The Gospels: Jesus Christ
by
3.66 · Rating details · 56 ratings · 11 reviews
In this newpresentation of the Gospels, Terry Eagleton makes a powerful andprovocative argument for Jesus Christ as a social, political and moralradical, a friend of anti-imperialists, outcasts and marginals, achampion of the poor, the sick and immigrants, and as an opponent ofthe rich, religious hierarchs, and hypocrites everywhere in otherwords, as a figure akin to revolutionaries like Robespierre, Marx, andChe Guevara. (less)
Showing 1-30
Apr 28, 2014Nathan Napier rated it really liked it
The intro essay by Eagleton is a nice materialist version of Jesus that reads the New Testament in its precarious historical detailing, noting many of the absurdities that occur when the text is read with an overly spiritual lens and from out of the incessant need to make the narrative jive with a particular theological vision. Much of what he says here is also consistent with a large apportionment of Historical Jesus studies, as he often incites the criterion of embarrassment, but he does diverge a bit on his final interpretation of Jesus. The largest shortcoming I see in this essay is the dismissal of various "sayings" of Jesus or "events" in the text with casual literary hand-waving, as if his entire audience would know why he makes a particular judgment on Jesus. These comments require some familiarity with the research of historical Jesus or the reader may wonder why Eagleton thinks this is an interpolation or that is a late redaction. I agree with much of his assessment here, but his support of these judgments is lacking in this essay...almost spoken with scholarly condescension because clearly anyone that reads the NT will come to the same conclusion. Maybe this is so, but not without a requisite paradigm to make sense of them, OTHER THAN the trendy idea to criticize Christianity and strip Jesus of any dogma...which however, appropriate, is being done by many people without qualifications to do so.
This essay is NOT a detailed exposition of his full idea of Jesus the Christ, but it does offer a nice casual engagement with the NT text and its central figure, giving readers a different perspective on a story with which many are familiar. Much of what one finds here will occur as a "how come I didn't notice that before" as Eagleton discusses things like the zealots associated with Jesus, the vernacular usage of "son of man" and "son of God", even the political axe grinding of the Gospel of Mark and even why Jesus was killed by the Romans in no mean symbolism via crucifixion.
At its end, Eagleton concludes Jesus is not a revolutionary in the type of Lenin because Lenin sees revolution in history, as directed by revolutionaries shaping history,
This essay is NOT a detailed exposition of his full idea of Jesus the Christ, but it does offer a nice casual engagement with the NT text and its central figure, giving readers a different perspective on a story with which many are familiar. Much of what one finds here will occur as a "how come I didn't notice that before" as Eagleton discusses things like the zealots associated with Jesus, the vernacular usage of "son of man" and "son of God", even the political axe grinding of the Gospel of Mark and even why Jesus was killed by the Romans in no mean symbolism via crucifixion.
At its end, Eagleton concludes Jesus is not a revolutionary in the type of Lenin because Lenin sees revolution in history, as directed by revolutionaries shaping history,
whereas Jesus sees eschatological redemption from outside of history. Just because he wasn't Lenin or an imperial anarchist, however, doesn't mean he was any less revolutionary. The ever challenging of social stratification is no small means, the proclamation that leaders rides asses into the Holy Citys in the supreme act of political irony, that deliberate sinners are those of whom the kingdom of God is made, and witness of the most pivotal event in the New Testament are left with people who are unable to speak in mostly every circumstance, to just name a few...certainly makes Jesus a revolutionary, even if he isn't walking the streets with raised fists...his fists by his side probably being the biggest reason he was posterized by the Romans; his silence condemning him.
Eagleton's essay is a nice read, and his end notes on the chapters shows his engagement with limited NT studies...for these the book is worth the read, especially since the rest of the text is just the Gospels printed in the NRSV translation. There's quite a bit here if one will take the time to follow Eagleton and read the Gospels through the hermeneutic he is offering. (less)
Eagleton's essay is a nice read, and his end notes on the chapters shows his engagement with limited NT studies...for these the book is worth the read, especially since the rest of the text is just the Gospels printed in the NRSV translation. There's quite a bit here if one will take the time to follow Eagleton and read the Gospels through the hermeneutic he is offering. (less)
Mar 22, 2011Jesse rated it it was amazing
Human emancipation was, apparently, a popular concept in the ancient world. The Greeks desired it so much that they invented democracy, but a democracy untempered by the thoughts of women, slaves, and races other than Greek, such that imperialism became inevitable.
Meanwhile, the Romans invented the republic, which gave rise to all forms of romanticization of representatives, such that imperialism became inevitable. If Socrates, then, is the real spirit of human emancipation, then Jesus Christ is its romanticization. But Socrates was on the side of aristocrats, while Christ was on the side of the poor. Socrates wanted to cure mental illness (despite suffering from it himself); Christ wanted to cure all forms of physical suffering. Hence, the romanticization of human emancipation in Christ brought forth a more concrete (economic) result than the pure spirit of Socrates.
Anyway, Eagleton examines how the text of the Gospels reveals Jesus to have been an activist who despised the literal faith of the Jews; funny how, then, every Christian takes the Bible so literally, since Jesus is at pains to convince everyone not to do so.
Many Christian leaders think that Jesus wanted people to take whatever power dishes out to them (hence, the vocal anti-union Christians of late), but does not Jesus actively resist power when he turns over the tables of the money changers in the temple? Or when he answers the questions of power with questions? Or when he refuses to identify himself as state power wishes he would? Or when he flees from town to town to escape persecution by the authorities? I could go on.
An addendum: the key fable that Jesus throws around seems to be the one where the lesson is that the lost but found sheep are better than the ones that were never lost. That is basically a guarantee for power worship and a call for extremism. Add in some Enlightenment rhetoric and, voila, you have Hegel! (less)
Oct 21, 2007mao rated it it was ok
Befriend sinners, prostitutes and tax collectors. Love what is hated by doxa; question orthodoxy. Have faith in the decision to follow certain things. Betray your father (and your family). "The dead bury the dead." And, last, but not least, do not bring peace, but the sword.
What I like about Eagleton's introduction is his little tidbit, which must be affirmed, on the name, given to Jesus, of the "Son of God". Christ never refers to himself as the Son of God, but the Son of Man (another way of saying, what we might say today, a human being), and it is always others who refer to him (and denounce him) as such. Jesus' response to the questioning of his being the Son of God is always lacking (in the form of silence) or "if you say so"! In other words, it is only for those who accuse (and it is originally an accusation!) Jesus of being the Son of God that Jesus becomes, for them, whether blasphemous or divine, the/a name of the Son of God.
What, I think, should be dismissed, for a non-Christian reading the gospels, are the eschatological anxieties, evangelical injunctions, and fabulous miracles included in the gospels. The question that should be asked is, precisely, and I think Eagleton makes this point clear, what did Jesus say and do? (less)
What I like about Eagleton's introduction is his little tidbit, which must be affirmed, on the name, given to Jesus, of the "Son of God". Christ never refers to himself as the Son of God, but the Son of Man (another way of saying, what we might say today, a human being), and it is always others who refer to him (and denounce him) as such. Jesus' response to the questioning of his being the Son of God is always lacking (in the form of silence) or "if you say so"! In other words, it is only for those who accuse (and it is originally an accusation!) Jesus of being the Son of God that Jesus becomes, for them, whether blasphemous or divine, the/a name of the Son of God.
What, I think, should be dismissed, for a non-Christian reading the gospels, are the eschatological anxieties, evangelical injunctions, and fabulous miracles included in the gospels. The question that should be asked is, precisely, and I think Eagleton makes this point clear, what did Jesus say and do? (less)
Feb 23, 2009Brent Wilson rated it liked it
Not much here really. An introductory essay by Eagleton about Jesus and the Gospels; then the four gospels in New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I had read and enjoyed Eagleton's After Theory, and thought his take on Jesus could be stimulating.
I guess I'm too much into the historical side of Jesus research to really appreciate Eagleton's literary criticism. Not enough new in the intro to really spur my interest.
Still, a handy small volume of the Gospels.
I guess I'm too much into the historical side of Jesus research to really appreciate Eagleton's literary criticism. Not enough new in the intro to really spur my interest.
Still, a handy small volume of the Gospels.
Oct 04, 2011Joel marked it as read-some
this is just an NRSV version of the Gospels with an introductory essay by Terry Eagleton and some footnotes by him as well. I guess I just picked it up for the essay, but it wouldn't hurt to read the Gospels again either. The essay itself was alright, though I think he has done better writing about Christianity elsewhere.
I needed to read the Gospels and this was a great way to do it. Eagleton's intro is interesting and engagins, seeing Jesus just as another man. The Gospels themselves are direct and don't waste time telling Jesus's story. A lot of stuff that was not clear to me before about Christianity and Jesus's message now makes a bit more sense.
I would have liked more from Eagleton. As it was, the critical analysis appeared too lackadaisical because even with these four gospels (which are not that long) there is much ambiguity here. If anything Eagleton attempts to open the spread of interpretation on Christ and he does so, without really saying anything that is particularly definite.
Would have liked to have seen more material here.
Eagleton's notes could be important reading to accompany the New Testament. He brings Jesus down to earth, lets us know what the sholars really know about crucial passages minus ideological strings attached and without diminishing Jesus' revolution in the process. (don't doubt it, Jesus was certainly a revolutionary).
Eagleton's notes could be important reading to accompany the New Testament. He brings Jesus down to earth, lets us know what the sholars really know about crucial passages minus ideological strings attached and without diminishing Jesus' revolution in the process. (don't doubt it, Jesus was certainly a revolutionary).
