Customer Reviews

Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The author of this book, Professor John S. Kloppenborg, was the co-editor of both "The Critical Edition of Q" and "The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English." He is therefore in a unique position not only to introduce this initial collection of sayings and stories of Jesus, but to explain both how this reconstruction was formulated, and its importance to an understanding of the philosophy and character of early Christianity. In the course of this discussion, Professor Kloppenborg is also of course concerned to demonstrate how both Matthew and Luke adapted Document Q to suit their own purposes. For example, the beatitudes which Matthew groups in what we term his "chapter five", using the well-known literary device we call "The Sermon on the Mount", were probably originally gathered in Document Q in various places. From Q, they can be rendered as follows: "Blessed are you poor, for God's reign is for you. Blessed are you who hunger, for you will eat your fill. Blessed are you who mourn, for you will be consoled. Blessed are you when they insult and persecute you, and say every kind of evil against you because of the Son of Man. Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. Many prophets and kings longed to see what you see, but never saw it, and to hear what you hear, but never heard it. [Blessed are the humble]. Everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it. Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord." Notice that this list omits the verse promising "the humble and lowly" that they will "inherit the earth", which, in my opinion, can certainly be regarded as a gloss. All told, this introduction to Q is fascinating, informative and superbly researched. I have only two extremely minor reservations. I was surprised that, despite the lengthy discussions and comparisons with the Gospel of Thomas in the text, that Marvin Meyer's book was not listed in "Further Reading". And I was a little amazed the author asserts that the meaning of the very peculiar Greek word "epiousios" is not known. Jerome tells us that it means "super-substantial." My research indicates that the word was a slang term referring to the super-generous or overly generous daily ration of food that an overseer or foreman might receive. See my book, More Bible Wisdom for Modern Times: Selections from the Early New Testament

Great book, a lot of information. Make sure you have the time to really read this and not try to skim throught it. It's a great study source to get the whole picutre. Harder to verfiy info though.

Professor Kloppenborg states that the purpose of this book is "an introduction to the Sayings Gospel Q, treating four basic questions: Why should we think there was a Q? What did Q look like? What difference does Q make? And what happened to Q?" Fair enough. Let's examine the result.

Why should we think there was a Q? is the first chapter and the longest (40 pages). Unfortunately, 40 pages is not sufficient to make a good case for Q much less to give fair time to the alternate theories about why Matthew and Luke differ from Mark in certain ways. Indeed, there is a lack of substantial charts and diagrams to fully flush out the points that Kloppenborg makes, and so he relies on the reader having an expert knowledge of the 4 gospels. Time and time again he'll say something like - "Take, for example, John the Baptist's address to the crowds (Matt. 3:7-10 \\ Luke 3:7-9). The agreement between Matthew and Luke is remarkable..." I, for one, would like to see the passages themselves and make my own judgement as to whether or not the agreement is remarkable. In the entire first chapter, he only provides 3 illustrations of what he is talking about. The rest of the time the reader will be forced to go to the gospels and look at it themselves. Now, in an advanced book this would be acceptable, but in a book that purports to be an introduction, more use should have been made of these types of comparison charts.

In addition, Kloppenborg deals with the gospels as if they were written at a single moment in time. In truth, the gospels were likely composed over centuries, with pieces being added and subtracted all the time. This dynamic writing needs to be addrsssed when we compare the gospels, but Kloppenborg tends to treat them as if they were written once.

With regard to "What did Q look like", Kloppenborg's brief chapter (21 pages) didn't give me a clear picture of Q. He does have a chart (page 43) that gives us the supposed Q text, but it consists of items like "John's preaching (3:7b-9, 16b-17)" which isn't really helpful at all. There is an appendix called "The Sayings Gospel Q in English" but that really wasn't so helpful either. If I seem hard to please, it's because I was looking for a reproduction of what Kloppenborg thought the Q gospel looked like. That's what he said he was going to address. Instead the chapter tells us what the supposed Q gospel contained, but we are no closer to knowing what it looked like.

Kloppenborg clearly knows his material, and I can't help but think that in a longer introductory book he could have achieved his goals. In the current book he falls short.

I appreciate all the insight given by the scholarly efforts displayed by John S. Kloppenborg. The Q source theory is over a century old and quoting Oscar Wilde "ideas that don't disturb are unworthy of being called ideas." Q was initially terribly disturbing and for a long time rejected. The bold ideas have by now fallen back into a consensual melting pot where Q is considered to reflect an oral tradition the apostles used to revive the sayings of a historical Jesus.

But Q still disturbs me:
Considering the many affinities recognized between Essene and early Christians, it seems surprising that no serious attempts are made to search parallels between the hypothetical Q source and Qumran. Especially since Eusebius considered that the writings of the founders of the scroll community could well have been the gospels and epistles before they were written. Before that, Epiphanius wrote that the community was called Essene before being called Christian. Both indicate the same cultural background. Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas, that has many parallels with the Q 'ghost' document, repeats in its opening line exactly the same concerns as expressed within the introduction of the Qumran fragment named the "Exhortation of the Master to the sons of Dawn". Both Thomas and the Exhortation associate the necessity of searching, interpreting the words, and life in eternity. Both address a group of novices. The opening lines of the Exhortation and of Thomas are also closely transposed in Matthew's Sermon on the Mountain. The three proclamations respond to the necessity of studying, teaching, and interpreting the sacred books that announced everything to those who understand them properly. Here is the key to eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no place for coincidence. What unites Matthew, Thomas, Q, and the Scrolls? Are these Jesus Q wisdom sayings anterior not only to the Gospels but also to Jesus?

The teaching profile outlined by the Q source fits much better the historical Teacher of Righteousness (before being enforced by Messianic considerations) than Jesus as we believe to know him: no Galilean wandering, no apostles, no miracles, no childhood stories, a man and not a Messiah, no resurrection. I accept that the Teacher of Righteousness would not have recognized himself had he been presented to Jesus. He would not have accepted the Gospels either (Moses and Elijah rejected). So what is the story or community evolution narrated by the evangelists?

Q, the Earliest Gospel, while a small book, is an excellent coverage of the subject, both with respect to the reasons all but blind conservative Biblical Scholars recognize that Luke and Matthew had at hand a sayings document, now called 'Q' when creating their respective gospels. Kloppenborg also very clearly indicates what the approach of 'Q' is when seen as a document in its own right rather than as the variously altered part of either Matthew or Luke. It is an excellent approach to the subject of 'Q' and 'Q' Scholarship. The only people who won't like it are head-in-the-sand evangelical or fundamentalistic conservatives, and intellectually, what they prefer to think doesn't really matter as it is based not so much on cogent evidence, but on their emotional inability to see past what they were taught in Sunday School by those who blindly accept such faulty notions that so-called holy books are some kind of direct revelation from a god.

A clear description of the source Q. A very different view of Jesus held by the early Galilean followers of Jesus. The theme is survival rather than salvation.

I'm looking forward to reading Q, which I had heard of before, but never really understood what it meant......