Supporting Scholarship
Deciphering
the Gospels is based largely on independent research and
analysis, yet it does not stand alone. Deciphering the Gospels
is part of a growing body of scholarship that is revolutionizing our
understanding of Christian origins.
Provided here are other works that support the case presented in Deciphering the Gospels:
The Jesus
Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a
Mythical Christ?
Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus; Earl Doherty, 1999
I did not actually read The
Jesus Puzzle until after I had completed my research on
the Gospels, but I had been aware of the major concepts put forward in
the book. Upon reading The
Jesus Puzzle, however, I immediately saw how the heavenly
Jesus described by Doherty fit almost exactly with the conception of
Jesus that I myself had arrived at. Whereas my research focused on the
Gospels, The Jesus
Puzzle is more focused on pre-Gospel works, and makes a
solid case that the pre-Gospel Jesus was indeed a heavenly deity. In
many ways, Deciphering
the Gospels extends Doherty’s work with more extensive
analysis of the Gospels.
On the
Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt;
Richard Carrier, 2014
On the
Historicity of Jesus is certainly a seminal work in the
field.
While most of the writing for Deciphering
the Gospels was completed
before On the
Historicity of Jesus was published, Deciphering the
Gospels is very much in-line with the case presented by
Dr. Carrier.
Indeed, Carrier mentions my work in On the Historicity of Jesus,
though
in reference to earlier stages of the thesis presented in Deciphering
the Gospels. Carrier had the following to say about my
work to that
date:
“If ‘Jesus
Christ began as a celestial deity’ is false, it could still
be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some scholars
have argued-the best examples being R. G. Price and Gary Courtney). But
as will become clear in the following chapters (especially Chapter 11),
such a premise has a much lower probability (and thus is at a huge
disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the
evidence), and a very low consequent probability (though it suits the
Gospels well, it just isn’t possible to explain the evidence in the
Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself
becomes very hard to explain as well). Although I leave open the
possibility it may yet be vindicated,” (pp 53-54)
This assessment was based on my writings from prior to 2009 which
focused much more heavily on the Gospels themselves. Carrier’s
assessment here assumes that I believed the concept of Jesus himself
had originated with the first Gospel. This was not the case, though I
see how that impression could have been given since my earlier work
focused so heavily on the development of Gospels and gave little
attention to the pre-Gospel conception of Jesus.
In Deciphering the
Gospels it is made clear that the fictional Gospel Jesus
is
built on top of the imaginary heavenly Jesus that Paul preached. In
short, the
case presented in Deciphering
the Gospels is that the human Jesus is a
fictional character based on the heavenly Jesus that Carrier and
Doherty make such a compelling case for.
Mark,
Canonizer of Paul: A New Look At Intertextuality in Mark’s
Gospel; Tom Dykstra, 2012
I was made aware of Dykstra’s work after I published a 2014 web article
laying out the major points of my current thesis. However, I didn’t
actually
read Dykstra’s book until after I had completed the manuscript for
Deciphering
the Gospels. Having now read it, I view it as an
outstanding
work of scholarship that makes a major contribution to our
understanding of not only the development of the Gospels, but
also the history
of how that understanding has developed and been treated by the
academic community.
Much of Dykstra’s assessment of the relationship between the letters of
Paul and the Gospel of Mark mirrors my own work. We have independently
arrived at many of same conclusions. I think our works complement each
other’s very well, with his being of stronger academic rigor.
Deciphering
the Gospels, however, goes beyond the analysis provided by
Dykstra to explore broader implications of the findings. Dykstra does
not make a case against the existence of Jesus in his work, but
provides much of the material needed for reaching such a conclusion.
Liberating the Gospels: Reading
the Bible with Jewish Eyes; John Shelby Spong , 1997
While Spong does not question the existence of Jesus in Liberating the Gospels,
he shows that the Gospel narrative is a work of literary invention in
the mold of Jewish tradition. What Spong does in Liberating the Gospels
is unequivocally make the case that the Gospels are not history, they
are essentially fictional stories.
Hebrew
Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark; Wolfgang Roth, 1988
I was introduced to Roth’s work by Dykstra. I first began
reading
Roth’s work after Deciphering
the Gospels was in print, but was
astounded to see not only that Roth had identified many of the same
parallels that I had, but that Roth even used the same passages to
introduce
the relationship between the Gospel of Mark and the Elijah-Elisha
narrative.
In chapter 1 of Deciphering
the Gospels I use the identification of
John the Baptist as Elijah and the Transfiguration scene to introduce
the
nature of the literary allusions used in the Gospel of Mark. Little did
I know that Wolfgang Roth had beaten to the punch some 30 years prior.
Roth used these same passages to introduce his analysis as well.
The Preface of Roth’s work reads:
“This study
advances the thesis that Mark’s work is basically, though
not exclusively, patterned by a narrative of similar plot, cast, and
volume present in that body of literature that is the primary matrix of
early Christian reflection and writing: the Hebrew Scriptures.
Thus it is my goal to show how the appearance of Jesus, the martyr from
Nazareth, was conceptualized and narrated by the second evangelist in
the light of that paradigm, and to discuss the nature of the
hermeneutic activity that, following scriptural codes, generated the
gospel of Mark.” (pp xi)
This, of course, is in many ways the thesis of Deciphering the Gospels.
Yet again, the scope of Deciphering
the Gospels extends beyond
that of this prior work.
Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic
Gospels; David Oliver Smith, 2011
I was made aware of Smith's work by Robert M. Price after having
published Deciphering
the Gospels.
Smith's work shares many points with my own. Like Dykstra and myself,
Smith shows that the author of the Gospel of Mark made use of the
Pauline Epistles. Smith also makes a case against "Q" as a second
source. He makes the case that much of what is attributed to Q is
Markan invention, which I think is certainly one of several plausible
explanations for the Q material. Again, Deciphering the Gospels
goes beyond the scope of these prior works to explore the full impact
of these new findings.
The Case
Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic
Problem; Mark Goodacre, 2002
Goodacre’s work is, in my opinion, a decisive blow against the Q
hypothesis. While there have been many arguments against the concept of
Q over the years, the arguments put forward in this work should
rightfully put an end to the idea that there was any “second source” of
material used by the other Gospel writers. This is a point critical to
the case put forward in Deciphering
the Gospels, which concludes that
every biography of Jesus stems from a single source. While the case I
put forward against Q in Deciphering
the Gospels is not based directly
on Goodacre’s work, The
Case Against Q provides solid support for the
idea that every biography of Jesus is derived from the Gospel of Mark.
Sowing the
Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective;
Mary Ann Tolbert, 1989
Sowing the
Gospel is a fascinating analysis of the Gospel of Mark,
unlike any other that I have seen. Professor Tolbert’s approach to the
subject is radically different than that of most other biblical
scholars and certainly much different than mine. Tolbert approaches
Mark from a literary perspective. Her assessment is not based on
technicalities or comparative textual analysis, etc. but rather on a
deep knowledge of ancient literature and keen narrative insights.
Nevertheless, from this radically different perspective Tolbert
comfortably observes what many other biblical scholars struggle to come
to grips with – that, “Mark
is a self-consciously crafted narrative, a
fiction, resulting from literary imagination.” (Sowing the
Gospel pp 30)
Sowing the Gospel reveals the literary genius of the Gospel of Mark in
ways that no other work that I am familiar with does. |