5.0 out of 5 stars if you’re waiting for me, I’m backing up!

B. · June 13, 2025

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } There’s so much hedonism being played out in this period! We have two kinds of ignorance! Willful ignorance, and intentional ignorance! However it is evident in this western world that after we make choices! Our consciousness rests on a neutrality!

5.0 out of 5 stars More than I expected

N.O. · March 11, 2014

I didn't know what to expect when I bought this book. I had read several book including Lost Scriptures or books that did not make it into the New Testament and The Nag Hammadi Library and several others but had never heard any referance to The Book of Q. The text of The Book of Q only a small portion of this book Which is comprised of direct teachings of Jesus with an expansion of material from John (the baptist) and directions and instructions attributable to Jesus. The collection of this material from a Jesus Movement (not ttributable to any one person) was accomplished before the writing of the Gospels in the Bible and provided matrerial for those authors which is also explained in this book. the Christian Origins did not come from Jesus' deciples but later after the Gospels were written. All of this explaination of how the Book of Q was compiled, The Book of Q, and then how its material was later used was more than I expected.

5.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating

K.R. · January 15, 2013

If you are truly interested scholarly biblical work, this is a must read.It describes that social, economic, and religious worlds in changing time - the Mediterranean world is moving from Greek power to the power of Rome. It sets this scene in the first third of the book and then goes on to discuss the time of Christ in the area then known as Judea. It discusses what archeaologist and historical researchers can confirm as to what Jesus actually said versus what others said about him. "Q" is the first letter of the German word for 'source' and refers to a source writing that has never been discovered, but that lmany biblical scholars believe exists.

4.0 out of 5 stars "Q" probably legitimate -- Wish we had copies

T.S. · June 3, 2013

Extremely interesting book, mainly for those who are already acquainted with the subject. In Mack's opinion, Jesus was a Cynic and not an apocalyptic evangelist. That is also the opinion of the Jesus Seminar. That Jesus was not an apocalypticist was the basis for many of their decisions that a given saying in the NT was or was not actually stated by Jesus. However, the majority opinion (I think), among academians that have studied the NT, believe the opposite.For another opinion about Q, I turned to Wikipedia. I know a lot of people don't like Wikipedia. They don't like it for the same reason I like it. It is secular and doesn't give Christianity (or any other historical data) any privileged exemption from modern historical and scientific analysis. The following three paragraphs are primarily Wiki, with some of my comments. I urge anyone interested to just google it and read it entirely - much more than 3 paragraphs. I didn't put quotes around it because I did paraphrase it a little.The Q source is a hypothetical written collection of sayings of Jesus defined as the "common" material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in their other written source, the Gospel of Mark. (Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Mack does include a few sayings from Q in Mark.)Although some of the Bolo reviewers state Mack's ready acceptance of "Q" has been discredited, Q is one of the foundations of modern (liberal) gospel scholarship. Around the turn of the century, B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was a written document (not an oral tradition) composed in Greek; that almost all of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the original order of the text than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, (the two sources being Mark and Q), Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral. Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed. This would include our author.The existence of Q has been questioned by others. The omission of what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all the early Church catalogs and from mention by the fathers of the early Church, might be seen as a great conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship. However, copying Q might have been seen as unnecessary as it was preserved in the gospels that were considered canonical. Hence it was preferable to copy Gospels of Matthew and Luke, where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased by the authors; to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had really meant. Despite challenges, the two source hypothesis retains wide support, unlike what some reviewers suggest.Back to me, entirely: I agree that humans are capable of inventing patterns out of thin air - that's the core of conspiracy theories. This particular one is thicker air - a lot of evidence to work with. I would love it if a copy of "Q" somehow materialized, but I'm not holding my breath.

5.0 out of 5 stars Very good read

A.L. · June 7, 2021

I did not find this book overly repetetive like some reviewers have posted. I stayed engaged from cover to cover and found the author's premise compelling, and his conclusions reasonable. This is coming from a former fundamentalist pastor of 30 years with significant background in New testament studies.

3.0 out of 5 stars A Detailed and Through Review of Q

R.W.H. · March 31, 2025

I must admit reading this book has heightened my awareness of saying in the Bible and how deeply embedded they are in the Gospels and Acts. This book made me listen more carefully to bible reading and skillfully the are woven into the New Testament. I highly recommend this book.

5.0 out of 5 stars Hard reading

c. · June 12, 2020

The author did a great job covering the subject. However he made initial assumptions, which tainted everything that followed. 1) Book of John was worthless tripe 2) The Resurrection was made up 3) The assent into heaven was a useful myth.

5.0 out of 5 stars Christanity 1.0

R.W. · October 8, 2015

This is the best introduction to the origens of Christianity that I have read. Here Mr. Mack separates the original teachings based on exegises of the Mark, Matthew and Luke Gospels. What remains, Q, is a series of aphorisms much in the style of the Gospel of Thomas. All the rest - the birth, the cross, the resurrection, is aledged to be myth making. Mr. Mack ignores the Gospel of John and and Paul's letters.

Review: The Lost Gospel : The Book of Christian Origins by Burton L Mack publ.1994

M.B.P.L. · April 8, 2013

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } IntroductionLike some others, I began to search for the "Historical Jesus" and the "Historical Gospel Authors" in my quest to rationalise the Biblical stories found in the Gospels and to my surprise I discovered that many theologians and academics had already been along this same path in recent years. But this continued search for the origins and truth of our Biblical history has only surfaced in more recent years with the majority of theologians and scholars confining their search from within the 'box,' Biblical writings, so that they would not be immediately rejected as heretics. Authors like D.M.Murdock who wrote, "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ" was published in January 2011, or James K. Bielby and Paul R. Eddy who wrote, "The Historical Jesus: Five Views," in Feb 2010, or Washington Gladden who wrote, "Who Wrote the Bible? A Book for the People" in July 2008, all stayed well within the 'box,' the Gospels, and thus were not able to throw much new light on the "historical Jesus" that was not already obvious. The Gospels have always been accepted by evangelicals as the "historical stories?" of Jesus, his miracles, his resurrection, his being the son of God, and his being the Messiah without question. The Gospels, and her editors have created a masterpiece with their literary skills to present today's edited and re-edited works into a polished book accepted by Christians all over the world. But there still exists sceptics even among scholars and theologians and the lay public.One such scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament, and Wesley Professor emeritus, who was sceptical of of traditional Christian New Testament was Professor Burton L Mack. Being an academic and still sticking within the bounds of the box, Prof.Mack has attempted to analyse the culture and society of the peoples at the time when Jesus lived in order to understand how those people must have thought, analysed and rationalised their social problems that led to the development of their religious ideologies. Being pragmatic and logical, Prof Mack began to realise that the early Gospel writers all had some similar and common themes, wisdom teachings, that ran through their gospels and this could be due to their acceptance of one another's concepts or that they were related to influences as yet not discovered by us.Nag Hammadi Manuscripts found in 1945The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts in 1945 produced the missing link that many Christians never knew existed. They found a collection of, "sayings of Jesus" called "the Gospel according to Thomas" that was translated by Marvin Meyer, 1992. Prof. Mack was soon on the track of, "The gospel according to Thomas" and the revelation of the origins of the early recording of the "Wisdom statements and teachings of Jesus" the similarities with the book of Q. With Prof Mack's intimate knowledge of the early Christian history he has painfully separated the early teachings of Jesus from that of the Gospels, and to visualise the early "followers of Jesus," who were not Christians, and showed how the Book of Q clearly influenced the later authors of the Gospels.The Book of QThis book contains a chapter quoting, "the Book of Q" which I found most edifying and convincing. But what was astounding was that these early Jesus followers "made no reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus," "no mention of Jesus as the Christ," and "no mention of instructions to Peter and the other disciples about continuing Jesus mission and baptising converts into the church." Q1 was dated as appearing about 50 CE, Q2 about 60 CE and Q3 about 70 CE. It is also to be noted that the Gospel of Thomas used Q1 and Q2 but was not aware of the existence of Q3. This is significant because it clearly shows that the New Testament Gospels have been very cleverly draped with mythology in order to alter the perception of Jesus as Christ and the Messiah. The purity of the Q does challenge the authenticity of the New Testament. The Gospels were of course written very much later and it becomes evidently clear that much of their wisdom sayings and its elaborations were taken from Q. Most interesting is Prof Mark's Appendix B which tabulates the Lukan texts and the Parallels with Q showing how Q was used as the foundations by the Gospel writers when writing their gospels. The evidence provided by Prof Mack is elaborate and convincing. If Prof Mack has provided sufficient evidence that the Gospel myths were elaborated upon the foundations of the unadulterated Q, then the whole of the New Testament will have to be looked at with a renewed light. Unfortunately, once the Gospels had established their stories, there were no further need for Q as it would have undermined the originality the Gospels.A convincing read for those who are seeking the historical Jesus and historical Gospel writers.

Great condition

M. · January 2, 2021

Bought for my mom & she said it came in great condition. 👍

Interessantes Buch

M. · May 31, 2024

Inhalt war mir größtenteils schon vertraut

Three Stars

L.C. · May 15, 2018

It's OK.

To solve the Jesus Christ conundrum this is a must read.

M.G.K. · June 27, 2011

Theologians have observed for many decades that two of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, and Luke)dozens of similarities.In actual fact, the writings have many dozens of phrases and sentences that are identical.This observation led to the proposition that both gospels were based largely on an earlier document, which has been lost.It is called "Q" meaning "Quelle," German for "source."Various liberal theologians have therefore been able to reconstruct the gospel.Some postulate that it was written in three stages:Q1, written circa 50 CE, which portrayed Jesus as as a Jewish philosopher-teacher.Q2, written during the 60's CE, which portrayed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.Q3, written during the mid 70's at a time of turmoil in Palestine with Jesus portrayed as a near-deity who conversed with God and Satan.The authors of the Gospels of Matthew (circa 80 CE) and Luke (circa 90 CE) wrote their versions using text from Q, Mark and their own unique traditions.The author of the Gospel of Thomas also used portions of Q1 and Q2 in his writing, but seems to have been unaware of Q3.This gospel was widely circulated within the early Christian movement but did not make it into the Christian ScripturesAs with so many aspects of Christianity, religious conservatives and liberals take opposing views about Q:Religious conservatives tend to ignore and turn a blind eye to the Gospel of Q and its surrounding controversy.Some even believe that the book does not exist.They believe that God might have caused Matthew, Mark, and Luke to write similar passages when he directly inspired the gospel authors.Others say that the Gospel of Q may have existed but tell themselves that it is unimportant.They regard the four gospels of the Bible as God's word: infallible, and totally sufficient for the needs of Christians.They say, even if Q existed, it can be of little importance today and at most, would have been an early gospel by some unknown Christian group.It would be merely one of the many dozens of such partially heretical documents that were rejected when, under God's guidance, Christian leaders assembled the New Testament from the many dozens of documents that circulated within the early church.Religious liberals and even many atheists, embrace the Gospel of Q as giving insight into the very early Christian movement.Parts of it appear to have been written circa 50 CE, making them earlier than all of the Christian Scriptures with the exception of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians and 1 Thessalonian s.Further, Q might have been based on an earlier oral tradition.Unlike the canonical gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, Q might have been written by actual eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and thus might be the most accurate record of Jesus teachings.Its earliest parts were written before many or the magical, supernatural beliefs including those taken from Mithrasism, were imported from other religions and superimposed upon pre - Christian beliefs.Importantly, Q does not contain stories of the virgin birth, miracles, salvation, speaking in tongues, apostles, clergy, the Eucharist, heaven, hell, and dozens of other topics that later played major roles in later Christian belief.Christian leaders assembled the New Testament from the many dozens of documents that circulated within the early church along with prevailing myths of the time. This ensured that the Church became the dominant force it remained for centuriesThat the Church remains with us today, with all its different dogmas and interpretations, especially in the U S, should be no surprise because of the cult's successful marketing principally by the Christian right, at the expense of education and clear thinking within the population.The importance of Q is huge.The interval from the death or disappearance of a Jesus /Yeshua figure, to the writing of the first parts of Q1 was probably only about 20 years.The next Gospel, Mark, was not written until another 20 or more years had passed.Although Paul wrote his Epistles during the 50's and early 60's, they contained very little material on Jesus' sayings and activities.Thus, Q1 gives us a much better understanding of an early, non-Pauline pre Christian movement: their preoccupations, beliefs, and developing theology.Q1 implies that essentially all of present-day Christian beliefs were unknown to the immediate followers of Jesus / Yeshua.The concept of Jesus as Lord,Christ the Messiah or anointed one, and as part of a Trinity, was completely alien to their thinking. God was very definitely a single entity - the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures.The followers of Jesus / Yeshua who wrote Q might not have been able to survive into the 2nd century CE with an almost completely undeveloped theology.For their beliefs to survive and grow, a complete theological structure was needed.This requirement was met by Paul and Mark A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Foundations & Facets Series), also by Burton L Mack,the writers of the four canon Gospels, and other Christians who provided the writings which became the official New Testament canon.A pseudo history had to be added to the sayings which drew much of its material from the Old Testament and mythologies of the time, most notable of which was that of Mithras, complete with a December birth, twelve followers, death and resurrection.After the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, Q became redundant.The contents of Q was now available in the new gospels, along with all the other material.The original gospel would no longer have been used; but remained to be rediscovered lying dormant within the texts of Matthew Mark and Luke.The unearthing of Q from the synoptic gospels, has led to th inevitable conclusion that today's Christian beliefs and rituals have little or nothing to do with the beliefs and teachings of the immediate followers of a cynic sage who may have been called Jesus or Yeshua.If we could go back to the late 40's CE, we might track down the author(s) of Q1.They would belong to a primitive pre Christian movement that regarded themselves as devout Jews, and who followed the teachings of Yeshua, a cynic sage philosopher teacher.If we could go back even earlier, we might find the same pre Christian group who had the same beliefs and practices, passed them on orally; before they came to write them down.For those who would wish to solve the Jesus Christ conundrum this is a must read.