What do you think?
Rate this book
الإنجيل المفقود: كتاب ك والأصول المسيحية
This is the 1st full account of the lost gospel of Jesus' original followers, revealing him as a Jewish Socrates who was mythologized into the New Testament Christ. Compiled by his followers during his lifetime, the Book of Q (Quelle, German for source) became the prime foundation for the New Testament gospels. Once lost, it has been reconstructed thru a century of scholarship. In presenting his own translation, Mack explains how the text of Q was determined & explores the implications of the discovery that Jesus was transformed into the dying & rising messianic savior of Xianity by the gospels. Instead of telling a dramatic story about Jesus' life as the Xian gospels do, the Book of Q contained only his sayings. The 1st followers focused not upon his life & destiny, but on the social experiment called for by his teachings. Their book collected his proverbs, aphorisms & parables to offer instruction in living authentically in the midst of a confusing time. The Lost Gospel puts forth the 1st popular translation of Q as scholarly consensus has reconstructed it; shows that Jesus' life story as presented in the gospels was fictionalized for theological purposes; reveals Jesus to be a countercultural teacher & leader subsequently mythologized into the Christ of the New Testament; depicts Jesus' followers not as Xians, but as disciples of a wise, antiestablishment teacher; they didn't believe him the son of God, believe he rose from the dead, or gather to worship in his name & concludes that Xianity is a mythologized religion rooted in a historical figure & teachings that in reality are quite remote from conventional beliefs.
289 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1993
148 people are currently reading
995 people want to read
About the author
Burton L. Mack
18 books11 followersJohn Wesley Professor of the New Testament at the school of Theology at Claremont
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
July 14, 2017
If you are a Christian and wavering in your faith, then this book may tip you over the edge. There are points the author raises that will challenge your beliefs and your understanding of many traditions that exist today. Q does not actually exist, but the contents have been reconstructed and is a collection of the sayings or teachings of Jesus. This book describes the scholarly effort to reconstruct this hypothetical text, it includes the gospel of Q and traces the social environment affecting Q from the time it was written to modern Christianity as we understand it. How did the followers of Jesus change from the times of Q to now? And why?
Background on Q. New Testament scholars commonly believe that the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written from the gospel of Mark as a source. However, in the 19th century, a second common source was proposed. "Q" for Quelle from the German word for "source". This would represent one of the earliest accounts of Jesus' sayings.
I like that the author describes how the text was recreated, however I found some of the arguments hard to follow. He makes the distinction between the historical Jesus who existed, and who may actually have said and taught the words proposed in Q, and the Christ messiah who was crucified and resurrected.
Mind-opening book, but it should be read along with other explanations of Q. Read the epilogue after reading Q, and before the rest of the book. It might make it easier to follow some of the arguments.
I think the book would have benefited from a glossary of terms as used (the dictionary meanings didn't seem to fully capture the context)
Background on Q. New Testament scholars commonly believe that the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written from the gospel of Mark as a source. However, in the 19th century, a second common source was proposed. "Q" for Quelle from the German word for "source". This would represent one of the earliest accounts of Jesus' sayings.
I like that the author describes how the text was recreated, however I found some of the arguments hard to follow. He makes the distinction between the historical Jesus who existed, and who may actually have said and taught the words proposed in Q, and the Christ messiah who was crucified and resurrected.
Mind-opening book, but it should be read along with other explanations of Q. Read the epilogue after reading Q, and before the rest of the book. It might make it easier to follow some of the arguments.
I think the book would have benefited from a glossary of terms as used (the dictionary meanings didn't seem to fully capture the context)
January 13, 2021
It's good piece of detective work, comparing texts to distinguish common kernels of the story from the divergent elaborations. But to my mind it mainly exposes how much and how instinctively we fill in the gaps, connecting the dots toward our pre-assumed story line.
May 10, 2011
WOW! WOW! WOW!
This book will make you think!
Imagine the Christian gospels of Matthew and Luke being written using the
Gospel of Mark and another second unknown source, as guides and examples
The unknown source is called Q from the German “Quelle” or “source”. This source is supposed to have had quotations from Jesus Christ.
Sounds crazy uh? Well the more you read it, the more you will see that it might be possible. The fact that this is suggested by scholars and not conspiracy nuts is what makes it a fantastic reading!
This book will make you think!
Imagine the Christian gospels of Matthew and Luke being written using the
Gospel of Mark and another second unknown source, as guides and examples
The unknown source is called Q from the German “Quelle” or “source”. This source is supposed to have had quotations from Jesus Christ.
Sounds crazy uh? Well the more you read it, the more you will see that it might be possible. The fact that this is suggested by scholars and not conspiracy nuts is what makes it a fantastic reading!
October 1, 2014
The first assignment in Walter Wink's course on the Christian Scriptures at Union Theological Seminary was to go through the synoptic gospels with magic markers, showing the correspondences of passages between two or more of them. As a consequence of this exercise I developed a firm conviction in the essential accuracy of the Q hypothesis (from the German Quelle or "source"). The many passages of sayings attributed to Jesus shared by Luke and Matthew indicate a common source not employed by Mark.
It is one thing to accept the hypothesis of a Sayings Document, another to reconstruct it. This is what Mack attempts to do in The Lost Gospel.
The Gospel of Thomas found in Egypt in the forties suggests what a sayings document might have looked like. Mack suggests a more complex model whereby such texts went through stages of development reflecting changing social conditions. Of course, texts being unique holographs in those days, one must imagine a tree of many branches constituting the whole of such a written tradition and one might expect that the earliest materials stemming from a common source would be the most abundantly evident in the Luke/Matthew parallels. This is roughly compatible with Mack's claim that the third and latest stratum, the one following the Roman War, is also the one least represented in the two gospels. However, many scenarios of transmission are imaginable, even those which conceive of scribes reconciling their texts, one to another.
Written for ordinary persons familiar with the bible, Mack's argument is dangerous in that it projects a confidence unwarranted by the evidence. While the probable existence of Sayings Documents is virtually uncontestable, any attempt to reconstruct exemplars beyond the aforementioned Thomas will be debatable until and unless more evidence is obtained.
It is one thing to accept the hypothesis of a Sayings Document, another to reconstruct it. This is what Mack attempts to do in The Lost Gospel.
The Gospel of Thomas found in Egypt in the forties suggests what a sayings document might have looked like. Mack suggests a more complex model whereby such texts went through stages of development reflecting changing social conditions. Of course, texts being unique holographs in those days, one must imagine a tree of many branches constituting the whole of such a written tradition and one might expect that the earliest materials stemming from a common source would be the most abundantly evident in the Luke/Matthew parallels. This is roughly compatible with Mack's claim that the third and latest stratum, the one following the Roman War, is also the one least represented in the two gospels. However, many scenarios of transmission are imaginable, even those which conceive of scribes reconciling their texts, one to another.
Written for ordinary persons familiar with the bible, Mack's argument is dangerous in that it projects a confidence unwarranted by the evidence. While the probable existence of Sayings Documents is virtually uncontestable, any attempt to reconstruct exemplars beyond the aforementioned Thomas will be debatable until and unless more evidence is obtained.
February 16, 2011
An examination of the proposed sayings Gospel known to scholars simply as "Q". The gospel of Q was compiled from content contained within the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The author argues that this lost gospel was used first by Mark in composing his Gospel, and then later by Matthew and Luke who combined it with Mar's Gospel to create their own accounts. The author goes own to argue that the earliest form of Q highlights Jesus of Nazareth not as a Jewish religious or political reformer, as the founder of a new religion, or as the promised messiah; rather, Jesus is argued as having been a Stoic sages such as Zeno or Seneca. The Jewish and Christ aspects were tacked on later as the movement grew and faced difficulty following the aftermath of the Jewish revolt. Interesting ideas on Christian origin and worth consideration. Of course, the antiquity and limited historical information on Jesus of Nazareth makes it hard to authenticate any claims on what about him was true.
March 14, 2017
There just isn't enough evidence to convince me that the document hypothesized by the Q hypothesis is anything other than a hypothesis. Because of this, attempt to recreate the contents of this document, and the community that supposedly created it it, are misguided at best. Equally misguided is the idea that such a document, which has absolutely no physical evidence to support its existence, can unlock the mysteries of the "real" Jesus ans "real" Christianity.
March 2, 2018
In The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, Burton L. Mack hypothesizes a new gospel, Q (from Quelle, French for source), which he puts together by going backwards from the four (or five if you include Thomas) narrative gospels and comparing the materials that are identical enough that most scholars (on all sides of the question) claim Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thomas and John took from a contemporary source of Jesus's sayings. After abstracting Q from them, he then goes on to interpret why the five have other materials which are different from not only this source, but from one another. Obviously one of the reasons is that the four narrative gospels were written long after Jesus, or his contemporaries, were around to correct them, and many stories and rumors and speculation was available to choose material from. Q, on the other hand, consists of material from no later than the first 40 years of the various Jesus movements. There were many Jesus groups of which Q was only one. Each emphasized ideas important to themselves.
The Jesus of Q is not a political or religious reformer, but similar to a cynic philosopher and teacher. Teachers with followers/ students (like Socrates) were fairly common at the time. He does not claim to be God or the King of the Jews. He proposes a set of rules for a moral life. His followers are Jesus people, not Christ people (Christians). Q is a book of his sayings, his teachings, and there is no reason to study his biography; he is a man, a teacher; his words are what is important.
However, years later when each of the authors of the narrative gospels was putting together his material, each had various, and different, agenda in addition to merely writing down a few sayings; the reasons were more nuanced and complex. Burton L. Mack does not claim that any of them deliberately tried to change Jesus into something he was not, but that time and attitude had changed portions of the population's interpretations as to the significance of Jesus's message. Different groups emphasized different things.
Adding to this are Paul's views (who emphasized Jesus's death and mostly ignored his role as a teacher), many bishops' views, etc. Mack covers these differences in detail. He ends up claiming that a cynic teacher with no pretentions to universal greatness (based on the gospel of Q which was written during and very shortly after Jesus's lifetime), became bit by bit identified as the Messiah, the anointed or Christ, prophesied in the Jewish literature. Q shows the original; our own convoluted interpretation of a unity between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, and Paul (who do not interpret the same figure at all) shows our current Christian view.
In Organization, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins first explains how this gospel was "found" and put together. It then gives the complete text of the gospel and divides it into three parts, depending on when Mack believes it was written. Mack, a professor of New Testament at the School of Theology at Claremont, then provides a background explaining the social and cultural situation of the time and how it influenced the Q people. After that he shows how the Q material was passed down to, and incorporated by, Thomas, Matthew, and Mark (and from Mark to John and Luke). From there he gives details on how Paul and others created our Christian myth. Finally he explains how he feels this knowledge will effect our future beliefs. Mack thinks his hypothesis will change the church. However it is also possible, and even likely, the church will simply ignore it.
Conceptually the book is interesting; it does bog down in the many, many details, however. Anyone interested in the "real" Jesus could profit from reading this work, whatever his orientation to the situation is. Mack presents a human Jesus untouched by divinity; but the scholarly background he uses to present his view should be as useful to anyone who fully believes in the divinity of Jesus as to those who share Mack's own interpretation. The lengthy select bibliography would be useful to any scholars of this conflict as well.
The Jesus of Q is not a political or religious reformer, but similar to a cynic philosopher and teacher. Teachers with followers/ students (like Socrates) were fairly common at the time. He does not claim to be God or the King of the Jews. He proposes a set of rules for a moral life. His followers are Jesus people, not Christ people (Christians). Q is a book of his sayings, his teachings, and there is no reason to study his biography; he is a man, a teacher; his words are what is important.
However, years later when each of the authors of the narrative gospels was putting together his material, each had various, and different, agenda in addition to merely writing down a few sayings; the reasons were more nuanced and complex. Burton L. Mack does not claim that any of them deliberately tried to change Jesus into something he was not, but that time and attitude had changed portions of the population's interpretations as to the significance of Jesus's message. Different groups emphasized different things.
Adding to this are Paul's views (who emphasized Jesus's death and mostly ignored his role as a teacher), many bishops' views, etc. Mack covers these differences in detail. He ends up claiming that a cynic teacher with no pretentions to universal greatness (based on the gospel of Q which was written during and very shortly after Jesus's lifetime), became bit by bit identified as the Messiah, the anointed or Christ, prophesied in the Jewish literature. Q shows the original; our own convoluted interpretation of a unity between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, and Paul (who do not interpret the same figure at all) shows our current Christian view.
In Organization, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins first explains how this gospel was "found" and put together. It then gives the complete text of the gospel and divides it into three parts, depending on when Mack believes it was written. Mack, a professor of New Testament at the School of Theology at Claremont, then provides a background explaining the social and cultural situation of the time and how it influenced the Q people. After that he shows how the Q material was passed down to, and incorporated by, Thomas, Matthew, and Mark (and from Mark to John and Luke). From there he gives details on how Paul and others created our Christian myth. Finally he explains how he feels this knowledge will effect our future beliefs. Mack thinks his hypothesis will change the church. However it is also possible, and even likely, the church will simply ignore it.
Conceptually the book is interesting; it does bog down in the many, many details, however. Anyone interested in the "real" Jesus could profit from reading this work, whatever his orientation to the situation is. Mack presents a human Jesus untouched by divinity; but the scholarly background he uses to present his view should be as useful to anyone who fully believes in the divinity of Jesus as to those who share Mack's own interpretation. The lengthy select bibliography would be useful to any scholars of this conflict as well.
November 15, 2018
I have greatly mixed feelings about the book I’m reviewing here, “The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q”. I was inclined to suspect that the author is an atheist or agnostic, given the fact that he seemed extremely cynical about the possibility that the Divine could shine through the lives and teachings of some human beings. Even if the author is an atheist, that would not invalidate his arguments concerning the development of Christianity, the claims he makes about “Q” having existed as an actual book, and his arguments that “Q” presents a vastly different picture of Jesus of Nazareth than is offered in the gospel accounts.
Let me be brief in this review, and simply state that I found the book to be intriguing in that it offers a greatly diverse picture of Jesus’ life and teachings than what one finds in the gospels. If Burton Mack is at all correct in his claims about “Q”, then such a book could present a grave threat to traditional claims of “mainstream” Christianity. It appears that Dr. Mack was arguing that the earliest followers of Jesus (at any rate, the people of “Q”) did not even teach that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. On page 43 I find the following observations: “… Since that seemed to fit the standard Christian scenario, no one bothered to ask Edwards how he knew that the people of Q thought that Jesus had been raised from the dead when they made no mention of it.” By Dr. Mack’s understanding of “Q” and the “Jesus people”, it seems that some of the earliest followers of Jesus made no claims at all to the effect that Jesus had been raised from the dead, but merely taught that Jesus was a great spiritual teacher, prophet, and sage. On page 216 of this book, Mack asserts as follows: “… Why would the Christ congregations have used it [Christ, Messiah] if, as we have seen, the Jesus movement had not thought of Jesus as a messiah?”
In short, Mack argues that that some of the earliest followers of Jesus (the people of “Q”) did not even claim that Jesus had been resurrected and did not regard him as a messiah. Mack argues that a mythology was created around the life, death, and (supposed) resurrection of Jesus. On page 221, Mack makes further claims as follows: “The difference between the Jesus movements [including the people of “Q”] and their mythologies and the congregations of Christ [including Paul and his followers] and their mythologies should now be clear. One important contrast is that between a focus on the instructions of a teacher and the dramatic event of a martyr’s death and resurrection….”
Obviously, Dr. Mack is claiming that the “Christ people” who became “mainstream” Christianity created a mythology around the life of Jesus and made claims in the gospel writings, as well as through the teachings of Paul, that were dramatically diverse from what the people of “Q” had originally taught and believed.
Can Burton Mack’s arguments properly be regarded as veridical? I am not a “Bible” scholar, and I can only judge as a moderately educated layman what might be the best answers to offer. In fact, was the “Book of Q” ever an extant set of writings in book form? Mack claims it was, and many other “Bible” scholars are convinced that the gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) borrowed widely from “Q” in creating their gospel accounts. If I had to offer a guess (as a mere layman), I would guess that “Q” really had existed, but got lost and was never to be directly discovered, as can easily happen for writings of that era. Whether or not claims made by Burton Mack concerning the people who created “Q” are valid claims, this judgment I defer to those much more informed than myself. Burton Mack is among those, but there might well be equally informed “Bible” scholars who would declare that Mack gets it all wrong.
In conclusion, I will simply say that the book under review here is food for serious thought, reflection, and consideration. Any Christian who cares deeply about the validity of the foundations of his/her religion would do well to read such books as this. It could be a sobering experience and even a wake-up call.
Let me be brief in this review, and simply state that I found the book to be intriguing in that it offers a greatly diverse picture of Jesus’ life and teachings than what one finds in the gospels. If Burton Mack is at all correct in his claims about “Q”, then such a book could present a grave threat to traditional claims of “mainstream” Christianity. It appears that Dr. Mack was arguing that the earliest followers of Jesus (at any rate, the people of “Q”) did not even teach that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. On page 43 I find the following observations: “… Since that seemed to fit the standard Christian scenario, no one bothered to ask Edwards how he knew that the people of Q thought that Jesus had been raised from the dead when they made no mention of it.” By Dr. Mack’s understanding of “Q” and the “Jesus people”, it seems that some of the earliest followers of Jesus made no claims at all to the effect that Jesus had been raised from the dead, but merely taught that Jesus was a great spiritual teacher, prophet, and sage. On page 216 of this book, Mack asserts as follows: “… Why would the Christ congregations have used it [Christ, Messiah] if, as we have seen, the Jesus movement had not thought of Jesus as a messiah?”
In short, Mack argues that that some of the earliest followers of Jesus (the people of “Q”) did not even claim that Jesus had been resurrected and did not regard him as a messiah. Mack argues that a mythology was created around the life, death, and (supposed) resurrection of Jesus. On page 221, Mack makes further claims as follows: “The difference between the Jesus movements [including the people of “Q”] and their mythologies and the congregations of Christ [including Paul and his followers] and their mythologies should now be clear. One important contrast is that between a focus on the instructions of a teacher and the dramatic event of a martyr’s death and resurrection….”
Obviously, Dr. Mack is claiming that the “Christ people” who became “mainstream” Christianity created a mythology around the life of Jesus and made claims in the gospel writings, as well as through the teachings of Paul, that were dramatically diverse from what the people of “Q” had originally taught and believed.
Can Burton Mack’s arguments properly be regarded as veridical? I am not a “Bible” scholar, and I can only judge as a moderately educated layman what might be the best answers to offer. In fact, was the “Book of Q” ever an extant set of writings in book form? Mack claims it was, and many other “Bible” scholars are convinced that the gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) borrowed widely from “Q” in creating their gospel accounts. If I had to offer a guess (as a mere layman), I would guess that “Q” really had existed, but got lost and was never to be directly discovered, as can easily happen for writings of that era. Whether or not claims made by Burton Mack concerning the people who created “Q” are valid claims, this judgment I defer to those much more informed than myself. Burton Mack is among those, but there might well be equally informed “Bible” scholars who would declare that Mack gets it all wrong.
In conclusion, I will simply say that the book under review here is food for serious thought, reflection, and consideration. Any Christian who cares deeply about the validity of the foundations of his/her religion would do well to read such books as this. It could be a sobering experience and even a wake-up call.
December 27, 2015
Burton L. Mack is the Jesus Seminar's intellectual kamikaze. With a high-school level writing style and even shoddier logic, The Lost Gospel desperately tries to spark some form of misguided controversy. Unfortunately for its author, being a historian requires a bit more than making blanket generalizations. After pumping out a paper thin "methodology," Mack is somehow surprised to discover that none of the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus are original and that Jesus was nothing more than a cynic-philosopher teaching quick ethical one-liners (what a coincidence). Afterwards, he elaborates on how Q has provided us with the true history of Christianity: A group of "Jesus people" was simply trying to live with verve in the political/philosophical turmoil of 1st century Palestine. Over time, many people distorted the original intentions of the movement through a series of myths that eventually became our modern gospels. Already a tenuous premise, Mack adds insult to injury by not even attempting to answer the inevitable questions that follow: How does this myth making work in a Jewish context? What about parts of the Pauline epistles that are contemporary or near the development of Q that portray a different narrative? Why is this Jesus completely divorced from his Jewish context? Why should we assume that the people of Q rejected a narrative just because their book lacked one? Overall, this book can only be described as what it is: a poorly written, overly-simplified joke.
July 6, 2021
Although this book is ver scholarly in its approach on most things, Mack’s validity quickly changes to the skeptical clearly influenced by his own opinion and bias. Perspectives on Q being drastically different than books like Mathew and Luke gals apart in detail, picking and choosing, and in simple reality. Why would Mathew and Luke, who believe in a Divine Jesus use a source in any sort that does not. Sure it may include realistic accounts for them to use, yet if they were crazy people believing in a false mythology, why would they see validity in it as a source. Furthermore we can see non-bias letters from Roman leaders referencing the belief in a divine and resurrected Jesus around the time Q was written right after Jesus. This is before Mathew and Luke. This tells us that the very early church believed this from the start, and it concerned Rome. This is why I believe the highly quality aspects of this book are soiled by an almost gnostic like perspective of secret knowledge that is simply unrealistic when looking from even a simple all inclusive perspective.
July 30, 2016
Mack peels back the layers of the gospels to argue that the earliest sayings of Jesus reveal a wisdom teacher influenced by the Cynic philosophy of Diogenes and his lineage, rather than the apocalyptic prophet he is usually characterized as being by modern academics. This is a rather appealing notion in terms of rehabilitating the ethically orientated aphorisms of the synoptic gospels from the accumulated layers of Christian detritus. It is difficult, however, for the lay person to meticulously reconstruct the process by which he strips back various layers in the Q manuscript, which is after all only a hypothetical document. We thus have to take Mack at his word. While his arguments do seem strong, I was hesitant to accept them at face value, which rather spoiled the impact of the book for me.
November 23, 2015
This book serves as a great introduction to the critical study of the bible, if you ignore everything he say's about Q. Burton Mack uses the "well established" Q source to portray it's sitz im leben; he calls the community "Jesus people." If Q is indeed well established, it is not within this book and one has to wonder whether Mack simply presupposes that the reader already subscribes to the Q hypothesis. For anyone remotely skeptical of Q, this book is not for you. The book released prior to "The Lost Gospel," "A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origin" is a better book and recommended for anyone with more than a casual interest in the history of Christianity.
August 3, 2011
The Q hypothesis is a theory that there was a source document of which the Gospels were derived from. Mack's controversial theory is based upon reconstruction and literary analysis of the writings of the Gospels, in which he attempts to "recreate" the Q document. The author provides a more skeptical interpretation of the New Testament, and provides the theory that Jesus was simply a wandering rabbi in the vein of the Cynic philosophers of Ancient Greece, with the Q documents being a collection of his teachings. Truly a thought provoking theory that is left for you to decide.
February 24, 2019
A text that literally exists within the text of two other books..
A text that portrays Jesus as a wise sage. No miracles. No godhood.
A text that will not be referenced at the pulpit.
This is the invisible book called Q, and another reason why biblical history is just so fascinating.
A text that portrays Jesus as a wise sage. No miracles. No godhood.
A text that will not be referenced at the pulpit.
This is the invisible book called Q, and another reason why biblical history is just so fascinating.
August 20, 2023
A thought-provoking read. I recommend it to someone who is interested in early christianity and has already read a variety of books on the matter. It would not be a good first read on this topic, as one of the arguments it makes is controversial. It is best to have a firm grasp of the shared understanding of a subject before entertaining ideas that are plausible but nonetheless not part of that shared understanding.
The author starts with the similarities in Matthew and Luke - indicating a shared Q source. Then he does his best to rebuild that Q source. This seems reasonable, given concordance between those two gospels and a theory that those writers would have included the Q source in its entirety as an important testimonial document.
The author then argues that the text of the rebuilt Q source indicates three stages of modification, and that it would be possible to pick these stages apart and therefore reconstruct the living history of the Q source. To support this theory, the author draws from movements, trends, and beliefs known to be active in the area of the world where the Q source would have circulated, and tries to pair the different stages of the Q source with a hypothetical "Q people" that would have used them, and thereby illuminate what this early pre-Christian movement might have believed.
This second argument requires two leaps. The better supported leap is that we can suss out important details of who might have used a text from the intent of the text. In my uneducated opinion, this is no different than others who try try to find the gnostic people who used the gospel of Thomas within the gospel of Thomas, not to mention finding the communities of Mark and Matthew and Luke and John from the differing intents of those text.
The second leap is less supported, but is plausible and utterly thrilling to read. The author argues that the Q source developed over time and that he can pick apart three distinct stages of development, and that these stages necessarily corresponded to three stages of belief of the Q people. This is a plausible, well argued, and thrilling thesis, but the evidence for it is necessarily scant.
The author uses this evidence to give us a brief glance at a Q people who (based on the reconstructed Q text) did not share Paul's photo-proto-orthodox view of a kerygmatic christ. That this group existed alongside the "Christian cults" (an academic term, not mine) throws the tangled early development of the Christian faith into sharp relief.
The author starts with the similarities in Matthew and Luke - indicating a shared Q source. Then he does his best to rebuild that Q source. This seems reasonable, given concordance between those two gospels and a theory that those writers would have included the Q source in its entirety as an important testimonial document.
The author then argues that the text of the rebuilt Q source indicates three stages of modification, and that it would be possible to pick these stages apart and therefore reconstruct the living history of the Q source. To support this theory, the author draws from movements, trends, and beliefs known to be active in the area of the world where the Q source would have circulated, and tries to pair the different stages of the Q source with a hypothetical "Q people" that would have used them, and thereby illuminate what this early pre-Christian movement might have believed.
This second argument requires two leaps. The better supported leap is that we can suss out important details of who might have used a text from the intent of the text. In my uneducated opinion, this is no different than others who try try to find the gnostic people who used the gospel of Thomas within the gospel of Thomas, not to mention finding the communities of Mark and Matthew and Luke and John from the differing intents of those text.
The second leap is less supported, but is plausible and utterly thrilling to read. The author argues that the Q source developed over time and that he can pick apart three distinct stages of development, and that these stages necessarily corresponded to three stages of belief of the Q people. This is a plausible, well argued, and thrilling thesis, but the evidence for it is necessarily scant.
The author uses this evidence to give us a brief glance at a Q people who (based on the reconstructed Q text) did not share Paul's photo-proto-orthodox view of a kerygmatic christ. That this group existed alongside the "Christian cults" (an academic term, not mine) throws the tangled early development of the Christian faith into sharp relief.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 1, 2023
Mack’s discussion of the theoretical book of sayings known as “Q” is an important addition to the library of non-academic (the style of the book, not the author – who IS an academic) works that try to open up an understanding of the dim, foggy origins of what we now know as christianity. Some stand out aspects of Mack’s book: 1) a wonderful over-view of the social, political and historical background of the Levant ca. the BCE/CE border, especially that of Galilee; 2) a detailed examination of how Q would have influenced the canonical gospels as well as the development of early proto-christianity (to borrow Ehrman’s phrase) itself; 3) a complete translation of Q, as far as can be [currently] known; 4) a well thought out discussion of how a better understanding of Q might change how christianity is now understood, both by believer and non-believing historian. There is more to Mack’s monograph that I am not focusing on here. There certainly are controversial views as well, aka Mark itself being heavily influenced by Q, as opposed to the more commonly held views that the influence of Q is first seen in the writings attributed to Matthew and Luke. An important work for the student of christian-era history.
July 22, 2018
In recent years, a litany of books has been written on how to best understand the early Christian movement. Mack excels in several key areas. His ability to distill scholarship on “Q” was impressive and fluid. Additionally, I’ve never heard his argument that there were three different layers of the “Q” tradition with the “Cynic Jesus” being the earliest. Even his reworking of the cultural landscape of Galilee was brilliant. However, I wish he would’ve provided arguments for his more extravagant arguments that mainstream scholarship doesn’t accept. For example, he should’ve buttressed his arguments that Jesus was intentionally fashioned after Hellenistic archetypes. Even other critical scholars like Ehrman repudiate that notion (although mythicists agree). Overall, it was a fascinating read-even if I’m not convinced of his every argument.
January 9, 2020
Overlook reviews from readers unfamiliar with exegesis of the synoptic gospels for the last 150 years.
The presentation here is generally within the mainstream of scholarly Biblical study. It is the best explication of the genesis of Christianity that I have read, and the earliest progression of Christianity is incongruous without reference to the Q document or a parallel.
The book is written well. Anyone who doubts the author's sources and methods need only consult the bibliography. He has done that work for you.
My copy did not have an epilogue. At archiv.org the book is free (but no epilogue).
The presentation here is generally within the mainstream of scholarly Biblical study. It is the best explication of the genesis of Christianity that I have read, and the earliest progression of Christianity is incongruous without reference to the Q document or a parallel.
The book is written well. Anyone who doubts the author's sources and methods need only consult the bibliography. He has done that work for you.
My copy did not have an epilogue. At archiv.org the book is free (but no epilogue).
July 8, 2024
It’s been said that when studying history there are no controlled experiments. Drafting a historical hypothesis is not like verifying the laws of nature. Here, the author proposes a series of hypothesis. Though a copy of it does not exist, the Book of Q once did exist. It can be pieced together. Accurately and completely (enough) by reading the gospels. Not only that, the author can tell us that different versions of Q existed and can distinguish them for the reader which themselves offer insight into the changing nature of the early Christian movement. Be confident. Be bold. Be not boring and I just might go along on this journey.
May 31, 2020
What if Christianity is all a myth? This book explores the origins of the gospels and how the rest of the New Testament comes together.
Book has been on our book shelf for over 20 years, not sure why I put it into my morning reading rotation now, but it is always good to read thoughts from different perspectives.
Next up will be the lost gospel of Thomas.
Book has been on our book shelf for over 20 years, not sure why I put it into my morning reading rotation now, but it is always good to read thoughts from different perspectives.
Next up will be the lost gospel of Thomas.
April 19, 2023
A very interesting book about the first writtings of Jesus sayings and life.
Proposes a thesis of how Jesus the teacher was transformed during the time into a Messiah first and then into a Christ who sacrifice himself to save us.
The book doesn't contemplate all the potential scenarios and is too straightforward but in any case provides enough material for a good thinking about myth making.
Proposes a thesis of how Jesus the teacher was transformed during the time into a Messiah first and then into a Christ who sacrifice himself to save us.
The book doesn't contemplate all the potential scenarios and is too straightforward but in any case provides enough material for a good thinking about myth making.
July 5, 2025
Bought
For a honest review in my own words on a book I read. This is a very interesting story of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke,and the teachings of Jesus through the understanding of Q . I found this study knowledgeable its definitely a book that makes you think .
For a honest review in my own words on a book I read. This is a very interesting story of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke,and the teachings of Jesus through the understanding of Q . I found this study knowledgeable its definitely a book that makes you think .
February 6, 2018
Convincing thesis on the origins of Christianity.
March 28, 2024
Interesting information.
June 29, 2025
Dense, provocative, and not afraid to challenge theological orthodoxy. A must-read for anyone intrigued by early Christianity’s pluralistic roots.
January 29, 2023
Very intense read but well worth it. This book made me think and want to know more about the origins of Christianity. It changed the way that I view the Bible and the gospels.
November 22, 2013
One would think with the relatively recent flood of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures into the popular media coupled with the pseudo-historical gnostic rewritings of the Jesus story that little more could be said on the subject.
This book however stands out as a scholarly approach to the Jesus myth that perhaps has been overlooked by many.
The author gives a nice introduction and even history of the 'quest for the historical Jesus', with Albert Schweitzer and various others slowly but surely casting a critical light on the New Testament to see just what is the what, and in so doing also deconstructing the classic narrative of a reformer who came to set the nation of Israel aright and save the world from a fallen state.
Roughly, the argument of 'Q' goes, within the four Gospels there are particular sayings of Jesus that have been found through textual analysis to predate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This being due to the fact the sayings are used by Matthew, Mark and Luke (the synoptics), which hopefully obviously predate John. That being said, one can extract these sayings and look at them in and of themselves, analyzing them within their own context to get a purer, more primitive picture of Jesus.
There is a buy in, obviously, but if one gives the book a chance, it unfolds into one bright and interesting argument for viewing Jesus more as a Greek Cynic with a hint of Judaic apocalyptic leanings who offered a simple way to the Kingdom of God, chiefly by eschewing ill-gotten gain and enjoying the simple things Life has to offer.
The text itself is offered in the middle of the book and is indeed fascinating to read. Illuminating even. It's like one can hear Jesus cutting through all the theological bull and speaking in and of Himself. The message is composed of maxims (truths about society), imperatives (ways to realize these truths), and mild apocalyptica. Not much to report here on much of what the traditional Gospel narratives offer, but more of a philosophical treatise peppered with interesting mystical insights. All without sounding elitist or off putting.
Let's face it. The Enlightenment happened for a reason. Man achieved new critical thinking skills that were fated to be applied to something as sacred as the Holy Bible. If one can stomach this and look at something held sacred by taking the blinders off, and that even briefly, one just might get a richer, truer understanding of who Jesus was and what He truly had to say.
This book however stands out as a scholarly approach to the Jesus myth that perhaps has been overlooked by many.
The author gives a nice introduction and even history of the 'quest for the historical Jesus', with Albert Schweitzer and various others slowly but surely casting a critical light on the New Testament to see just what is the what, and in so doing also deconstructing the classic narrative of a reformer who came to set the nation of Israel aright and save the world from a fallen state.
Roughly, the argument of 'Q' goes, within the four Gospels there are particular sayings of Jesus that have been found through textual analysis to predate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This being due to the fact the sayings are used by Matthew, Mark and Luke (the synoptics), which hopefully obviously predate John. That being said, one can extract these sayings and look at them in and of themselves, analyzing them within their own context to get a purer, more primitive picture of Jesus.
There is a buy in, obviously, but if one gives the book a chance, it unfolds into one bright and interesting argument for viewing Jesus more as a Greek Cynic with a hint of Judaic apocalyptic leanings who offered a simple way to the Kingdom of God, chiefly by eschewing ill-gotten gain and enjoying the simple things Life has to offer.
The text itself is offered in the middle of the book and is indeed fascinating to read. Illuminating even. It's like one can hear Jesus cutting through all the theological bull and speaking in and of Himself. The message is composed of maxims (truths about society), imperatives (ways to realize these truths), and mild apocalyptica. Not much to report here on much of what the traditional Gospel narratives offer, but more of a philosophical treatise peppered with interesting mystical insights. All without sounding elitist or off putting.
Let's face it. The Enlightenment happened for a reason. Man achieved new critical thinking skills that were fated to be applied to something as sacred as the Holy Bible. If one can stomach this and look at something held sacred by taking the blinders off, and that even briefly, one just might get a richer, truer understanding of who Jesus was and what He truly had to say.
April 21, 2011
Burton Mack does a brilliant job of revealing the Gospel of Q, how it was written, and who some of the authors may have been. Mack also explains in a very believable way how these author-communities got to be the way they were. The Gospel of Q itself, once extracted from the Gospels that copy from it, brilliantly illuminates much about Jesus' life, and the lives of the early believers in Jesus.
July 28, 2009
In a nutshell, these are the sayings of Jesus as best historians have been able to document. The Bible wasn't written shortly after the death of Jesus. But these sayings of Jesus were maintained by literate people of that day and were bound in little booklets.
It is a good book.
It is a good book.
November 7, 2011
I read this for my New Testament class freshman year of college. It was interesting to read about the Bible from someone who studied it but obviously didn't belive it was true. Probably the first book I read that fit that description. I'm glad I have N.T. Wright to read in opposition to this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews