<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: great book.........
Review: ...but the fudamentalist won't like it! But they don't like much of anything that goes against their narrow, exclusive beliefs.
The Gospel According to Jesus is a magnificent, large-hearted book that makes Jesus come alive again. If you are burnt out on "fundagelicalism", then read this book and be refreshed!
Rating: 
Summary: One crooked Jew's sorry attempt
Review: I read this book and couple more books of this author. It is the same theme and same goal. I wish if he had read bible honestly once without throwing his crooked ideas.
This is another master plan like "Davinci's code" to discredit Jesus and christianity, hoping to defend Judaism. Author is a descredit to honest Jews too.
Rating: 
Summary: For the Non-Christian
Review: I wish Mitchell began this book with more autobiographical material. He spent many years halfway around the world finding spiritual truths in Zen Buddhism. How could he not find Western Christianity lacking? I found the most perceptive insights speculate on Jesus' psychology as an "illegitamate" child. Perhaps the local community knew Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. Whether or not you believe in a miraculous conception, one has to wonder whether Jesus was perceived by his peers to be of legitimate birth. How this would have fueled his anger against the Roman occupation! There has been some speculation by non-believers that Jesus was son of a Roman soldier. Was Jesus rage personal as well as righteous? Not for devout Christians.
Rating:
Summary: SIMPLE YET PROFOUND
Review: I would recommend this book to anyone seeking spiritual truth. Mitchell has done a wonderful job of research to find the inconsistencies in other works, including the bible. What remains are not versions of the truth written by those with a personal agenda, but the simple message of the Christ: The Kingdom is Within. Why dogmatic religions don't get this is still beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it's to keep people living in fear of suffering an eternal inferno, or to keep the religious hierarchy alive. But when the man called Jesus embodied the Christ his point was clear: don't follow me, but your own wisdom, for you have the Christ within as well.
Rating:
Summary: A simple condensation of modern scholarship
Review: Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is something you can achieve while you are living on this earth, not simply a reward that you get after you die "for being good," and for "believing." People who say this book is no good are the types of people who never think about anything for themselves and just believe what they are told because it is the safest thing to do. In fact they are jealous of those who can articulate their own opinions as well as Mitchell does. I strongly question the mind of a person who uses words like "blasphemy" to criticize the honest inquiry of others; I feel they need to grow up and reach a more adult stage of spiritual understanding. By the way, for the guy from Moreno, California, "son of Mary" is accurately translated from Aramaic as "illegitimate son of Mary"...
Rating: 
Summary: Stephen Mitchell versus "Jesus".
Review: Mitchell gives us "everything I try to intuit about Jesus' life," and assures us that "scholars show a remarkable degree of consensus" with his intuitions. "I wanted to compile a gospel," the authors earnestly offers, which rejects as "polemic" those New Testament references which are not properly Buddhist, and references which we are instructed that "scholarship" rejects on the "ground base" that they are not "authentic", not "historical." Mitchell gives us Jesus the Zen master, the member of the spiritual elite, a Jesus that stands with the "other Masters" -- Spinoza, the Buddha, Lau-tzu. The operative ad hoc hypothesis here is that Christianity is mostly, as the author is fond of saying, "legend." We do yet find, in Mitchell's tamed revision of Jesus, a most profound body of teachings. But at what cost, what gain? Humanist revisions of Jesus have been suggested for three centuries now. They are generally exercises that must be false to the documents of history.
Mitchell's cited "scholars" are, if you haven't guessed, members of the Jesus Seminar, and certainly do not reflect "a remarkable degree of consensus" with a broad sampling of New Testament scholarship. Mitchell justifies his preferred revisionist version of Jesus on the basis that Thomas Jefferson and Friedrich Nietzsche seem to have also preferred such a Jesus. The influences in Jefferson's and Nietzsche's worlds were different, but in no way less prejudicial than in the world of the early church. Nor can any conjectural club of 18th or 20th century "historians" or "scholars" examine more accurately the historicity of the Christian canon than could Matthew, Luke, Paul, John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and thousands of other witnesses, many of them martyrs for their knowledge of the man Mitchell calls a sectarian legend. Toward what end would "the Evangelists" have produced a false Christ, these men who died lonely and hard deaths for the Gospel they recorded? Certainly not to conform to a convenient conjecture or a philosophy of aesthetics. At the outset, the author magnanimously concedes that there may be something he is missing in the texts that he rejects. Perhaps they are not what he understands them to be. Many scholars who are not members of Mitchell's 'consensus' will quickly find that Mitchell is indeed missing something. He sets out to miss something. His characterizations of the references he rejects are typically heavy handed in their straw-man structuring. It is given that we are to accept the so-called Gospel of Thomas on an equal historical footing with the canonical gospels -- something Christianity has always rejected -- we are then to use it as counterpoint to the canonical gospels and to conclude that the gospels are thereby poisoned. A straw conclusion. His exegesis appeals to arbitrary authority and is typically precommitted to a personal aesthetic (as compared to the work of a serious minded exegete like Augustine).
In the profundity of Jesus' commandment of love, and in the intimate presence of the Kingdom of God, the author seems to think he has found the Jesus that is unknown to Christianity. It is sadly true that this has often been the case, but it is also far less than wholly truthful. I will say that many -- Augustine, Wesley, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Bonhoeffer, Lewis, Teresa of Calcutta, for a few diverse examples -- have understood these teachings of Jesus better than does Mitchell, without needing to reinvent Jesus. In writing of these things, however, Mitchell does offer some thoughts worthy of close examination. He is correct in finding, in his pared-down Jesus, a teacher of moral philosophy that resembles Lau-tzu, and a body of teachings that resembles the Tao Te Ching. There is, of course, no historical or cultural connection, but in this resemblance we find universality to all coherent ethical codes and thereby a strong case against moral relativism, as has been pointed out by C.S. Lewis, for example. Good is Good and Truth is Truth, even if it is only part of the truth, and even if it is mixed with fabrication.
Thus this volume is not without some measure of merit. This cannot overcome the fact that the book presents, and yes, polemically so, a contrived and personally convenient version of history, a contrived and personally convenient version of Jesus.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a Translation, but a Perspective
Review: Stephen Mitchell does something almost unforgivable in this book by stripping core tenets of the Christian faith from his "translation" of the New Testament. Something strange happens, though: God's truth shines through anyway. The author parses and paraphrases, and leaves out virtually the entire Gospel, but the reader can tell what he's aiming for.This is not, as I see it, an attempt to rewrite the Gospel or translate the Gospel, but rather an attempt to show particular facets in an enlightening way. The reason the gross omissions are forgivable is that he takes parts of Jesus' teachings and makes them shine far more brightly than before. The parable of the Prodigal Son, in particular, receives the attention that it should. Mitchell might have problems with what he considers the more "mythological" aspects of Christianity, but his writing demonstrates a real understanding of the concepts of grace, forgiveness, and divine providence. Yes, a lot of this is because these are the facets of Christianity that dovetail with his Zen philosophy and training, but this remains the strength of the book. What every reader should realize about this work, though, is that it cannot be considered a definitive translation of the Gospel. It is neither scholarly nor historical. Rather, it is poetic and interpretive, and the author prefers to present the gist of the text, particularly where a precise translation doesn't translate context or connotations. Obviously, the problem with this is that the author's subjective judgments can and do get in the way. The main reason that I give this book four stars rather than three is that the author is explicitly honest about his motives and intentions, and those parts of the Gospel he chooses to translate are helpful both to unbelievers who are trying to understand Christianity and to believers as extensions to traditional Bible study. Finally, while the whole book is technically blasphemy, it helped me return to my faith after a long hiatus. Make of that what you will.
Rating:
Summary: Simply Fabulous
Review: Stephen Mitchell's , The Gospel According to Jesus, is one of the greatest books of spirituality ever written. It's explanation of the birth, life, and death of Jesus of Nazareth helped me to truly understand what the word "christian" means. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson and Mitchell's book are the greatest explainers of the teachings of Jesus.
Rating:
Summary: This review is inerrant
Review: This review is inerrant. Those who doubt have insufficient faith. For a long time I was separated from Jesus by the absurdity of such claims about scripture. I knew very well that concordance of the Gospels was a wish, not a fact. And it was clear to me that many statements attributed to Jesus simply did not jibe with others. Mitchell's book played a major role in my life by showing me that one can, through exercise of scholarship and enlightened judgment, extract from those imperfect documents a coherent message. It was liberating to learn that over the centuries people like William Blake and Thomas Jefferson had done so. Mitchell explains early on that we know very few facts about the historical Jesus. Only someone reading hastily could miss his dilineation of speculative regions, of which there are many. He makes it very clear that his interpretation is highly personal, and shares his Zen Buddhist experience openly. He does, however, often support his points with legitimate scholarship. The reader can use this scholarship to go in whatever direction he or she chooses. It would be unfair to say that Mitchell makes Jesus into a Zen master, though his interpretation is certainly colored by his experience. On the contrary, he emphasizes the common aspects of spiritual experience and enlightenment in various religions and practices. He also clearly indicates that certain aspects of Jesus' teaching (e.g., forgiveness) seem to appear in no other tradition. The first of all truths is that if you seek you will find, and Mitchell gives a valuable example of how to seek. I doubt that any active reader will find precisely what he did. And there is the rub for traditional Christians, who cannot acknowledge plural truths.
Rating:
Summary: Not a "bad" book...an attempt to share the word
Review: Well, after I read all the strong attacks of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JESUS, I had to see what Stephen Mitchell had done to upset so many. Sure, fundamentalists will not be open to this reinterpretation of Jesus, let alone the Gospels, but Mitchell is a wise person who has given us some wonderful interpretations. The same holds here...he writes so well, the Gospel comes alive with a voice that holds attention. However, I too object to Mitchell's premises of Jesus as a "bastard," and even less founded Jesus and Mary as a dysfunctional family. It's a needless attack and without evidence. His Gospel deserved better than that. Read around in this book...it's worth it.
<< 1 >>
|
