Add To Cart
Add To Cart
- Books of the Bible▼▲
- Media Type▼▲
- Guides & Workbooks▼▲
- Author / Artist▼▲
- Top Rated▼▲
Number of Pages: 288
Publication Date: 1993
|Dimensions: 6 X 9 1/4 X 3/4 (inches)|
The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and Synoptic ProblemMark GoodacreBloomsbury Academic / 2001 / Trade Paperback$53.08
The first book to give the full account of the lost gospel of Jesus' original followers, revealing him to be a Jewish Socrates who was mythologized into the New Testament Christ.
Burton L. Mack is John Wesley Professor of the New Testament at the school of Theology at Claremont and the author of The Lost Gospel: The Book Q and Christian Origin and A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins.
Philip TuttSacramento, CAAge: Over 65Gender: male2 Stars Out Of 5Singularly UnconvincingFebruary 14, 2012Philip TuttSacramento, CAAge: Over 65Gender: maleQuality: 2Value: 1Meets Expectations: 1This book is exceptionally difficult for any traditionalist student to read, even one who, like myself, has no doubt (without any prompting from Prof. Mack) that the gospel texts which have come down to us reflect editing, erroneous copying, and (probably) gross propagandizing.
I have a number of problems with the book, not the least of which that "Q", a supposed earliest source of Jesus' words, is nothing more than scholarly conjecture. The author allows as much at the outset, but then goes on to treat "Q" as if it is a discovery (something like a lost manuscript recently unearthed), rather than a hypothesis.
The case for "Q" seems to me to sum up as follows: when Matthew and Luke do not look like Mark, they tend to look like each other (with some exceptions); ergo, they must be drawing from a common source ("Q"). On this assumption, finding "Q" becomes an exercise syntax, thematic analysis, and textual "seam" recognition, all set against some very broad assumptions about the history of Galilee at the time of Jesus, plus a characterization of Jesus as a Cynic-like sage (in the classical sense of countercultural thinker, not in the modern sense of down-on-life curmudgeon).
With these sorts of analytical tools, one can "discover" source "texts" in just about anything. Mark, which is dismissed outright as a source text, seems to me to be the better starting point. Assume that it is what it looks like: a bad cut-and-paste job from an earlier source, and take the analysis of the synoptic gospels from there.
This, and my overall rating of the book notwithstanding, I would gladly recommend the book to anyone who finds himself or herself too comfortable with the gosepls. So: worth a read, if only as a wake-up call to a more conservative school of analysis.