<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: What a piece of wishy-washy garbage.
Review: I picked up this book at the local libarary, thinking it would be a scholarly analysis of the scriptures. When Mitchell claimed that he had done "research" and discovered which parts of the New Testament were added and which might really be attributable to christ, I thought he would present more evidence than "Anyone can tell Jesus wouldn't have said THAT!" ... If you want to read feel-good, new-agey ramblings about Jesus, this is the book for you. If, like me, you were looking for a book that provides an in-depth, well thought out, well-researched, scholarly investigation of the nature of the original jesus, go elsewhere, without a doubt. The only explanation I can see here is that this book is listed for "young adults." I can only hope this is why Mitchell dumbed the book down so much - because otherwise he's not a very good writer on top of everything else!
Rating:
Summary: What a piece of wishy-washy garbage.
Review: I picked up this book at the local libarary, thinking it would be a scholarly analysis of the scriptures. When Mitchell claimed that he had done "research" and discovered which parts of the New Testament were added and which might really be attributable to christ, I thought he would present more evidence than "Anyone can tell Jesus wouldn't have said THAT!" ... If you want to read feel-good, new-agey ramblings about Jesus, this is the book for you. If, like me, you were looking for a book that provides an in-depth, well thought out, well-researched, scholarly investigation of the nature of the original jesus, go elsewhere, without a doubt. The only explanation I can see here is that this book is listed for "young adults." I can only hope this is why Mitchell dumbed the book down so much - because otherwise he's not a very good writer on top of everything else!
Rating: 
Summary: The simplified, incomplete gospel according to Mitchell
Review: If you want a book that explores which of Jesus' sayings are really authentic, look elsewhere: Mitchell is so wrapped up in being P.C. and "spiritual" that he turns this book into a mixture of misinformation and half-truths. Another caution: Mitchell is not concerned with God in any Judeo-Christian or even theistic sense of the word, only as another "reality." For starters, as it has been pointed out in reviews on Mitchell's other book, "The Gospel According to Jesus", Mitchell's criteria for deciding whether a saying attributed to Jesus is authentic or not is whether it sounds right to him! How unscholarly and self-centered can you get? In the introduction he compares what he is doing to Thomas Jefferson's version of the gospels (which leaves out the Resurrection entirely) except that "unlike him, I was able to use the precision tools of modern scholarship. I also used the spiritual intuition that I had deepened over many years of Zen training. I selected and translated only the passages that seemed to me authentic accounts and sayings of Jesus, and I left out every passage that seemed like a later addition." (xxiv-v) Listen to him! Does he really consider that a better method than Jefferson's? The biggest flaw is that Mitchell is quite haphazard in documenting and citing biblical passages. One example of a passage: "The kingdom of God doesn't come if you watch for it. It isn't in heaven. It doesn't come only after you die. No one can point and say 'it is here' or 'it is there.' For the kingdom of God is within you." (22). This should be from Luke 17:20-2, except it doesn't say "It doesn't come only after you die." This is a belief Mitchell would like the reader to believe, closer to Buddhism than biblical Christianity. In many places Mitchell forgets to indicate where the biblical text ends and his own opinion begins, which unscolarly and dishonest. Also, not every biblical passage in the book is cited, not even in the notes at the end of the book. He even disregards how much of the New Testament is directly from the Old Testament. People who want factual evidence to study, shun this book. If you want to decide whether this book is for you, skip to the Afterword: "The authentic Jesus, as I see him, was not a divine being (whatever that means), born of a virgin mother, surrounded by angels and wise men, and essentially different from all other humans. ... At the age of about thirty, he had an extraordinary experience of waking up to the truth. ... He was a man in love with God, who gave himself completely to the acts of human kindness that proceeded from that love. At this point you may be thinking, 'Jesus teachings sound wonderful, but what good are they? What do they mean for me? ... How can I love bigots and racists, for example? ... These are questions people have been asking for thousands of years. The fact is that no one, not even the greatest teacher, can show you how to love. A teacher can point you in the right direction, but that's about all. 'Some say my teaching is nonsense,' Lao-tzu says in the Tao Te Ching... But how do you look inside yourself? One way is meditation ... Another way ... is called the Work of Byron Katie. (NOTE: she is Mitchell's wife! To me, he's just offering more of the same) Whatever method you find, when you're able to look inside yourself deeply and understand your own mind, your life will become more peaceful. ... So the best way to follow Jesus' teachings is not to follow them at all but to live them. When you're able to look inside yourself deeply, you'll find that the teacher who taught Jesus will teach you. That teacher has no name. It is closer to you than breathing, nearer to you than your own thoughts." (109-112) I should point out that Mitchell gets some of the historical points in Jesus' life correct, mainly that he was a Jew and crucifixion was a horrible way to die, but that's about it. Mitchell's Jesus might as well be another new-age teacher. Ultimately, it seems to me, you can search for truth either inside or outside yourself. If you are flawed, then what you find within yourself will also be flawed. As for contributing to my search for truth, I was disappointed by this book.
Rating:
Summary: Wholly Inaccurate
Review: If you want a scholarly book that brilliantly deals with who Jesus was, read Ravi Zacharias's "Jesus Among Other Gods." There is an adult as well as a teen version of Zacharias's book. It contains the answers you seek. Mitchell's book, however, lacks substance, adequate research, and fair analysis. I challenge Mitchell to read Zacharias's book as well and see if he still holds to the theories he puts forth here. It'll be tough -- Zacharias is a brilliant theologian who makes his case beautifully and thoroughly in "Jesus Among Other Gods." If Mitchell can come up with a substantial refutation of Zacharias's arguments, I'd like to see it (yes, Mr. Mitchell, that's a challenge to you.)
Rating: 
Summary: Mitchell's Jesus for teens and young adults
Review: One of the editorial reviews of this book says: "his plug for the self-help work of Byron Katie seems out of place and disingenuous as Mitchell wrote the introduction for her new book." So let's clear that up right away: Stephen Mitchell is married to Byron Katie. His only "plug" for her work is a brief mention of some material available for free on her website, and it's offered as an alternative that some people find more helpful than the meditative techniques Mitchell is discussing at that point in the text. There's nothing disingenuous going on here. Now on to the book itself. If you've read Mitchell's _The Gospel According to Jesus_, there won't be many surprises for you here. This book is a stripped-down, somewhat simplified version of that one; the text is part new, part used. The style is intended to be accessible to teenagers and young adults. Mitchell's translation of the "gospel" is included as well, and it's essentially the same text as before but with some rewriting (mostly paraphrasing). Mitchell admits in his 1991 book that he may have excluded some passages "whose light [he hadn't] been able to see," so the reader may wonder whether he's added anything since that time. Well, not much -- two or three short parables, a paraphrase of a line from the Gospel of the Nazoreans, and a couple of excerpts from the epistle of James. (I think this latter is an excellent choice; I think well of James and there's good reason to think the text is based closely on Jesus's oral teachings.) What's really new here is Mitchell's introduction, in which he tells us quite a bit about how he came to write a book about Jesus in the first place. This stuff will be of interest not only to the book's ostensible target readership but also to readers of his earlier Jesus book who want to know more about what motivated him. And among other things, he admits candidly that in selecting what he regards as the "authentic" sayings and acts of the historical Jesus, he's deliberately erring on the side of leaving things out rather than including too much. Despite some disagreements with some of his interpretations (e.g. his downplaying of the political importance of Jesus's teachings), I really like the positive features of his 1991 other book; in fact it was instrumental in getting me re-interested in the world's most famous Jewish spiritual teacher. But in my review of that book (which see), I gave it only three stars because of its questionable scholarship and its attitude of "spiritual one-upmanship" toward believing Christians (of whom, for the record, I am not one, so I'm not speaking here out of personal pique). This new book gets four stars because so much of that stuff has been toned down or omitted altogether. Oh, some of the problems are still there. The resurrection, for example, is still treated as a "legend" with no explanation about why it can't be regarded as historical. Sure, the gospels' post-resurrection stories can't be reconciled with one another (e.g. did the disciples return to the Galilee or remain in Jerusalem?), but that doesn't mean _nothing_ happened. Jesus's being in some way "raised" doesn't commit anyone to a Christian theological understanding of the event. And if all Mitchell means is that Jesus's corpse didn't just get up and start walking around again -- well, I don't think that's what Christians believe either. And we're still suggesting that Jesus might have been illegitimate. For the record, folks: under Jewish law, _any_ child born in wedlock is "legitimate," no matter who the biological father is. Sure, if people suspected that Joseph wasn't Jesus's father, there might well have been some unpleasant talk. But that wouldn't make him "illegitimate"; "mamzer" is not the same concept as "bastard," and I (again) wish Mitchell had said so. But this time around, Mitchell has enough sense not to present his book as suitable for "believers and nonbelievers" (as per the subtitle of his earlier book). In fact he expressly warns Christians that some of them may _not_ want to read this book, which is a nice change (and an indication of why I awarded him that additional star). This new book is suitable for its intended audience as long as they (or their parents) know what they're getting. And as I said, it will also be of interest to readers who want a little more of the "backstory" for _The Gospel According to Jesus_. If you like Mitchell's work, this one is worth the investment.
Rating:
Summary: Money for Nothing.
Review: Stephen Mitchell begins by telling how he was conflicted, as a child, between the loving and harsh passages of the Gospels. It was only after years of Zen practice that he finally "got it." He went back and "studied all the scholarship that seemed to me intelligent and open-minded." But it was only during a trip to Israel that things clicked for him, when he met a Bedouin in the Sinai desert who seemed to personify the "Abba" of timeless Middle Eastern tradition, "And a voice inside me said,' Aha!'" and he went home to write this book.
I was wondering, at this point, which scholars would he rely on? How would he define "intelligent" or "open-minded?" What evidence would he offer for his conclusions?
It turned out there were a few "facts" in the rest of the book, mostly wrong ones. "Forty years is a long time . . . (Some) stories and reports were made up much later, by disciples of disciples." (But how many of us could not rely on first-hand accounts by ourselves or close relatives to write about events of forty years ago?) "All reputable scholars agree that the stories of Jesus' predictions were added by later disciples." (No, they do not. But even if they did, the evidence does not support that claim.) "The legend of the resurrection would have surprised Jesus. He himself never taught about a resurrection from the dead, because he wasn't afraid of death." This book is for adolescents; but I have to wonder if even a child could read such a silly and presumptuous bit of mind-reading with a straight face.
But then I had a thought. Was I being had? Could Mitchell be simply cashing in on interest in Jesus?
What could be easier than writing a book like this? Scan the Gospels. Read a few (carefully selected) scholars who share your views. Tell a story about yourself to warm up the audience. Quote liberally and freely, so half the book is someone else's words. Use short words to market it to the young and gullible. Leave plenty of white space. End in 150 pages with a few rambling notes, and -- heh, presto! Insta-book.
Maybe my suspicions are incorrect. But in any case, this book is not much good. If you're looking for a book about Jesus with a literary tint, and without too many technical details, try Thomas Cahill's Desire of the Everlasting Hills, instead. If you absolutely need a book like that by a skeptic, then even A. N. Wilson, with all his flaws, is far better and more interesting than this. For more serious study, I recommend NT Wright; and he has a couple really good books on Jesus that can be easily be read by teenagers, too.
author, Jesus and the Religions of Man
Rating:
Summary: Money for Nothing.
Review: Stephen Mitchell begins by telling how he was conflicted, as a child, between the loving and harsh passages of the Gospels. It was only after years of Zen practice that he finally "got it." He went back and "studied all the scholarship that seemed to me intelligent and open-minded." But it was only during a trip to Israel that things clicked for him, when he met a Bedouin in the Sinai desert who seemed to personify the "Abba" of timeless Middle Eastern tradition, "And a voice inside me said,' Aha!'" and he went home to write this book.
I was wondering, at this point, which scholars would he rely on? How would he define "intelligent" or "open-minded?" What evidence would he offer for his conclusions?
It turned out there were a few "facts" in the rest of the book, mostly wrong ones. "Forty years is a long time . . . (Some) stories and reports were made up much later, by disciples of disciples." (But how many of us could not rely on first-hand accounts by ourselves or close relatives to write about events of forty years ago?) "All reputable scholars agree that the stories of Jesus' predictions were added by later disciples." (No, they do not. But even if they did, the evidence does not support that claim.) "The legend of the resurrection would have surprised Jesus. He himself never taught about a resurrection from the dead, because he wasn't afraid of death." This book is for adolescents; but I have to wonder if even a child could read such a silly and presumptuous bit of mind-reading with a straight face.
But then I had a thought. Was I being had? Could Mitchell be simply cashing in on interest in Jesus?
What could be easier than writing a book like this? Scan the Gospels. Read a few (carefully selected) scholars who share your views. Tell a story about yourself to warm up the audience. Quote liberally and freely, so half the book is someone else's words. Use short words to market it to the young and gullible. Leave plenty of white space. End in 150 pages with a few rambling notes, and -- heh, presto! Insta-book.
Maybe my suspicions are incorrect. But in any case, this book is not much good. If you're looking for a book about Jesus with a literary tint, and without too many technical details, try Thomas Cahill's Desire of the Everlasting Hills, instead. If you absolutely need a book like that by a skeptic, then even A. N. Wilson, with all his flaws, is far better and more interesting than this. For more serious study, I recommend NT Wright; and he has a couple really good books on Jesus that can be easily be read by teenagers, too.
author, Jesus and the Religions of Man
<< 1 >>
|
