What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gospel of Q: Jesus' Prophetic Wisdom
Decades before our earliest preserved Gospels were first penned, the things Jesus said and did were passed down by word of mouth among his followers. However, by carefully comparing Matthew, Mark, and Luke, biblical scholars have discerned a written source even earlier than these The Gospel commonly known as “Q,” from the German word for “source.” Written in Greek sometime between 50 and 70 CE, this collection of Jesus’ teachings was used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. Following the meticulous reconstruction of Q by an international team of experts, this new translation highlights the wisdom of Jesus’ prophetic message — the Gospel behind the Gospels.
- GenresReligion
69 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 8, 2016
373 people are currently reading
48 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 26, 2021
Reading this very short book turned out to be a completely different experience than I anticipated. I purchased it expecting a simple set of literal translations of the 200 or so New Testament passages shared by Mathew and Luke but not by Mark. These passages comprise the basis for what Biblical scholars call "Q", a hypothetical 1st century Greek document which could have served as the earliest written record of many important sayings of Jesus, and from which, according to this theory, the later authors of the canonical gospels drew heavily from.
I quickly made my way through the introduction where the author does a fine job of briefly laying out the scholarly and archeological development which has led to the "Q" hypothesis.
But I soon began encountering surprises. There are actually two translations of "Q" in this book, the first of which the author describes as more colloquial and "loose", while the second is described as more literal.
Early in the first translation I realized that this was not going to be a traditionally Christian document. Far more liberties are taken than the author implies. For one thing, it has gone out of its way to avoid gendered language at all costs. This includes replacing Jesus' traditional appellation of God as "Father" with the less familial and somewhat cold term "Provider", as well as replacing Jesus' title "Son of Man" with the strange sounding "Human One".
Divergences from traditional translations also extend well beyond gender terms. "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" are replaced with "God's reign", while the traditionally soaring insistence that "Man shall not live by bread alone" is replaced with the mundane imperative "Don't live on bread alone." The words sin and sinner are avoided completely, with Jesus instead referring to "wrongdoers". Perhaps the most egregious example of what I consider the over-modernization of the text is the translation of Luke 7:22. Virtually all mainstream translations of this passage describe the second category of those Jesus has healed by saying that "the lame walk", this version instead tells us that "those who have challenges of mobility, walk".
As someone who prefers older and more poetic translations, I cannot help feeling that the author has ruined the beauty of the traditional English texts by replacing them with stilted and uninspiring prose anachronistically littered with inclusivity markers.
With all of that being said, I was still ready to forgive and forget if the "literal" translation in the back was any good. It turned out to be barely any different, with most of the difference being the slight retreat of total gender neutrality. We happily return to God as "Father" in the second translation, although "Human One" has become "Son of Humanity" rather than "Son of Man", and we still retain "God's reign" over "Kingdom of Heaven".
So why have I still given three stars? The answer is chapters 3-5, which are sandwiched between the two translations. Here the author develops his own theories and ideas about who Jesus was and what his message might have been. He doesn't pretend to be a Christian in the mainstream sense, and draws heavily from the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault, making the argument that Jesus was probably an illiterate mystic and "Wisdom teacher". He doesn't say so outright, but the subtext implies that the author does not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but rather a particularly spiritual but otherwise normal Galilean man of his time. Whether or not you find his argument credible, at least he is honest about his approach in this section. It is clear that this translation exists to serve the ends of this type of speculation, and not the other way around. Nonetheless, I did find that speculation interesting, and if the author had presented the book as a short treatise on early Christian mysticism and it's contemporary implications, rather than a translation of "Q", I would have likely given it 5 stars.
I quickly made my way through the introduction where the author does a fine job of briefly laying out the scholarly and archeological development which has led to the "Q" hypothesis.
But I soon began encountering surprises. There are actually two translations of "Q" in this book, the first of which the author describes as more colloquial and "loose", while the second is described as more literal.
Early in the first translation I realized that this was not going to be a traditionally Christian document. Far more liberties are taken than the author implies. For one thing, it has gone out of its way to avoid gendered language at all costs. This includes replacing Jesus' traditional appellation of God as "Father" with the less familial and somewhat cold term "Provider", as well as replacing Jesus' title "Son of Man" with the strange sounding "Human One".
Divergences from traditional translations also extend well beyond gender terms. "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" are replaced with "God's reign", while the traditionally soaring insistence that "Man shall not live by bread alone" is replaced with the mundane imperative "Don't live on bread alone." The words sin and sinner are avoided completely, with Jesus instead referring to "wrongdoers". Perhaps the most egregious example of what I consider the over-modernization of the text is the translation of Luke 7:22. Virtually all mainstream translations of this passage describe the second category of those Jesus has healed by saying that "the lame walk", this version instead tells us that "those who have challenges of mobility, walk".
As someone who prefers older and more poetic translations, I cannot help feeling that the author has ruined the beauty of the traditional English texts by replacing them with stilted and uninspiring prose anachronistically littered with inclusivity markers.
With all of that being said, I was still ready to forgive and forget if the "literal" translation in the back was any good. It turned out to be barely any different, with most of the difference being the slight retreat of total gender neutrality. We happily return to God as "Father" in the second translation, although "Human One" has become "Son of Humanity" rather than "Son of Man", and we still retain "God's reign" over "Kingdom of Heaven".
So why have I still given three stars? The answer is chapters 3-5, which are sandwiched between the two translations. Here the author develops his own theories and ideas about who Jesus was and what his message might have been. He doesn't pretend to be a Christian in the mainstream sense, and draws heavily from the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault, making the argument that Jesus was probably an illiterate mystic and "Wisdom teacher". He doesn't say so outright, but the subtext implies that the author does not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but rather a particularly spiritual but otherwise normal Galilean man of his time. Whether or not you find his argument credible, at least he is honest about his approach in this section. It is clear that this translation exists to serve the ends of this type of speculation, and not the other way around. Nonetheless, I did find that speculation interesting, and if the author had presented the book as a short treatise on early Christian mysticism and it's contemporary implications, rather than a translation of "Q", I would have likely given it 5 stars.
October 10, 2019
Interesting read
This is broken into two sections. In the first the author, who has very evidently studied this and other texts to great lengths, gives commentary on his insight into what and where certain passages come from and mean. I personally thought the gender neutral forms of Jesus and God were a bit distracting but the other parts were thought provoking...even if I don’t agree with everything that was mentioned. The second section is the translation that is widely accepted.
This is broken into two sections. In the first the author, who has very evidently studied this and other texts to great lengths, gives commentary on his insight into what and where certain passages come from and mean. I personally thought the gender neutral forms of Jesus and God were a bit distracting but the other parts were thought provoking...even if I don’t agree with everything that was mentioned. The second section is the translation that is widely accepted.
February 28, 2025
This reading was prompted by a discussion during my Bible Study group. It was pointed out that there are many similarities in the books of Matthew and Luke and possibly the two authors used a written source. The Book of Q was written in Greek between 50 and 70 AD.
It is a very short book but contains much challenging terminology.
It is a very short book but contains much challenging terminology.
April 19, 2025
Great read!
I found this to be an eye opening look into the “baseline” of the Gospels. While the Gospels were designed to establish a dogma and doctrine of the “New religion - Christianity “ this Q document simply presents Jesus in a raw state of instruction regarding the Kingdom of God. A call to seek and find without care for the “How” that Christianity requires.
I found this to be an eye opening look into the “baseline” of the Gospels. While the Gospels were designed to establish a dogma and doctrine of the “New religion - Christianity “ this Q document simply presents Jesus in a raw state of instruction regarding the Kingdom of God. A call to seek and find without care for the “How” that Christianity requires.
July 22, 2021
Great biblical theology
It explains the incomplete Gospel of Q and the parallels between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Thomas (a book not placed in the Bible.) I’m a fan of biblical theology and use it to reference and study the Word of God.
It explains the incomplete Gospel of Q and the parallels between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Thomas (a book not placed in the Bible.) I’m a fan of biblical theology and use it to reference and study the Word of God.
June 8, 2022
Ok but
This commentary on gospejl.of q. Needs more facts and scripture and lesxopinions. That said I still appreciated reading this book about a rare scripture. I re comment to all students of bible .
This commentary on gospejl.of q. Needs more facts and scripture and lesxopinions. That said I still appreciated reading this book about a rare scripture. I re comment to all students of bible .
March 2, 2022
To be frank, I was disappointed and expected quite a bit more but perhaps I expected too much.
June 15, 2024
Every time I read another gnostic gospel I am dumbfounded by the education I missed in a Christian reformed school and church. At a minimum, we should be exposed to this history. Every Jesus believer should read these.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews