The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins

Rating:
Summary: Searching for Scholarly, Objective Answers? Keep Searching.
Review: I am a person who sincerely questions the infallibility of the Bible. However, this book serves to make one briefly wonder if there is some truth to those anti-Christian conspiracy theories.

This book claims that Q had three editions. The author does not present the methods used to determine which "sayings of Jesus" from Matthew and Luke belong to which edition of Q. From what I see, the complete book of Q presented seems to be only the common material from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is possible that there was more material in the actual Q document that was not referenced by either Matthew or Luke. And it is possible that some common "sayings" material did not come from Q. This text makes no comment on such obvious possibilities.

The author makes numerous claims about the motivations of the writers of Q without presenting or referencing any evidence that supports his claims. For example, while the author does effectively demonstrate that some of Jesus' sayings follow the Cynic tradition, he leaps to the conclusion that the original "Q people" considered Jesus as a cynic sage.

Another major shortcoming is the author's tendency to present certain viewpoints as facts rather than interpretations or theories. For example, he states as fact that the marketplace children had "rejected the Jesus movement" using as his basis the Matthew 11:16 and Luke 7:31 passages where Jesus uses an analogy featuring teasing marketplace children. I must admit that was an interpretation I had not encountered before and in the context of the surrounding verses the author's interpretation is a little far-fetched. My main complaint is not that the idea of the marketplace children rejection it is far fetched, but that the so-called rejection is presented as a fact not as an interpretation.

The book is thought provoking. It raises some serious questions that deserve some sincere, objective answers. If one is searching for "scholarly", objective answers maybe there are some good books that will provided those types of answers. This is not one of them. Keep searching.

Rating:
Summary: Take the Q Challenge
Review: I notice other reviews on this site that are critical of Burton L. Mack for daring to think outside the box, but such criticism won't make the argument go away. Admittedly, the existence of the Q gospel can neither be proved nor disproved, but Mack didn't dream up the Q gospel by himself. Nineteenth-century scholars had considered the concept of a so-called "sayings" gospel that was used as a source for the synoptic gospels. Mack expanded on prior research and did a more conclusive job of culling the Q material from the New Testament. Like a lawyer trying a case solely on circumstantial evidence, he does a good job presenting his argument and supporting it with logical assumptions about the historical Jesus and the people of the early Jesus movement. (Readers interested in the early Jesus movement should also read "Who Wrote the New Testament" by the same author.)

The chapter on Galilean history before the Roman-Jewish War is important to recalibrate modern thinking about the homeland of Jesus and his followers. The images we have today are mostly drawn from cinema and well-told Bible stories where Jesus wanders around a Jewish province controlled by Rome. Galilee was more cosmopolitan than Judea, which means that Jesus' teachings and sayings were not necessarily tied only to Jewish law but could have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy as well. It is quite probable that the early followers never thought of their leader as "the Messiah." Mack develops three stages of Q, and you can see how the Jesus legend changed from a wisdom teacher to the Christ.

Mack's cumbersome writing style can be a struggle in the early chapters where he writes with the tortured prose of a college professor. The last four chapters, however, comprise a very provocative and well-written essay on the challenge that Q poses to Christianity, a religion that is facing enormous competition from secular and cynical forces that are doing a much better job of influencing the culture. People today, even Christians, tend to believe what is probably true and disbelieve what is probably not true. The Christian denominations have to answer that challenge, and continual recycling of the same old dogma and mythology from nineteen hundred years ago isn't good enough anymore. Too many people aren't buying it and they're not all heretics and devil worshippers just because they want to separate fact from fiction.

Rating:
Summary: A Source of Controversy
Review: In the quest to explain the remarkable similarities among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, scholars long ago posited a two- and later a four-document hypothesis. The core of both hypotheses was that Matthew and Luke used Mark and as one of their primary sources. The other primary source was a hypothetical collection of the sayings of Jesus that scholars denominated "Q", from the German word "Quelle", which means "source". The four document hypothesis remains the subject of lively debate, but it has this in common with democracy: Although it's not a very satisfactory explanation, it's better than all the others. "Q", then, is a hypothetical document which may or may not have existed.

Mack takes this hypothetical document as his foundation and builds an elaborate hypothetical textual history and an elaborate hypothetical history of the community which purportedly produced it. He achieves his results by piling speculation upon inference upon hypothesis. Mack then states his hypothetical results as though they were "the Gospel truth". (Pun intended). Mack commits the error of the foolish builder in the Q story found in Luke 12:42-46 (Matthew 7:24-27; Mack's QS 42).

Rating:
Summary: Great book for new testament studies
Review: Mack takes a very unique and provocative stance on his view of Q and new testament. He sees Jesus as a Cynic sage who traveled around with a sincere desire to teach a community of people who were no longer content in the tradition they lived in. Mack's historical and geographical analysis is very convincing, and the parallel between Q1 and Cynic Philosophy makes one wonder why they are so similar. The book reveals the important step that people are taking concerning religion. We are becoming to notice that being a Christian does not depend on believing in historical event, nor belief in supernatural and cosmic, but in understanding the teaching of Jesus. Mack's portray Jesus as an innovative teacher who urged his follower to govern themselves with individual integrity. I would have liked to Mack to specify what he did to Matthew and Luke to compose his own Q, the work. However, the book is generally well-written, and it is a great sourcebook for new testament studies.

Rating:
Summary: Author Uses False Dating to Boost His "Discovery"
Review: Right in the beginning the author states the orientation of Christianity changed from Jesus' teachings to his life and death. He claims that Christians "borrowed" their "mythology" from Hellenistic society (pg. 2) while completely ignoring the prophecies of the Old Testament, which had existed for hundreds and thousands of years before! This disgusting propaganda is then justified by false dating of the Gospels. He says Mark was written in the 70s A.D., Matthew in the 80s, and John in the 90s. He states Luke and Acts were written "sometime early in the second century." This dating is purposely liberal and false. St. John Mark got some of his material from an earlier source from around 33 A.D. to 40 A.D., which means that his gospel would not have any wishful thinking in it, because the material was written at a time when any witnesses would have corrected it (especially the angry Jewish pharisees). St. Matthew and St. Luke drew some of their material from Mark's gospel. There is substantial evidence that Luke wrote the Acts before 64 A.D., not the second century, because Luke would have included events such as Nero persecuting Christians, or other important events in the Jewish and early Christian community. Since Luke wrote the Acts before 64 A.D., his gospel must have been written around or before that time too. And finally, John's book of Revelation was written around 90 A.D., so his gospel was probably written around that time (in this case the author could have been correct) or before it. The harmony of the four gospels--which were written in different areas and published on different continents--is a testimony to the fact of Jesus' life, deeds, and even his teachings.

And the idea propagandated by the author that Christians don't focus or preach Jesus' teachings and sayings in completely false.

This book is a masterful piece of propaganda; he tries and equates the real, "myth-free" Christianity with a religion of sayings and teachings like Buddhism or Confucianism. But the real message of Christianity--while it does have teachings--is unique, and it will not be destroyed by somebody publishing a "lost gospel" and biased commentary.

Rating:
Summary: If you enjoy Bible mysteries also read new Proverbs book.
Review: The Lost Gospel of Q is a fascinating and controversial theory on the origins of Christianity. According to Mack for the first followers of Jesus, the importance of Jesus was his teachings. Initially Jesus' death was interpreted as a martyrdom. Later it was embellished as a miraculous event of crucifixion and resurrection which drew on hellenistic mythologies that told about the destiny of a divine being (son of God). If you enjoy Bible mysteries you may also find fascinating THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF PROVERBS by Cody Jones which unveils surprising new revelations on authorship on Old Testament books of Proverbs, Isaiah, Song of Songs and Job. The identitiy of King Solomon's secret ghostwriter for the book of Proverbs is unveiled for the first time in any commentary. Many other mysteries and riddles of Proverbs and the Old Testament are explored with surprising new answers.

Rating:
Summary: Provocative, but potentially dangerous!
Review: The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins Burton L. Mack Perhaps there should be a disclosure as a preface to all books discussing the New Testament and early Christian development. The author should state their own perspective be it, atheist, conservative, liberal, Catholic, Jewish, etc. It would make it easier for the reader to critically evaluate the text. I realize that some authors genuinely attempt an objective evaluation but most appear to have a theological or philosophical axe to grind. Such a disclosure would be an aid for the general reader such as myself. Therefore the reader should know that my comments are colored by my faith, Catholicism. I will let the reader judge whether in spite of my faith I have judged this book fairly. Although I do not agree with the thesis of the book, I found it provocative and stimulating. Mack's description of the development of New Testament analysis since the enlightenment to the present day was particularly informative. Scholars noted the similarity among Mark, Matthew & Luke. How the gospels related to one another, specifically which one was written first became known as the synoptic problem. Mt historically had the position of first gospel. Upon critical analysis scholars noted almost all of Mk appeared in both Mt & Lk therefore it must have been written first. After all why would the later gospels delete gospel material, but it made much more sense to add material. Thus developed the two-source theory. Mt & Lk each had available two written sources that they each used in their own way. One was Mk. The other was Q. Q represents a body of gospel material that does not appear in Mk, but does appear in Mt & Lk. Although scholars are not in total agreement, the common explanation is that Q is an abbreviation for quelle, German for source. This may have been derived from Redenquelle (sayings source). Or the designation may have been an arbitrary one. In any event this source material is distinctive in that it for the most part consists of short sayings of Jesus. Some of the sayings are difficult to accept since they are demanding imperatives and anti social. Also, there is no mention of the death or resurrection in Q. In the realm of current biblical scholarship the Q theory is middle of the road. Deviating from the middle of the road are scholars who have attempted not only a reconstruction of the Q text, but also theorized its development in various stages. In my opinion Mack falls off the road when he starts from this point to conceptualize the type of community, who would have listened to the sayings, remembered them and transmitted them as a collection of sayings. Essentially, Mack's thesis is that since the sayings made no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the resurrection never happened. The community was attracted to Jesus because they related to the anti social and unconventional tenor of the sayings. He was, and we have heard this before, just a teacher specifically a Cynic. As noted earlier the sayings are difficult to take and Mack may be right in that they probably appealed to the marginal and unconventional in society. Who could have been attracted to prescriptions such as, "leave to dead to bury the dead" or "whoever does not hate his father and mother will not be able to learn from me". Mack refers to the early movement as the Jesus movement, since there was no hint of the divinity of Jesus and therefore the community was not Christian. Later the Christians appropriated Q for there own use as appears in the canonical gospels. Mack's book is dangerous in that it appears to be a scholarly analysis of the early church, but it makes little attempt to be objective. It will appeal to the anti Christian. I think of it as tabloid scholarship or multi cultural apologetics. By the way I would have preferred at least some footnotes. I will indulge myself and state simply the fundamental flaw of Mack's thesis is that he takes Q as gospel. The title of Lost Gospel should have been an early warning sign. Q is not a gospel it is a theory. The reconstructed text is speculation and the layers of development more speculation. If we did not have Marks Gospel what kind of reconstructed text would scholars like Mack construct? But we do have Mark and we can see how both Mt & Lk changed, adapted, and redacted his written gospel. We are not even sure whether Mt & Lk had the same version of Q available to them. Perhaps there is no mention of the resurrection or death of Jesus in the Q sayings because it was taken for granted as an article of faith. Or maybe it was part of the early sayings but in each case the evangelist disregarded references to it because it would be dealt with later in the narrative. Q was a building block each evangelist used for there own respective literary and theological purpose. Mack ignores these possibilities. Now my Catholicism will show through. I accept the resurrection as fact. Assuming for arguments sake that some gospel material was the creation of the early church, what historical facts can we rely? Mack would probably say none. I offer the following. Jesus lived and taught. He died a scandalous death. His close friends deserted him at the cross and cowered in the upper room. Who can blame Peter for his denial, after all he may have thought he was next. The early church would not have painted such an unflattering portrait of its leader Peter and the disciples unless it was true. Also these facts are attested in several traditions. But we know that Peter did come out of the upper room and eventually died, as did James, Stephen and others for the faith. What could have made such a radical change in their behavior? I believe that each one experienced the Risen Jesus in a way we refer to as the resurrection. After the resurrection, they each began to recall remember and evaluate the teaching of Jesus. From its beginning the gospel proclaimed was Christian. Now there was reason to remember and transmit those weird Q sayings because they were from Jesus, not because of their intrinsic value. Or to put it another way, how many persons would have died for an everyday Cynic. If one examines the earliest layer of the sayings source Q1, there doesn't appear to be that much that would have been worth remembering. Not much to have distinguished Jesus from any other itinerant teacher. This is more compelling when one assumes that Mack is correct when he describes the Q community as anti social and rootless. Why would they have bothered to remember the sayings and why even transmit them? Jesus was crucified ( I assume Mack would acknowledge that if not based on the canonical gospels at least based on Josephus and Tacitus) but Mack offers no compelling explanation why he was crucified if he was a Cynic philosopher and appealed only to the marginal Q community. The only thing that makes sense for me is that the sayings were remembered because of the death and resurrection. Not only do I reject the thesis, but I am offended by the pretense of scholarship. A good scholarly text acknowledges the level of uncertainty about facts upon which the scholar will use in arguing their position. Each fact is critically evaluated and a reasoned judgment is made as to its utility in the thesis. Mack simply asserts facts to support his position with no mention that the fact itself is subject to some dispute. For example, my Harper Collins Study NRSV Bible, introductory notes to Mark state it was most likely written in the late 60's. Mack dates it 75- 80 AD based solely upon his dating of the hypothetical Q3. Most of what I have read dates the Gospel of Thomas 2nd century. Mack asserts it was written 90 AD because it fits his theory. It is one thing to explore the Hellenistic influence in Galilee, but to totally ignore the Jewish roots of Jesus is ludicrous. When Mack looks for a model that best explains the anti social sayings of Q1, he ignores the model of OT prophet and adapts the model of Cynic sage. When he needs to explain the "kingdom of God"

Rating:
Summary: An excellent presentation of compelling evidence.
Review: There is so much information and scholarly arguement presented in this book that it deserves several read-throughs and then storing a nearby 'for reference' shelf.

Many previous reviewers of this book seem to have missed or misunderstood important points and arguements.

Of course, it must be understood that any thesis should be prefaced with 'in my opinion',and readers should not criticise Mack for presenting his research and conclusions as fact when, obviously, it is the truth as far as he has discerned.

That said, I feel that Mack has presented compelling arguements for the Q document being behind much of the Christian framework. Furthermore, to my mind, these conclusions are not incompatible with Earl Doherty's Mythical Christ theory.(see his book The Jesus Puzzle) as the Jesus in the first layer of Q could well be a legendary figure.

In conclusion, a compelling read and a major source of future study reference.