dozens of books on the subject, I came upon 'The Unfinished Gospel'. Finally it all came together and made some kind of sense. Powell presents, in my opinion, an incredibly sound theory bridging the chasm between rational thinking and the origins of the Christian religion, enabling both to co-exist."

I just haven't been able to find much information the book anywhere - but every reference I have found reads like this one, posted on a hegel-hegelians yahoo group: "But as I say, in his book 'The Unfinished Gospel' Evan Powell proves, as far as I can tell, that John was the first Gospel written. Unfortunately I know of only one person besides myself who has read the book."

Just glancing at the above has been very interesting - thank you again. Powell discusses the point cj.23 made (re: the Pauline theology as being similarly theologically "advanced"). He breaks down each of the arguments for the late dating of John and shows them to be without conclusive merit. He says the Double Tradition material is the result of Matthew's copying of Luke, then addresses the minor agreements, etc..

Once more, thank you for taking the time. I'm afraid after re-reading what I just wrote that it sounds like I'm trying to sell this book! Really, though - I just don't have the knowledge base to be able to debunk Powell's claims. There may be something embarrassingly obvious which falsifies much of this work - but I just don't see it. And I'm afraid to try to supply answers to the questions above without doing injustice to Powell's theories.

TimCallahan: I believe it was released in 1994. Those Skeptic reviews are for new books, no? I just now see that Powell released another seemingly similar book in 2006 called "The Myth of the Lost Gospel". Looks like more of the same.

Anyway - thanks again.
 
BibleWelt said:
Also included are intriguing arguments against the existence of Q and the late dating of John.
Click to expand...

JoeTheJuggler said:
The case for Q is pretty darn strong. You've got several different writings that use virtually the same wording, but evidence that the authors weren't aware of each other's writings. They must've shared a source.
Click to expand...

Can someone please explain what Q is? I've never heard of it before.:confused:

I hope I haven't stumbled into some Star Trek parody thread
 
IIRC, it's called "Q" from the German "Quelle" which means "source". It's the hypothesized lost gospel from which the others copy. The original source, in other words.

Here's the wiki.

ETA: Double post - that'll teach me to read the forums in tabs, and forgetting to reload bfore answering.
 
Last edited:
Specifically, Q is thought to be a collection of sayings. It would, thus, be the source material for such things as the Sermon on the Mount. The Synoptic Gospels - Mark, Matthew and Luke - are called "synoptic," meaning "seen together" because of their common material, which is pretty much verbatim in the original Greek. The main body of narrative common to all three is generally seen as deriving from Mark. Matthew and Luke also made use of a source of sayings and teachings (Q), a well as adding their own individual material, such as the two confliction Nativity stories. These are called "M" and "L" respectively. This scenario is generally called the "Four Source Theory," the foursources being Mark, Q, M and L.

John seems to have been written independently, sometimes using common material about Jesus, sometimes using totally different material - as in the miracles of turning water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana and the resurrection of Lazarus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom