|
The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus | 
 enlarge | Creators: Marcus Borg, Thomas Moore
Publisher: Ulysses Press, Seastone
Category: Book
List Price: $11.95
Buy New: $9.56
You Save: $2.39 (20%)
New (30) Used (17) Collectible (1) from $6.00
Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 308690
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 128
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.2 x 4.8 x 0.5
ISBN: 1569751897
Dewey Decimal Number: 226.066
EAN: 9781569751893
ASIN: 1569751897
Publication Date: March 15, 1999
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The image of the historical Jesus takes form in the words of the Gospel Q. The Lost Gospel Q represents the very first Gospel, older than the traditional Gospels and written by Jesus's contemporaries. It preserves Jesus's original words -- the Sermon on the Mount, Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, parables, and his counsel for a compassionate life. The original of the Gospel Q was lost for 2,000 years, but for the past 150 years historians and theologians have been digging through the many layers of the New Testament to uncover the original Gospel.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
 A valid view??? December 30, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
The book does not make sense. 'Scholars' examine the four gospels and try to invent a common source? How's this for an obvious solution: they are all telling the same story! The entire theory of 'Q' is flawed.
Mark is known to have spent extensive time with the apostle Peter (read Peter's first epistle, the fifth chapter, the thirteenth verse, where Peter calls Mark his 'son'). Peter was a first-hand witness of the events of the gospels, as was Matthew, which would account for the similarities between the gospels, while Luke wrote his gospel based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, not his own memory. Is it so hard to believe that two men could view the same events and come up with similar stories?
The book was an entertaining read, at least. It's amazing what people come up with . . . .
 Inadequate Translation July 31, 2008
1 out of 7 found this review helpful
It is always exciting to read more about the teachings of Jesus, however, if you refuse to read any translation besides the KJV then some of the translations in this book will disturb you. This is not a comprehensive collection of the sayings of Jesus. Instead, this is a compilation of selected verses from Matthew and Luke in the Bible.
The translation of The Lord's Prayer is especially suspect. Instead of "Give us this day our daily bread," the authors translate it: "Grant us the food we need for each day." The entire "lead us not into temptation" is conveniently left out as is about half of the prayer. Instead of talking about the "Kingdom of God," the authors translate it "Realm of God." For the most part the authors say their rendering is a "paraphrase" instead of a word-by-word translation. Here is another example of how the translators leave out half the verse:
The Gospel of Q: "As Long as heaven and earth endure, not one letter, not a single dot of the law, will disappear."
KJV: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
If you decide you still want to read the Gospel of Q (no one can prove it actually existed) then you will have to accept less of Jesus' words. Instead of some new revelation or a new gospel, all you get is an inadequate translation. I'd highly recommend that you read Jesus' words in the Bible instead.
~The Rebecca Review
 Good Info March 23, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
The Gospel of Q is an important biblical work because the other writers used it as a go-by for much of their written work. The fact that it existed is no longer in question. What remains is what exactly was in it? I believe that this version of the Gospel of Q is as accurate as any other that I've seen in school or elsewhere. Enjoy.
 purely hypothetical .... a "Quelle" of Borg et all's theology ... yet an ejoyable and recommended read February 2, 2007
17 out of 22 found this review helpful
personal RATING: 3.25 stars
First of all, I think this book is going to divide more fellow Christians than to help them work together (a fundamentalist will never read it, and a skeptic will never consider anything else). As an evangelical Protestant (and conservative) I am grateful for the beautiful layout of the Q verses presented in this booklet (82 Q verses - verses that are common between Matthew and Luke but foreign to Mark). Reading the footnotes for various verses I learned quite a bit about the culture in Jesus' time, thus having a better understanding of his down-to-earth parables and what they meant to Jesus' audience of 1st century Palestine.
Allow me to explain my review title.
1) Purely hypothetical
I do agree with Dr. Marcus Borg that "Q is a hypothetical document," (pg.15) although I wonder why the publishers and editors decided to call it the LOST gospel Q ? And why the subtitle of "the Original Sayings of Jesus" ? The history section of hypothetical Q is well done (Q was first postulated in 1800s Germany and stands for Quelle (germ. for "source").
I do have to point out that the editors of this book repeatedly make references to Q as if it is already established (as if it exists but it is just a matter of time before it's found): "The Lost Gospel Q ... in the judgment of most scholars, it is the first Christian Gospel", "Q had become widely accepted by scholars involved in the study of Christian origins", "the Lost Gospel Q was possibly a codex", "it is older than the traditional Gospels, older than the Christian church itself", "Q is the closest we can come to the historical Jesus", "the discovery of the Lost Gospel of Q ...detective work by historians and theologians", "Q... a diamond in the rough", "What we have is a long-lost gospel with a very contemporary message." I count myself among those who think Q is simply hypothetical, and it is quite dubious to make further assertions that "Q can be separated into three layers or stages of development" branching off of a hypothesis (pg.16-17). As a history reader, I was surprised that there was no mention of the Gnostics and their Gospels when the editors discussed the condition of the early Christians and early church. I was surprised that considering the lack of archeological evidence, the lack of any secondary or ternary mention of such a gospel anywhere in antiquity or later periods. I would challenge the reader to view this as a good literary hypothesis (that strips a lot of layers from the canonical gospels) but a very bad historical hypothesis, which should never be qualified as "The Original Sayings of Jesus Christ" (as the subtitle reads) until such an archeological discovery is made.
2) Borg et all's theology
Regarding my second point, Borg and et all's theology. In the Introduction (by Thomas Moore) one simply reads the bias of this book in "I expect it to give me a Jesus who is ...." (pg.12) I appreciate Borg for his honesty and his passion for a vibrant faith (as expressed in his contemporary published works). Sadly, Borg's (as well as many of "Jesus's Seminar" scholars) Jesus is only a:
a) "wisdom teacher", and a
b) "radical cultural critic", and a
c) "religious ecstatic", and a
d) "healer and exorcist", and
e) "the Wisdom of God", and a proponent of
e) "apocalyptic eschatology and a sapiential eschatology."
As a lover of history and a Christian, I cannot just take at face value the statement that "the four Gospels are riddled with the interpretations, biases, and agendas of their editors." Unlike Borg, I would encourage every reader to consider the WHOLE of historical evidence and consider ALL points of view, and to question why these scholars cannot accept a Jesus who is the Christ, the Savior ?
3) Enjoyable and recommended read
Could not agree more with the editors of this little book that it provides an "extraordinary opportunity to approach with an open mind, fresh ears and new understanding the good news of the mysterious kingdom that Jesus announced." (pg.9) I do think the translators watered down the message of that kingdom by using alternate terms and words than ones used in historical Christianity and traditional translations (e.g. "blessed are you" becomes "fortunate are you", and "kingdom of God" becomes "realm of God", etc.). The cultural insights at the bottom of many Q saying are trully invaluable in allowing one to visualize what it was like to live in Jesus's time. The editors acknowledge that this translation is not "the" scholarly version, but rather "seek to re-create a text in contemporary language." For both, liberal and conservative, the resulting hypothetical Q CAN be a "diamond in the rough."
In CONCLUSION,
if you find this read too challenging to your faith in the Christ of Christ-ianity, I will wonder what is your faith based on. If you find this read as the only window or prism thru which you view or see Jesus, I will wonder if you are not just as subjective as the fundamentalists accused of being narrow-minded and using an alternative "tunnel vision".
"The Lost Gospel Q", A Review October 12, 2005
27 out of 29 found this review helpful
"The Lost Gospel Q"* is what many scholars believe to be the first Christian Gospel. Although this Gospel was never actually found, scholars surmise its existence because of over two hundred identical verses found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Since most scholars don't think Matthew and Mark knew each other, this material must have come from another source, what they call the Gospel Q. Then in 1945 early Christian manuscripts were found in Nag Hammadi. Among these was the Gospel of Thomas. One third of the sayings in it were found to be similar to those in Q. This demonstrated that Q was more than a collection of quotes. It was a handbook for early Christians, or pre-Christians.
The name Q comes from the German word Quelle, meaning source. It is believed this gospel was written only a couple of decades after Jesus died, and is therefore the closest thing we have to what he actually said, a real look into the spirit of Jesus.
The editors insert commentary on the text and time to help the reader picture what the historical Jesus and the day he lived in were like. It is a fascinating little book for anyone wishing to go back to the beginnings of the Jesus tradition.
Beth Avary
[...]
*Edited by Mark Powelson, Ray Riegert, and Marcus Borg consulting editor, with an introduction by Thomas Moore.
|
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
