The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus

by Evan Powell

Book Overview

The author's research and conclusions challenge long-held assumptions about which Gospel was written first, and even the authorship of portions of the Gospels, with consequences for understanding... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0963965069
• ISBN13: 9780963965066
• Release Date: January 1994
• Publisher: Symposium Books
• Length: 347 Pages
• Weight: 1.56 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 6.4" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

Gospel sequencing is essential to know the truth

Anyone who has ever read--or especially studied-- the 4 cannonical gospels cannot come away from them without asking a very basic question: why do the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth vary so greatly? Indeed, much of what the casual reader thinks he knows about the events narrated in the gospels, is a conflation of the events as told by the 4 evangelists. But which version is true, when they all disagree so much in content? Powell argues, in this marvelously well-written and readable volume, that in order to accurately know what really happened 2000 years ago, one must get as close to the original source as possible, because it is there, not in successive re-tellings and conflations of the real story, that the historical truth can be gleaned. Powell asserts that John's gospel, traditionally ranked as the fourth and latest gospel, is the "odd man out", so to speak, because it differs so vastly in content from the 3 synoptics: Mark, Matthew and Luke. He convincingly argues that because John's gospel is the most primitive and most devoid of the mythology and theology that plague the later synoptics, his must be the first, and therefore the oldest; the closest in time to the events it relates, and therefore the most likely gospel to be accurate from a historical point of view. Most Biblical scholars will readily admit that what has survived to become today's scriptures has evolved from stories that originated as verbal re-tellings of word-of-mouth renderings of historical happenings. But time has a way of corrupting history, whether innocently or by design, especially when long periods of time elapse between the historical event itself, and its final appearance in written form. And even in written form, errors in transcription, problems in language and translation, and an evolving understanding of what was previously not well understood at the time, all contribute to a final written version being, at times, starkly different from the original event it would report. Powell takes great pains to examine and compare, often verse-by-verse, the various renderings of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, and demonstrates how theological and mythological colorings have often changed-- sometimes subtly, at other times vastly, the gospel accounts of the life that forever changed the world, and why it is necessary to do some digging to un-earth the story as it really happened. One cannot help but walk away from this book with a profound rethinking and revamped understanding of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as related in the gospel of John, perhaps seeing him for the first time as a very 'human' being with an important message for the world. I think that anyone who is willing to approach this book with an open and inquisitive mind will thoroughly enjoy it, and profit from reading it.

Fits with recent Christ-myth scholarship

This theory fits so well with recent liberal scholarship, it's just a matter of time before other authors reconsider the gospel dating. The Christ-myth books (The Christ Conspiracy, The Jesus Puzzle, Deconstructing Jesus, The Jesus Mysteries) describe how the story began first as history-style myth and then later became reified as actual historical events of a single, toweringly influential Jesus figure.In Paul's authentic epistles, Jesus is mythical, and in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is historical. Why place John after the synoptics, then? It makes more sense to see John as the bridge from the mythic early epistles to the later synoptic Literalist/historicizing gospels, to form a smooth progression. The more I read other recent books, the more I keep being drawn to The Unfinished Gospel. Right now there is a tension building up; it's so inconsistent with the latest conception of the transformation of Christianity in the first few centuries to assume the John is later than the synoptics. This book may become a classic, because there is an established minority of scholars who agree that John reflects earlier traditions than the synoptic gospels.I expect that once the other contemporary scholars consider how perfectly this book's redating fits in with their theories of myth-making and historicizing, this book could garner a lot of attention. Gnostic, esoteric, and Christ-myth scholars should consider this book.

A thought provoking treatise

Powell argues for John's gospel as being the earliest written, with Mark being written in answer to John. The idea that John 21 was the original ending to Mark rather neatly solves the problem of why Mark ends so abruptly. Mark's ending was transferred to John to help "smooth over" the differences between the two gospels. Powell's arguments for the primacy of John are good, but they fail to carry the day. Mark doesn't appear to be written in answer to anything. It appears to be written by a man who simply wants to tell the story of Jesus in a language which is not his native tongue. If either of the gospels appears to be an "answer" to anything, it is John. John takes great pains to elevate the "beloved disciple" over Peter, an indication that Peter occupied a highly respected place in the early church and that the author of John might have harbored some resentment of Peter. Regardless of whether you agree with Powell's conclusions, you can appreciate his scholarship and the cogent arguments he makes to support his views.

A logical basis for Christianity?

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. Sounds hard to believe, I know, but he really does pull it off. Absolutely a must read for those of us "cursed" with a too-logical mind to accept on faith the Christian doctrine. A good book also for any Christian or biblical scholar willing to look objectively at the story from a rational viewpoint. Extremely well written and easy to read.

This book is an intriguing discussion of John's gospel.

This excellent and very readable book provides an unusual view of the order and importance of John's gospel relative to the synoptic gospels (Mark, Luke, and Matthew). The author examines the internal evidence in John's gospel, compares it to the material in the synoptic gospels, and deduces that John's gospel must have been written before the others. This reversal of the usual dating sequence implies that John's gospel gives us an earlier, and possibly more accurate picture of the life of Jesus and the formation of the early Church. Evan Powell points out that John's gospel does not mention the institution of the Eurcharist at the Last Supper and that there is an absence of traditions such as virginal conception of Mary, no angels at Jesus birth, no temptation by Satan, no casting out of demons, no transfiguration on the mountain, and no ascension. He notes that John's technical vocabulary is very limited in that many words that became integral to Christian expression never appear in his gospel, but do appear in the synoptic gospels or in the Pauline letters. Further, there is an absence of any description of the Church as an institution. Words such as apostle, church, and gospel are absent. Therefore Powell concludes that John's gospel was composed earlier than the others, before the Jesus movement had formed institutional structures and a well developed mythology. Because of the many times Peter is mentioned with negative connotations, the author concludes that during the foundation of the early Church, John organized a community with a view of Jesus' life quite different from the community led by Peter. Another point he stresses is that "the beloved disciple" (John) is mentioned in a scene showing John reclining on Jesus' bosom and that this scene implies that John considered himself heir to Jesus' ministry. Only in the last chapter of John (i.e., John:21) are the conflicts between the leadership of Peter and John resolved, but this chapter is commonly believed to be an addendum no! t written by John. Powell believes that Chapter 21 was constructed from the missing portion of Mark's gospel which has a surprisingly abrupt ending often noted by biblical scholars. The problem can be overcome by re-attaching the twenty-first chapter of John and noting how well it fits Mark's writing style and themes. Powell maintains it was revised and added to John's gospel to gloss over the differences between the teachers and the teachings of the Johnine and Petrine communities. Whether or not Powell's conclusions are validated by future research, they provide an intriguing picture of what might have occurred as a monolithic Church evolved from many small and independent communities.