Who Wrote The New Testament? [Paperback]

For example, Mack dates the four Canonical Gospels as follows: Mark (~75 CE), Matthew (~85 CE), John (~100 CE), and Luke (~120 CE). Aside from a detailed, and non-controversial, presentation on why Mark was the earliest of the four, Mack provides only a limited basis for understanding either his relative or absolute dating of the other three. Similarly, he fails to mention that most scholars date John as the latest of the four and that a few date Matthew as being later than Luke. He also fails to mention the wide range of dates assigned to each of the four Gospels by various scholars. For example, many Christian scholars date Luke to about 60 CE, whereas secular scholars assign dates of anywhere from 75 to 130. Moreover, most Christian scholars date all four Gospels to 90 CE or earlier, whereas some secular scholars think that all four of them appeared after 90 CE. I think that Mack also concludes far too much, and too strongly, about the communities of origin for the four Gospels.

It gets worse with regard to some non-Canonical books. For example, Mack spends a fair amount of time on "Q", the hypothetical "sayings source" allegedly used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. (The theory here is that Matthew and Luke had two primary sources, Mark and Q.) According to Mack, Q originated around 50 or 55 CE (before any surviving Christian documents aside from some of Paul's letters). He then proceeds to draw very strong conclusions about the contents and organization of Q, about the nature of the community that produced it (e.g., how they thought of Jesus), and about how they used Q. Mack also asserts that Luke was much more faithful to the structure of Q than was Matthew. Wow! To begin with, some reputable scholars, although a minority, think that Q never existed. No fragment of Q has ever been found, and no surviving ancient document makes any reference to it. However, let us assume that Q once existed. If we further assume that: 1) Matthew and Luke each had exactly two written sources, namely Mark and Q, and 2) Matthew and Luke both incorporated all of Q, then it would be possible to conclude that Q consists of material found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. However, this putative Q material appears in somewhat different order in Matthew and Luke. It is hard to see how one could determine which of the two was more faithful to the structure of Q. It is also hard to see how one could determine whether Q originated before or after Mark. Moreover, suppose that Matthew and Luke each used 90% of Q. In this case, it would be possible for 85% of Q to appear in both Matthew and Luke, 5% to appear only in Matthew, 5% to appear only in Luke, and 5% to be lost. There is some Matthew-only and some Luke-only material. Maybe this consists in part of Q extracts that did not make it into both Matthew and Luke.

One could list numerous other examples of this sort.

While a few of the author's assertions raised my eyebrows, never the less it is a well thought out piece and a worthy read. As for critics of the dating sequence of the gospels, etc.; well, there is hardly a consensus among scholars on that issue. What is important about this read is the historical backdrop of the Greek and Roman world and the info related concerning the intellectual climate of the time period and how literature was written and devised by scholars of the ancient world ... Mack's knowledge in this area provides elucidating material to say the least.