2021/06/28

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

Gospel of Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Gospel of Thomas
El Evangelio de Tomás-Gospel of Thomas- Codex II Manuscritos de Nag Hammadi-The Nag Hammadi manuscripts.png
Nag Hammadi Codex II:
The beginning of the Gospel of Thomas
Information
ReligionChristianity (Thomasine)
AuthorUnknown
(attributed to Thomas)
LanguageCopticGreek
PeriodEarly Christianity
(possibly Apostolic Age)

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is an extra-canonical[1] sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture. Scholars have proposed dates of composition as early as AD 60 and as late as AD 250.[2][3]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Almost two-thirds of these sayings resemble those found in the canonical gospels[4] and its editio princeps counts more than 80% of parallels,[5] while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[6] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[7] Other scholars have suggested an Alexandrian origin.[8]

The introduction states: "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down."[9] Didymus (Greek) and Thomas (Aramaic) both mean "twin". The text's authorship by Thomas the Apostle is rejected by modern scholars.[10]

Because of its discovery with the Nag Hammadi library, it was widely thought that the document originated within a school of early Christians, possibly proto-Gnostics.[11][12] More recently critics have questioned whether the description of Thomas as a "gnostic" gospel is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[13][12] The name of Thomas was also attached to the Book of Thomas the Contender, which was also in Nag Hammadi Codex II, and the Acts of Thomas. While the Gospel of Thomas does not directly point to Jesus' divinity, it also does not directly contradict it. When asked his identity in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus usually deflects, ambiguously asking the disciples why they do not see what is right in front of them, similar to some passages in the canonical gospels like John 12:16 and Luke 18:34.

The Gospel of Thomas is very different in tone and structure from other New Testament apocrypha and the four Canonical Gospels. Unlike the canonical Gospels, it is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; instead, it consists of logia (sayings) attributed to Jesus, sometimes stand-alone, sometimes embedded in short dialogues or parables; 13 of its 16 parables are also found in the Synoptic Gospels. The text contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus in logion 65[14] (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, paralleled in the Synoptic Gospels), but does not mention his crucifixion, his resurrection, or the final judgement; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus.[15][16] Since its discovery, many scholars have seen it as evidence in support of the existence of a "Q source", which might have been very similar in its form as a collection of sayings of Jesus without any accounts of his deeds or his life and death, referred to as a "sayings gospel".[17]

Bishop Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics".[18] The Church father Origen listed the "Gospel according to Thomas" as being among the heterodox apocryphal gospels known to him (Hom. in Luc. 1).

Finds and publication[edit source]

P. Oxy. 1
Nag Hammadi Codex II, folio 32, the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas

The manuscript of the Coptic text (CG II), found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, is dated at around 340 AD. It was first published in a photographic edition in 1956.[note 1] This was followed three years later (1959) by the first English-language translation, with Coptic transcription.[19] In 1977, James M. Robinson edited the first complete collection of English translations of the Nag Hammadi texts.[20] The Gospel of Thomas has been translated and annotated worldwide in many languages.

The original Coptic manuscript is now the property of the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt, Department of Manuscripts.[21]

Oxyrhynchus papyrus fragments[edit source]

After the Coptic version of the complete text was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, scholars soon realized that three different Greek text fragments previously found at Oxyrhynchus (the Oxyrhynchus Papyri), also in Egypt, were part of the Gospel of Thomas.[22][23] These three papyrus fragments of Thomas date to between 130 and 250 AD.

Prior to the Nag Hammadi library discovery, the sayings of Jesus found in Oxyrhynchus were known simply as Logia Iesu. The corresponding Uncial script Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas, found in Oxyrhynchus are:

  • P. Oxy. 1: fragments of logia 26 through 33, with the last two sentences of logion 77 in the Coptic version included at the end of logion 30 herein.
  • P. Oxy. 654 : fragments of the beginning through logion 7, logion 24 and logion 36 on the flip side of a papyrus containing surveying data.[24]
  • P. Oxy. 655 : fragments of logia 36 through 39. 8 fragments designated a through h, whereof f and h have since been lost.[25]

The wording of the Coptic sometimes differs markedly from the earlier Greek Oxyrhynchus texts, the extreme case being that the last portion of logion 30 in the Greek is found at the end of logion 77 in the Coptic. This fact, along with the quite different wording Hippolytus uses when apparently quoting it (see below), suggests that the Gospel of Thomas "may have circulated in more than one form and passed through several stages of redaction."[26]

Although it is generally thought that the Gospel of Thomas was first composed in Greek, there is evidence that the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is a translation from Syriac (see Syriac origin).

Attestation[edit source]

The earliest surviving written references to the Gospel of Thomas are found in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 222–235) and Origen of Alexandria (c. 233).[27] Hippolytus wrote in his Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20:

[The Naassenes] speak...of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."

This appears to be a reference to saying 4 of Thomas, although the wording differs significantly. As translated by Thomas O. Lambdin, saying 4 reads: "Jesus said, 'the man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same".[28]

Origen listed the "Gospel according to Thomas" as being among the heterodox apocryphal gospels known to him (Hom. in Luc. 1).

In the 4th and 5th centuries, various Church Fathers wrote that the Gospel of Thomas was highly valued by Mani. In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" twice in his Catechesis: "The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort."[29] and "Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes."[30] The 5th-century Decretum Gelasianum includes "A Gospel attributed to Thomas which the Manichaean use" in its list of heretical books.[31]

Date of composition[edit source]

Richard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as 60 AD or as late as 140 AD, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[2]

Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time.[32] Valantasis dates Thomas to 100 – 110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30 – 60 AD.[33] J. R. Porter dates the Gospel of Thomas much later, to 250 AD.[3]

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels; and a more common "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.[quote 1][quote 2]

Early camp[edit source]

Form of the gospel[edit source]

Theissen and Merz argue the genre of a collection of sayings was one of the earliest forms in which material about Jesus was handed down.[34] They assert that other collections of sayings, such as the Q source and the collection underlying Mark 4, were absorbed into larger narratives and no longer survive as independent documents, and that no later collections in this form survive.[34]Marvin Meyer also asserted that the genre of a "sayings collection" is indicative of the 1st century,[35] and that in particular the "use of parables without allegorical amplification" seems to antedate the canonical gospels.[35]

Independence from Synoptic Gospels[edit source]

Stevan L. Davies argues that the apparent independence of the ordering of sayings in Thomas from that of their parallels in the synoptics shows that Thomas was not evidently reliant upon the canonical gospels and probably predated them.[36][37] Several authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics, the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source. Theissen and Merz give sayings 31 and 65 as examples of this.[34] Koester agrees, citing especially the parables contained in sayings 8, 9, 57, 63, 64 and 65.[38] In the few instances where the version in Thomas seems to be dependent on the Synoptics, Koester suggests, this may be due to the influence of the person who translated the text from Greek into Coptic.[38]

Koester also argues that the absence of narrative materials (such as those found in the canonical gospels) in Thomas makes it unlikely that the gospel is "an eclectic excerpt from the gospels of the New Testament".[38] He also cites the absence of the eschatological sayings considered characteristic of Q to show the independence of Thomas from that source.[38]

Intertextuality with John's gospel[edit source]

Another argument for an early date is what some scholars have suggested is an interplay between the Gospel of John and the logia of Thomas. Parallels between the two have been taken to suggest that Thomas' logia preceded John's work, and that the latter was making a point-by-point riposte to Thomas, either in real or mock conflict. This seeming dialectic has been pointed out by several New Testament scholars, notably Gregory J. Riley,[39] April DeConick,[40] and Elaine Pagels.[41] Though differing in approach, they argue that several verses in the Gospel of John are best understood as responses to a Thomasine community and its beliefs. Pagels, for example, says that John's gospel makes two references to the inability of the world to recognize the divine light.[42][better source needed] In contrast, several of Thomas' sayings refer to the light born 'within'.[43]

John's gospel is the only canonical one that gives Thomas the Apostle a dramatic role and spoken part, and Thomas is the only character therein described as being apistos (unbelieving), despite the failings of virtually all the Johannine characters to live up to the author's standards of belief. With respect to the famous story of "Doubting Thomas",[44] it is suggested[41] that John may have been denigrating or ridiculing a rival school of thought. In another apparent contrast, John's text matter-of-factly presents a bodily resurrection as if this is a sine qua non of the faith; in contrast, Thomas' insights about the spirit-and-body are more nuanced.[45] For Thomas, resurrection seems more a cognitive event of spiritual attainment, one even involving a certain discipline or asceticism. Again, an apparently denigrating portrayal in the "Doubting Thomas" story may either be taken literally, or as a kind of mock "comeback" to Thomas' logia: not as an outright censuring of Thomas, but an improving gloss. After all, Thomas' thoughts about the spirit and body are really not so different from those which John has presented elsewhere.[note 2] John portrays Thomas as physically touching the risen Jesus, inserting fingers and hands into his body, and ending with a shout. Pagels interprets this as signifying one-upmanship by John, who is forcing Thomas to acknowledge Jesus' bodily nature. She writes that "...he shows Thomas giving up his search for experiential truth – his 'unbelief' – to confess what John sees as the truth...".[46] The point of these examples, as used by Riley and Pagels, is to support the argument that the text of Thomas must have existed and have gained a following at the time of the writing of John's Gospel, and that the importance of the Thomasine logia was great enough that John felt the necessity of weaving them into his own narrative.

As this scholarly debate continued, theologian Christopher W. Skinner disagreed with Riley, DeConick, and Pagels over any possible John–Thomas interplay, and concluded that in the book of John, Thomas the disciple "is merely one stitch in a wider literary pattern where uncomprehending characters serve as foils for Jesus's words and deeds."[47]

Role of James[edit source]

Albert Hogeterp argues that the Gospel's saying 12, which attributes leadership of the community to James the Just rather than to Peter, agrees with the description of the early Jerusalem church by Paul in Galatians 2:1–14 and may reflect a tradition predating AD 70.[48] Meyer also lists "uncertainty about James the righteous, the brother of Jesus" as characteristic of a 1st-century origin.[35]

In later traditions (most notably in the Acts of ThomasBook of Thomas the Contender, etc.), Thomas is regarded as the twin brother of Jesus.[49] Nonetheless, this gospel holds some sentences (log. 55, 99 y 101), that are in opposition with the familial group of Jesus, which involves difficulties when it tries to identify him with James, the brother of Jesus, quoted by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. Moreover, there are some sayings, (principally log. 6, 14, 104) and Oxyrhinchus papyri 654 (log. 6) in which the Gospel is shown in opposition to Jewish traditions, especially in respect to circumcision and dietary practices (log. 55), key issues in the early Jewish-Christian community led by James (Acts 15: 1–35, Gal. 2:1–10).

Depiction of Peter and Matthew[edit source]

In saying 13, Peter and Matthew are depicted as unable to understand the true significance or identity of Jesus. Patterson argues that this can be interpreted as a criticism against the school of Christianity associated with the Gospel of Matthew, and that "[t]his sort of rivalry seems more at home in the first century than later", when all the apostles had become revered figures.[50]

Parallel with Paul[edit source]

According to Meyer, Thomas's saying 17: "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard and no hand has touched, and what has not come into the human heart", is strikingly similar to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9[35] (which was itself an allusion to Isaiah 64:4[51]).

Late camp[edit source]

The late camp dates Thomas some time after 100 AD, generally in the early-2nd century.[quote 1][quote 3] They generally believe that although the text was composed around the mid-2nd century, it contains earlier sayings such as those originally found in the New Testament gospels of which Thomas was in some sense dependent in addition to inauthentic and possibly authentic independent sayings not found in any other extant text. J. R. Porter dates Thomas much later, to the mid-third century.[3]

Dependence on the New Testament[edit source]

Several scholars have argued that the sayings in Thomas reflect conflations and harmonisations dependent on the canonical gospels. For example, saying 10 and 16 appear to contain a redacted harmonisation of Luke 12:4912:51–52 and Matthew 10:34–35. In this case it has been suggested that the dependence is best explained by the author of Thomas making use of an earlier harmonised oral tradition based on Matthew and Luke.[52][53] Biblical scholar Craig A. Evans also subscribes to this view and notes that "Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas... I'm not aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament."[54]

Another argument made for the late dating of Thomas is based upon the fact that Saying 5 in the original Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654) seems to follow the vocabulary used in the gospel according to Luke (Luke 8:17), and not the vocabulary used in the gospel according to Mark (Mark 4:22). According to this argument – which presupposes firstly the rectitude of the two-source hypothesis (widely held among current New Testament scholars[citation needed]), in which the author of Luke is seen as having used the pre-existing gospel according to Mark plus a lost Q source to compose his gospel – if the author of Thomas did, as Saying 5 suggests – refer to a pre-existing gospel according to Luke, rather than Mark's vocabulary, then the gospel of Thomas must have been composed after both Mark and Luke (the latter of which is dated to between 60 AD and 90 AD).

Another saying that employs similar vocabulary to that used in Luke rather than Mark is Saying 31 in the original Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1), where Luke 4:24's term dektos (acceptable) 4:24 is employed rather than Mark 6:4's atimos (without honor). The word dektos (in all its cases and genders) is clearly typical of Luke, since it is only employed by him in the canonical gospels Luke 4:194:24Acts 10:35). Thus, the argument runs, the Greek Thomas has clearly been at least influenced by Luke's characteristic vocabulary.[note 3]

J. R. Porter states that, because around half of the sayings in Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels, it is "possible that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas were selected directly from the canonical gospels and were either reproduced more or less exactly or amended to fit the author's distinctive theological outlook."[55] According to John P. Meier, scholars predominantly conclude that Thomas depends on or harmonizes the Synoptics.[56]

Syriac origin[edit source]

Several scholars argue that Thomas is dependent on Syriac writings, including unique versions of the canonical gospels. They contend that many sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are more similar to Syriac translations of the canonical gospels than their record in the original Greek. Craig A. Evans states that saying 54 in Thomas, which speaks of the poor and the kingdom of heaven, is more similar to the Syriac version of Matthew 5:3 than the Greek version of that passage or the parallel in Luke 6:20.[57]

Klyne Snodgrass notes that saying 65–66 of Thomas containing the Parable of the Wicked Tenants appears to be dependent on the early harmonisation of Mark and Luke found in the old Syriac gospels. He concludes that, "Thomas, rather than representing the earliest form, has been shaped by this harmonizing tendency in Syria. If the Gospel of Thomas were the earliest, we would have to imagine that each of the evangelists or the traditions behind them expanded the parable in different directions and then that in the process of transmission the text was trimmed back to the form it has in the Syriac Gospels. It is much more likely that Thomas, which has a Syrian provenance, is dependent on the tradition of the canonical Gospels that has been abbreviated and harmonized by oral transmission."[52]

Nicholas Perrin argues that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[58] Perrin explains the order of the sayings by attempting to demonstrate that almost all adjacent sayings are connected by Syriac catchwords, whereas in Coptic or Greek, catchwords have been found for only less than half of the pairs of adjacent sayings.[59] Peter J. Williams analyzed Perrin's alleged Syriac catchwords and found them implausible.[60] Robert F. Shedinger wrote that since Perrin attempts to reconstruct an Old Syriac version of Thomas without first establishing Thomas' reliance on the Diatessaron, Perrin's logic seems circular.[61]

Lack of apocalyptic themes[edit source]

Bart Ehrman argues that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, and that his apocalyptic beliefs are recorded in the earliest Christian documents: Mark and the authentic Pauline epistles. The earliest Christians believed Jesus would soon return, and their beliefs are echoed in the earliest Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (Saying 113), and lacks apocalyptic themes. Because of this, Ehrman argues, the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a Gnostic some time in the early 2nd century.[62]

N.T. Wright, former Anglican bishop and professor of New Testament history, also sees the dating of Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century. Wright's reasoning for this dating is that the "narrative framework" of 1st-century Judaism and the New Testament is radically different from the worldview expressed in the sayings collected in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas makes an anachronistic mistake by turning Jesus the Jewish prophet into a Hellenistic/Cynic philosopher. Wright concludes his section on the Gospel of Thomas in his book The New Testament and the People of God in this way:

[Thomas'] implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. 'The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins, and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home.' This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism ... It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions ... Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity.[63]

Relation to the New Testament canon[edit source]

Last page of the Gospel of Thomas

Although arguments about some potential New Testament books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and Book of Revelation, continued well into the 4th century, four canonical gospels, attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were accepted among proto-orthodox Christians at least as early as the mid-2nd century. Tatian's widely used Diatessaron, compiled between 160 and 175 AD, utilized the four gospels without any consideration of others. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in the late 2nd century that: "since there are four-quarters of the earth ... it is fitting that the church should have four pillars ... the four Gospels."[64] and then shortly thereafter made the first known quotation from a fourth gospel – the now-canonical version of the Gospel of John. The late 2nd-century Muratorian fragment also recognizes only the three synoptic gospels and John. Bible scholar Bruce Metzger wrote regarding the formation of the New Testament canon:

Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.[65]

Relation to the Thomasine milieu[edit source]

The question also arises as to various sects' usage of other works attributed to Thomas and their relation to this work.

The Book of Thomas the Contender, also from Nag Hammadi, is foremost among these, but the extensive Acts of Thomas provides the mythological connections. The short and comparatively straightforward Apocalypse of Thomas has no immediate connection with the synoptic gospels, while the canonical Jude – if the name can be taken to refer to Judas Thomas Didymus – certainly attests to early intra-Christian conflict.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, shorn of its mythological connections, is difficult to connect specifically to the Gospel of Thomas, but the Acts of Thomas contains the Hymn of the Pearl whose content is reflected in the Psalms of Thomas found in Manichaean literature. These psalms, which otherwise reveal Mandaean connections, also contain material overlapping the Gospel of Thomas.[66]

Importance and author[edit source]

P. Oxy. 655

Considered by some as one of the earliest accounts of the teachings of Jesus, the Gospel of Thomas is regarded by some scholars as one of the most important texts in understanding early Christianity outside the New Testament.[67] In terms of faith, however, no major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative. It is an important work for scholars working on the Q document, which itself is thought to be a collection of sayings or teachings upon which the gospels of Matthew and Luke are partly based. Although no copy of Q has ever been discovered, the fact that Thomas is similarly a 'sayings' Gospel is viewed by some scholars as an indication that the early Christians did write collections of the sayings of Jesus, bolstering the Q hypothesis.[68]

Modern scholars do not consider Apostle Thomas the author of this document and the author remains unknown. J. Menard produced a summary of the academic consensus in the mid-1970s which stated that the gospel was probably a very late text written by a Gnostic author, thus having very little relevance to the study of the early development of Christianity. Scholarly views of Gnosticism and the Gospel of Thomas have since become more nuanced and diverse.[69] Paterson Brown, for example, has argued forcefully that the three Coptic Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Truth are demonstrably not Gnostic writings, since all three explicitly affirm the basic reality and sanctity of incarnate life, which Gnosticism by definition considers illusory and evil.

In the 4th century Cyril of Jerusalem considered the author a disciple of Mani who was also called Thomas.[70] Cyril stated:

Mani had three disciples: Thomas, Baddas and Hermas. Let no one read the Gospel according to Thomas. For he is not one of the twelve apostles but one of the three wicked disciples of Mani.[71]

Many scholars consider the Gospel of Thomas to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among others, it contains Gnostic themes, and perhaps presupposes a Gnostic worldview.[72] Others reject this interpretation, because Thomas lacks the full-blown mythology of Gnosticism as described by Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 185), and because Gnostics frequently appropriated and used a large "range of scripture from Genesis to the Psalms to Homer, from the Synoptics to John to the letters of Paul."[73]

The historical Jesus[edit source]

Some modern scholars (most notably those belonging to the Jesus Seminar) believe that the Gospel of Thomas was written independently of the canonical gospels, and therefore is a useful guide to historical Jesus research.[67][74] Scholars may utilize one of several critical tools in biblical scholarship, the criterion of multiple attestation, to help build cases for historical reliability of the sayings of Jesus. By finding those sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that overlap with the Gospel of the Hebrews, Q, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul, scholars feel such sayings represent "multiple attestations" and therefore are more likely to come from a historical Jesus than sayings that are only singly attested.[75]

Comparison of the major gospels[edit source]

The material in the comparison chart is from Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton,[76] The Five Gospels by R. W. Funk,[77] The Gospel According to the Hebrews by E. B. Nicholson[78] and The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards.[79]

ItemMatthew, Mark, LukeJohnThomasNicholson/Edwards Hebrew Gospel
New CovenantThe central theme of the Gospels – Love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourselfThe central theme – Love is the New Commandment given by Jesus[80]Secret knowledge, love your friends[81]The central theme – Love one another[quote 4]
ForgivenessVery important – particularly in Matthew and Luke[82]Assumed[83]Mentions being forgiven in relation to blasphemy against the Father and Son, but no forgiveness to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit[84]Very important – Forgiveness is a central theme and this gospel goes into the greatest detail[quote 5]
The Lord's PrayerIn Matthew & Luke but not Mark[85]Not mentionedNot mentionedImportant – "mahar" or "tomorrow"[quote 6][quote 7]
Love & the poorVery Important – The rich young man[86]Assumed[87]Important[quote 8]Very important – The rich young man[quote 9]
Jesus starts his ministryJesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar[88]Jesus meets John the Baptist, 46 years after Herod's Temple is built (John 2:20)[89]Only speaks of John the Baptist[quote 10]Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized. This gospel goes into the greatest detail[90]
Disciples-numberTwelve[91]Twelve[92]not mentioned[93]Twelve[quote 11]
Disciples-inner circlePeterAndrewJames & John[91]Peter, Andrew, the Beloved Disciple[92]Thomas,[93] James the Just[94]Peter, Andrew, James, & John[90]
Disciples-others

Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Judas Thaddaeus, & Judas Iscariot[92]

Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, Judas not Iscariot & Judas Iscariot[92]

Peter,[93][95] Matthew,[93] Mariam,[95][96] & Salome[97]

Matthew, James the Just (Brother of Jesus), Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus, Judas Iscariot[98]

Possible AuthorsUnknown;[note 4] Mark the Evangelist & Luke the EvangelistThe Beloved Disciple[note 5]UnknownMatthew the Evangelist (or Unknown)[quote 12]
Virgin birth accountDescribed in Matthew & Luke, Mark only makes reference to a "Mother"[99]Not mentioned, although the "Word becomes flesh" in John 1:14N/A as this is a gospel of Jesus' sayingsNot mentioned.
Jesus' baptismDescribed[85]Seen in flash-back (John 1:32–34)[85]N/ADescribed great detail[quote 13]
Preaching styleBrief one-liners; parables[85]Essay format, Midrash[85]Sayings, parables[quote 14]Brief one-liners; parables[85]
StorytellingParables[100]Figurative language & metaphor[101]proto-Gnostic, hidden, parables[102]Parables[103]
Jesus' theology1st-century populist Judaism[note 6]Critical of Jewish authorities[104]proto-Gnostic1st-century Judaism[note 6]
MiraclesMany miraclesSeven SignsN/AFewer miracles[105]
Duration of ministryNot mentioned, possibly 3 years according to the Parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13)3 years (Four Passovers)[106]N/A1 year[note 7]
Location of ministryMainly GalileeMainly Judea, near JerusalemN/AMainly Galilee
Passover mealBody & Blood = Bread and wineInterrupts meal for foot washingN/AHebrew Passover is celebrated but details are N/A Epiphanius[107]
Burial shroudA single piece of clothMultiple pieces of cloth[note 8]N/AGiven to the High Priest[108]
ResurrectionMary and the women are the first to learn Jesus has arisen[109]John adds detailed account of Mary's experience of the Resurrection[110]N/AIn the Gospel of the Hebrews is the unique account of Jesus appearing to his brother, James the Just.[111]

See also[edit source]

Notes[edit source]

  1. ^ For photocopies of the manuscript see: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 8 October 2010. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
  2. ^ e.g. Jn. 3:6, 6:52–6 – but pointedly contrasting these with 6:63.
  3. ^ For general discussion, see Meier (1991), pp. 137; pp. 163–64 n. 133. See also Tuckett (1988), pp. 132–57, esp. p. 146.
  4. ^ Although several Fathers say Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews they are silent about Greek Matthew found in the Bible. Modern scholars are in agreement that Matthew did not write Greek Matthews which is 300 lines longer than the Hebrew Gospel (See Edwards 2009)
  5. ^ Suggested by Irenaeus first
  6. Jump up to:a b Similar to beliefs taught by Hillel the Elder. (e.g. "golden rule") Hillel
  7. ^ Events leading up to Passover
  8. ^ As was the Jewish practice at the time. (John 20:5–7)

Quotes[edit source]

  1. Jump up to:a b Bock 2006, pp. 61, 63: "Most date the gospel to the second century and place its origin in Syria...Most scholars regard the book as an early second-century work."(61); "However, for most scholars, the bulk of it is later reflecting a second-century work."(63)
  2. ^ Van Voorst 2000, p. 189: "Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older."
  3. ^ Bock 2009, pp. 148–149: "...for most scholars the Gospel of Thomas is seen as an early-second century text."
  4. ^ Jerome. Commentary on EphesiansThe Lord says to his disciples: 'And never be you joyful, except when you behold one another with love.'
  5. ^ Jerome. Against Pelagius 3.2In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, the Gospel of Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find, "Behold the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, 'John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins. Let us go and be baptized by him.' But Jesus said to them, 'in what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance.'" And in the same volume, "'If your brother sins against you in word, and makes amends, forgive him seven times a day.' Simon, His disciple, said to Him, 'Seven times in a day!’ The Lord answered and said to him, 'I say to you, Seventy times seven.'"
  6. ^ Jerome. Commentary on Matthew 1In the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, for 'bread essential to existence,' I found 'mahar', which means 'of tomorrow'; so the sense is: our bread for tomorrow, that is, of the future, give us this day.
  7. ^ Jerome. On Psalm 135In Matthew's Hebrew Gospel it states, 'Give us this day our bread for tomorrow.'
  8. ^ Gospel of Thomas, Logion 54Jesus said 'Blessed are the poor, for to you belongs the Kingdom of Heaven'
  9. ^ Origen. Commentary to Matthew 15:14The second rich youth said to him, 'Rabbi, what good thing can I do and live?' Jesus replied, 'Fulfill the law and the prophets.' 'I have,' was the response. Jesus said, 'Go, sell all that you have and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me.' The youth became uncomfortable, for it did not please him. And the Lord said, 'How can you say, I have fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, when it is written in the Law: You shall love your neighbor as yourself and many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are covered with filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, none of which goes out to them?' And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by Him, 'Simon, son of Jonah, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'
  10. ^ Gospel of Thomas, Logion 46Jesus said, 'From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born to women, no one is greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the (Father's) kingdom and will become greater than John.'
  11. ^ Epiphanius. Panarion 30:13There was a certain man named Jesus, about thirty years old, who chose us. Coming to Capernaum, He entered the house of Simon, who is called Peter, and said, 'As I passed by the Sea of Galilee, I chose John and James, sons of Zebedee, and Simon, and Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot; and you Matthew, sitting at the tax office, I called and you followed me. You therefore, I want to be the Twelve, to symbolize Israel.'
  12. ^ Epiphanius. Panarion 30:3They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script
  13. ^ Epiphanius. Panarion 30:13After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. As Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into him. And a voice from Heaven said, 'You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.' And again, 'Today I have begotten you.' Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to him, 'Who are you, Lord?' And again a voice from Heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.' Then John, falling down before Him, said, 'I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But Jesus forbade him saying, 'Let it be so as it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.'
  14. ^ Gospel of Thomas, Logion 107Jesus said, 'The (Father's) kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, "I love you more than the ninety-nine."'

Citations[edit source]

  1. ^ Foster (2008), p. 16.
  2. Jump up to:a b Valantasis (1997), p. 12.
  3. Jump up to:a b c Porter (2010), p. 9.
  4. ^ Linssen (2020).
  5. ^ Guillaumont et al. (1959), pp. 59-62.
  6. ^ Ehrman (2003b), pp. 19–20.
  7. ^ Dunn & Rogerson (2003), p. 1574.
  8. ^ Brown (2019).
  9. ^ Patterson, Robinson & Bethge (1998).
  10. ^ DeConick (2006), p. 2.
  11. ^ Layton (1987), p. 361.
  12. Jump up to:a b Ehrman (2003a), p. 59.
  13. ^ Davies (1983a), pp. 23–24.
  14. ^ DeConick (2006), p. 214.
  15. ^ McGrath (2006), p. 12.
  16. ^ Dunn & Rogerson (2003), p. 1573.
  17. ^ Schnelle (2007), p. 230.
  18. ^ "CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)".
  19. ^ Guillaumont et al. (1959).
  20. ^ Robinson (1988).
  21. ^ Labib (1956).
  22. ^ Grenfell & Hunt (1897).
  23. ^ Grant & Freedman (1960).
  24. ^ "P.Oxy.IV 0654".
  25. ^ "P.Oxy.IV 0655".
  26. ^ Meier (1991), p. 125.
  27. ^ Koester (1990), pp. 77ff.
  28. ^ Robinson (1988), p. 126.
  29. ^ Cyril Catechesis 4.36
  30. ^ Cyril Catechesis 6.31
  31. ^ Koester (1990), p. 78.
  32. ^ Patterson, Robinson & Bethge (1998), p. 40.
  33. ^ Valantasis (1997), p. 20.
  34. Jump up to:a b c Theissen & Merz (1998), pp. 38–39.
  35. Jump up to:a b c d Meyer (2001), p. 73.
  36. ^ Davies (1992).
  37. ^ Davies (n.d.).
  38. Jump up to:a b c d Koester & Lambdin (1996), p. 125.
  39. ^ Riley (1995).
  40. ^ DeConick (2001).
  41. Jump up to:a b Pagels (2004).
  42. ^ Jn 1:5, 1:10; Jn 14:5–6
  43. ^ Logia 24, 50, 61, 83
  44. ^ Jn. 20:26–29
  45. ^ Logia 29, 80, 87
  46. ^ Pagels (2004), pp. 66–73.
  47. ^ Skinner (2009), pp. 38, 227.
  48. ^ Hogeterp (2006), p. 137.
  49. ^ Turner (n.d.).
  50. ^ Patterson, Robinson & Bethge (1998), p. 42.
  51. ^ "1 Corinthians 2:9 (footnote a.)"New International Version. Biblica, Inc. 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
  52. Jump up to:a b Snodgrass (1989).
  53. ^ Grant & Freedman (1960), pp. 136–137.
  54. ^ Strobel (2007), p. 36.
  55. ^ Porter (2010), p. 166.
  56. ^ Meier (1991), pp. 135–138.
  57. ^ Evans (2008), p. [page needed].
  58. ^ Perrin (2006).
  59. ^ Perrin (2002).
  60. ^ Williams (2009).
  61. ^ Shedinger (2003), p. 388.
  62. ^ Ehrman (1999), pp. 75–78.
  63. ^ Wright (1992), p. 443.
  64. ^ Irenaeus of LyonsAgainst Heresies. 3.11.8.
  65. ^ Metzger (1997), p. 75.
  66. ^ Masing & Rätsep (1961).
  67. Jump up to:a b Funk & Hoover (1993), p. 15.
  68. ^ Ehrman (2003b), pp. 57–58.
  69. ^ DeConick (2006), pp. 2–3.
  70. ^ Schneemelcher (2006), p. 111.
  71. ^ Layton (1989), p. 106.
  72. ^ Ehrman (2003b), pp. 59ff.
  73. ^ Davies (1983b), pp. 6–8.
  74. ^ Koester (1990), pp. 84–86.
  75. ^ Funk & Hoover (1993), pp. 16ff.
  76. ^ Throckmorton (1979).
  77. ^ Funk & Hoover (1993).
  78. ^ Nicholson (1879).
  79. ^ Edwards (2009).
  80. ^ Jn 13:34
  81. ^ Logion 25
  82. ^ Matt 18:21, Lk 17:4
  83. ^ Jn 20:23
  84. ^ Logion 44
  85. Jump up to:a b c d e f Trite
  86. ^ Matt 19:16, Mk 10:17 & Lk1 8:18
  87. ^ Jn 12:8
  88. ^ Matt 3:1, Mk 1:9, 3:21, Luke 3:1
  89. ^ Jn 1:29
  90. Jump up to:a b Epiphanius, Panarion 30:13
  91. Jump up to:a b Matt 10:1, Mk 6:8, Lk 9:3
  92. Jump up to:a b c d Jn 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20
  93. Jump up to:a b c d Logion 13
  94. ^ Logion 12
  95. Jump up to:a b Logion 114
  96. ^ Logion 21
  97. ^ Logion 61
  98. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion 30:13, Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
  99. ^ Matthew 1:16, 18–25, 2:11, 13:53–55, Mark 6:2–3, Luke 1:30–35, 2:4–21, 34
  100. ^ Mills, Bullard & McKnight (1990).
  101. ^ Van der Watt (2000).
  102. ^ Logion 109
  103. ^ Scott (1989).
  104. ^ Jn 7:45 & Jn 3:1
  105. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
  106. ^ John 2:13, 4:35, 5:1, 6:4, 19:14
  107. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion 30:22
  108. ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
  109. ^ Matt 28:1 Mk16:1 Lk24:1
  110. ^ Jn 20:11
  111. ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2

References[edit source]

External links[edit source]

Resources[edit source]


The Gospel According to Jesus by Stephen Mitchell | Goodreads

The Gospel According to Jesus by Stephen Mitchell | Goodreads

The Gospel According to Jesus
by Stephen Mitchell (Goodreads Author)
 4.22  ·   Rating details ·  575 ratings  ·  38 reviews


A pocket-sized gift edition of "The Gospel According to Jesus", the classic examination of the Gospels in which the accounts of Jesus' words and acts are distilled down the "essential" Gospel, minus the later additions by the early Church. (less)


Write a review
Darwin8u
Jan 03, 2020Darwin8u rated it it was amazing
Shelves: religion, nonfiction, philosophy, 2020, poetry
"We can't begin to see who Jesus was until we remove the layers of interpretation which centuries have interposed between us and him, and which obscure his true face, like coat after coat of lacquer upon the vibrant colors of a masterpiece."
- Stephen Mitchell, The Gospel According to Jesus

description
[painting by J. Kirk Richards]

I'm a big fan of Mitchell's translation (interpretations). So, I was excited to see what approach he would take with Jesus from the Gospels. The first 1/3 of this book (pp 1-97; including about 35 pages of notes) is Mitchell's introduction to the project. He draws inspiration from the Jefferson Bible (aka The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) where Thomas Jefferson cut the New Testament down to only include the saying of Jesus. Jefferson wanted nothing to get between him and Jesus. In many ways, that too is the approach of Mitchell. He uses modern biblical scholarship and textual analysis to narrow down the "authentic" Jesus from the sectarian passages, the polemical passages and myths added by the early church. One can certainly argue on the edges with what Mitchell includes or excludes, but he does make a viable case for creating a more consistent message out of the often contradictory narratives and teachings of Jesus. I tend to agree with both Jefferson and Mitchell, that "when the accretions are recognized and stripped off, Jesus surprisingly appears in all his radiance. Like the man in Bunyan's riddle, the more we throw away, the more we have."

Interestingly, the Gospel left by Mitchell is only about 25 pages (pp 101 to 126). It is followed by about 150 pages of commentary and finally an appendix of about 30 pages with writings on Jesus by Baruch Spinoza, William Blake, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, Friedrich Nietzsche, George Bernard Shaw, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Ramana Maharshi. (less)
flag13 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Rachel
Dec 14, 2009Rachel rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: religion
I feel a kind of wistful envy toward people who have a clear image of Jesus. The images differ--wiry prophet of social justice; Son of God Incarnate, feet barely touching the dust he walked on; witty wandering sage; Buddha of the Mediterranean.

Mitchell has done his homework, reviewing what is known or conjectured about the provenance of each passage in the Gospels we have received. Scholarship informs his views, and helped his image of Jesus to develop. In the end, his image allows him to say of the reports of Jesus' life and action, "this is authentic" or "this is not authentic."

Mitchell's Jesus is a great spiritual teacher with a healing touch and a few unhealed wounds. I like him. He says things I need to learn and relearn.

But my image of Jesus, what I suppose the evangelicals mean when the speak of "a personal relationship" with Jesus, is still a little foggy. Perhaps too much light in the developing darkroom of my soul. (less)
flag5 likes · Like  · 1 comment · see review

Jon
Feb 04, 2009Jon rated it it was amazing
If you have a Christian background, you may have noticed that while Jesus is an extraordinarily wise, kind, patient, and tolerant character most of the time, he will occasionally break out with some crazy stuff about people being damned to hell. That never made sense to me, and this book explains why: many of the sections that struck me as odd are actually written in a different style of Greek -- probably added at a later time by the founders of the Christian religion.

Mitchell's project is one that others -- including Thomas Jefferson -- have taken on before: to sort out the church propaganda and see what is left. Mitchell goes way beyond that, however, and cross-references his distillations with other mystic spiritual texts from around the world.

This book is really helpful for context in comparing Christianity with other systems, especially Eastern ones. (less)
flag4 likes · Like  · 1 comment · see review


Randy Cauthen
Jul 22, 2012Randy Cauthen rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
OK, generally I really like Mitchell. I like the Gilgamesh, I like the Job, I like the Rilke. And to really do a decent job critiquing this, I'd have to go back and figure out exactly what his editing of the canon actually is.
But. He has a tendency here to say, regarding his own selection and translation, "Well what Jesus really means here is this," and this drives me nuts. Why not either re-edit to eliminate the supposedly problematic passages, or simply engage in dialogue? And the idea of a fundamental conflict with his birth family is overworked some. (less)
flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review

Ryan Haczynski
Aug 11, 2012Ryan Haczynski rated it it was amazing
Excellent book chock full of exquisite scholarship. The edition I read is the full version, not the shorter one listed here on GoodReads. As a Religious Studies major who has always been fascinated with Formative Christianity, I found Mitchell's work to be informative and in line with many of my own thoughts on the subject. Additionally, the cross-cultural comparisons to other wisdom literature was enlightening and truly illustrate that Christianity's spiritual wisdom is not so different from other cultural expressions / understanding of the sacred. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in delving deeply into the topic while clearing away the dogmatic/doctrinal clutter that has been added to Jesus' teachings over the centuries. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review

Hugh
Mar 10, 2012Hugh rated it it was amazing
With the benefit of 200 years of additional biblical scholarship Stephen Mitchel recapitulates an experiment that Thomas Jefferson began while president and finished shortly thereafter - the result was known in the Jefferson family as "The Jefferson Bible." It now resides in the Library of Congress.
Mitchell is a bible scholar of note, and translates from the Greek and Hebrew texts, to create his own 'Jefferson Bible' so to speak. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review

Olivia
Oct 15, 2013Olivia rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Favorite quotes:

"The kingdom of God will not come if you watch for it. Nor will anyone be able to say, 'It is here' or 'It is there.' For the kingdom of God is within you."

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to suffering, and those who go through it are many. But the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to true life, and those who find it are few." (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review

Ted
Jul 14, 2007Ted rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
One of the most insightful and profound looks into Jesus anywhere. The footnotes are just as interesting as the text. This is not a look at some historical Jesus in some long-ago past, but at a living, breathing believable human being. You'll find as much of yourself in this book as you will of Jesus. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Jim
Feb 08, 2008Jim rated it it was amazing
This is brilliant, fearless book, that makes sense of the often contradictory verbage appearing in the Gospels, clearing away the garbage left by evangelists with an angenda, to reveal the shining truth of Jesus' ministry. Jesus was probably the first person on this planet to "get it" that the spirit of God lives within us. All you need is love - "good news" indeed! (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review


Joel
Sep 23, 2020Joel rated it it was ok
Shelves: nonfiction
Two stars because it is informative about current scholarship in places. Other than that it's pretty bad. Mitchell interprets Jesus according to his own idea of universal religious truth (plenty influenced by Zen Buddhism). The fact is that Jesus was of his time and place and that's why he expressed himself the way he did. He was not part of some fantastical line of religious masters. It's often unclear whether Mitchel has left a part of the gospel out because scholars agree it is a later addition, or just because Mitchell thinks "Jesus wouldn't have said that" based on his artificially constructed Jesus. So though he does cite scholars (certain ones repeatedly), he mostly comes off like Thomas Jefferson who simply snipped the parts of Jesus he liked out of the Bible. Except even Jefferson did not presume to lecture Jesus on where he fell short of universal religious truth and how he could have expressed himself better. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review

Edgar Trevizo
Jan 30, 2018Edgar Trevizo rated it it was amazing
Oh, this is such a beautiful book! A precious jewel both for believers and unbelievers, and perhaps much more beautiful for the latter. It is full of poetry, enlightment, joy and hope, here on Earth. I’ve always loved Jesus’ teachings, but this work of reading them from oriental philosophy broadened my perspective and gave me a lot to meditate about and to enjoy. I higly recommend it to everyone, especially to non believer seekers of truth.
flagLike  · comment · see review


MG
Sep 26, 2018MG rated it really liked it
Shelves: 2018
This is really a fresh and insightful essay about Jesus coupled with a short translation of what Stephen Mitchell considers the core or authentic teachings of Jesus. I wish in the essay Mitchell would have spent more time saying positively what he saw as the foundation of Jesus's teaching. Still, his grappling with Jesus's family background--his illegitimacy, his tension with his mother and brothers--were enlightening, as were the other topics he covered. This book is well worth perusing. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review

Zach
May 22, 2019Zach rated it it was amazing
310 pages with notes and commentary and an Introduction. But the meat is similar to the Logia of Yeshua: just the scenes in the Gospel where Jesus speaks directly. Only his words and actions. No filters or obstructions. 25 pages. Double spaced. With High School Kid Trying to Fatten Up His Page Count margins. Imagine that. All the strife of the world caused by people waving the Bible as justification when they should just focus on those 25 pages. Shrug. Sigh. Sigh.
flagLike  · comment · see review
Madi Eerung
Mar 12, 2018Madi Eerung rated it it was ok
Weird Freudian psychoanalysis of Jesus and Mitchell's airing of his personal drama. Did anyone else deduce from this book that his wife cheated on him? Also semi-related, did y'all know Stephen Mitchell doesn't actually know Chinese? A lot of feel-goodsy stuff in here but also some bad textual criticism. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review

Carol Painter
May 23, 2019Carol Painter rated it it was amazing
This is my 3rd time re-reading this...it is an amazing treatise on Christianity, and restores my own faith in the recognition of all spiritual traditions. I agree with Stephen Mitchell's separating the truth from the fables that have grown around this particular religion. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review

Perf
Jul 03, 2019Perf rated it it was amazing
read this 20 years ago, and keep meaning to reread. Good attempt to demystify the myths while retaining faith in the reality of the teaching.
flagLike  · comment · see review

Chris KP 
Jan 17, 2021Chris KP rated it really liked it
This book seeks to unpack Jesus' teachings in two senses. First, Mitchell--with the help of contemporary scholarship--extracts from the Gospels the teachings that were likely expounded by Jesus himself, rather than those later developed by his followers (which were likely corrupted by the incentives inherent in building a new religion, by misunderstanding of his teachings, and by time). He offers a simple, accessible translation of these core teachings.

Second, he provides analysis of this core, translated text--applying his own insights, and using both the work of academic biblical scholars and the work of great thinkers who have written on Jesus' teachings, from Gandhi, to Tolstoy, to Blake, to Jefferson. He emphasizes Eastern traditions within his own analysis, which is often illuminating, but can also seem partial insofar as Mitchell's own thought is clearly so deeply indebted to Zen practice and history. 

Do we lose something by universalizing Christian teachings so much, and finding in them only that which can be found through Zen? As someone who has already read and enjoyed Mitchell's translation of the Tao, I found the excerpts from Gandhi and Tolstoy and especially Emerson on Christianity to be more immediate, incisive, and germane to the actual text.

Takeaways:

(1) Jesus was full of love, joy, and compassion. He had a talent for communicating challenging moral concepts in simple, clear ways. I like to believe that he attracted followers through these qualities and not through fiery sermonizing or the promise of some extrinsic reward. It seems that the concept of a paradaisal afterlife, etc. was tacked on by later followers who fundamentally misunderstood his teachings. Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was within.

(2) He did not speak of himself as THE Son of God. 
  • He did not position himself as someone who could forgive sins, though he preached forgiveness. 
  • He did not position himself as someone who would one day sit in judgement, but as someone who believed judgment itself to be a sin that came between men and God. 
  • He did not position himself as perfect, he affirmed that only God is perfect and that all, even the best men, have some sin. 
  • He was not enraged by sinners or those who questioned him, he welcomed both with maturity, grace, and love. 
  • The authors of the Gospels, especially Paul, introduced the petty, vengeful, violent, sectarian and even hateful tenor that degrades the New Testament, taking an approach that Jesus himself would've tenderly dismissed with a well-placed parable

(3) Sin literally means "mistake" in Hebrew.

(4) I was intrigued by the theory that much of Christian teaching comes from Jesus' experience as an illegitimate child in a small, traditional village in which he likely had to endure countless slights as a result of his parentage. It brings additional heft to his emphasis on forgiveness and God as "The Father."

(5) My favorite stories are those of the mustard seed, the Prodigal Son, and most especially the adulteress. The notion of warmhearted forgiveness, and joy that can bloom if we let it, is inspiring.

I worry that labels lead to dogmatic thinking, and often cloud that which they are supposed to clarify. But, I do believe the two fundamental Christian teachings that Jesus underscores, again and again in Mitchell's translation: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Can a person "love God" while remaining agnostic as to God's existence? The excellent commentary that Mitchell compiles at the end of the book points toward an answer. We love "God" by loving that which has been given us, by finding the miracle in each moment, by laughing in awe at the wonder of the world and our good fortune to have time in it. As Emerson writes, "The word miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is a monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain."

How do we love our neighbor as our self? 
  • By bringing compassion and joy to each interaction. 
  • By showing our neighbor the way when they are led astray, and allowing them to do the same to us. 
  • By seeing suffering, and working to ameliorate it. 
  • By acknowledging and making right our sins (our mistakes), and allowing others to do the same. 
This all comes when we let go of self-centered thinking, and focus on others, finding joy with and for them. There is thus no need for rituals. Every moment we can find the love that is asked. This is what Jesus taught. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Mac
Dec 09, 2008Mac rated it liked it
I just finished this book. I thought that is was a clear, accessible, not-too-preachy book that allowed me to understand what Jesus stood for. I find that his beliefs and mine overlap in quite a few areas, with the exception of the "geneology" to his "father." The analysis was a little dry, but there were some gems of wisdom in there. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Tom
Jan 01, 2014Tom rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Well worth reading. Downgrade one star for the title. There is no "gospel according to Jesus" as he wrote nothing we know of. All gospels reveal the prejudice of their authors. This version is Stephen Mitchell's and he relies on many others, especially eastern mystics, to inform his presentation. Still, well worth the read and contemplation. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Liaken
May 25, 2010Liaken rated it really liked it
Shelves: poetry, spirituality
Years ago, I got this book anonymously in the mail and was fascinated with it. There were little folded papers with notes and ideas on them tucked in the pages. The text itself was beautiful. Finally, it turned out that my brother had sent it through a used book company.
flagLike  · comment · see review

Ellen
Sep 22, 2010Ellen rated it it was amazing
Shelves: dnf
The introduction was a fascinating portrayal of what Jesus's world was really like and why his message of forgiveness is so central to his teachings. I'd like to go back to this one again, but since it was an interlibrary loan, I had to return it. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review

그들은 왜 ‘도마복음’에 흥분하는 것일까? - NEWS M

그들은 왜 ‘도마복음’에 흥분하는 것일까? - NEWS M

그들은 왜 ‘도마복음’에 흥분하는 것일까?

양재영
승인 2019.02.05 

2010년을 전후로 한국에 쏟아져 나온 ‘도마복음’ 관련 서적들은 당시 교계에 열띤 논란을 불러 일으켰다.

당시 ‘도마복음’ 논란의 중심에는 <예수는 없다>로 잘 알려진 오강남 교수의 <또다른 예수>(예담, 2009년)와 도올 김용옥 교수의 <도마복음 한글역주1,2,3>(통나무, 2010년) 등이 있었다.

최근 이들은 SNS와 언론을 통해 도마복음에 대한 소개와 새로운 해석을 내놓으면서 2차 논쟁을 불러 일으키고 있다.

오강남 교수는 자신의 SNS와 모 기독언론을 통해 도마복음 114개의 어록에 대한 소개와 재해석을 연재하고 있으며, 도올 김용옥 교수는 자신의 유투브 채널인 ‘도올TV’를 통해 <도올 김용옥 기독교 성서 이야기: 도마복음 강해>를 현재 28강까지 소개하고 있다.

도마복음 파피루스



“도마복음은 새로운 복음이다”

특히 김 교수는 도마복음 강해를 시작하기 전 ‘도마복음을 말한다’는 제목으로 한신대 명예교수 김경재 목사, 오강남 교수 등과 함께 2010년 대담한 내용을 ‘도올TV’에 소개하면서 도마복음 논쟁을 시작했다.

한신대 명예교수인 김경재 목사는 이 대담을 통해 ‘도마복음’에 대한 개신교인들의 열린 자세를 강조했다.

김 교수는 “일반사람에게는 (도마복음이) 외계인의 담론으로 들릴 수 있다. 개신교는 종교개혁 이후에 경전의 종교가 되었다. 이렇게 4-5백년을 지내온 사람에게 도마복음은 외경 내지는 위경으로 평가절하 될 것이다. 경전종교에 세뇌가 되지 않은 사람에게는 열린 마음으로 풍요로운 정신적 문화의 향상을 위한 자료로 환영할 것 같다. 두 그룹으로 나눠질 것 같다.”고 평했다.

또한, 기독교의 사회적 위기를 지적하며 호불호를 떠나 초기 말씀 어록을 읽어 볼 것도 권유했다.

그는 “한국 기독교가 최근에 일반 사회에서 신뢰를 잃고, 인기가 없는 종교가 된 것은, 기독교가 너무 딱딱한 교리적 종교로 변해버렸다는 것과 예수를 엄격한 도덕적 훈계자로 가르치든지, 삼위일체 존재 속에 넣어서 초자연적 신적 존재로 세뇌를 시키는 것에 대해서 코드가 안 맞으니까 외면하고 떠난 것이다”라며 “일단 교리나 도덕체계에 포장되기 이전에 실제적으로 역사 속에서 살았던 솔직한 예수를 만나보고 싶다면 그의 초기의 말씀 어록을 집대성한 것을 찾았으므로 호불호를 떠나 한번 읽어볼 필요가 있다.”고 주장했다.

유투브 채널인 도올TV에서 소개한 '도마복음을 말한다'의 한장면(좌로부터 정강길 실장, 도올 김용옥 교수, 김경재 목사, 오강남 교수)


‘예수는 없다’의 오강남 교수는 ‘도마복음’을 통해 새로운 가치를 발견할 것을 주문했다.

오 교수는 “기독교에 이런 전통이 있었다는 사실에 감격했다. 도마복음에서 발견되는 예수는 공관복음에서 다루는 예수와 너무나 다르더라. 공관복음에서는 ‘나를 따르라’, ‘나의 제자가 되라’, 요한복음에서는 ‘나를 믿으라’라고 말한다. 그러나 도마복음에서는 ‘깨달아라’, ‘네 속에 있는 하나님을 찾으라’ 라고 말한다. 이건 기독교에서 듣지 못했던 새로운 복음, 새로운 예수님이 아닌가 생각한다.”고 설명했다.

도올 김용옥 교수는 도마복음이 4복음서에 선행하는 자료로 예수께서 아시아적 가치를 공유하고 있다고 주장했다.

도올은 “도마복음 자료는 현행 4복음서의 핵심자료와 거의 중복이 되고, 114개의 말씀자료라는 것이 워낙 치밀한 구성자료를 가지고 있다. 중간 몇 개는 후대에 성립할 수 있으나, (도마복음이) 4복음서 이전 자료로서 공관복음서 저자들이 이 자료를 참고해 가면서 어떻게 변형시켜갔는가를 (제 책을 통해) 상당히 치열하게 다뤘다”라며 “도마복음에 기초해서 역사적 예수의 상을 철저하게 새로 그려야 할 필요가 있다. 그 핵심은 예수는 아시아적 가치를 공유하고 있는 분이라는 점이다. ”고 주장했다.


“위경으로 순진한 기독교 신자를 유혹하지 말라”

하지만, 이들의 주장에 대해 교계 내부에선 받아들일 수 없다는 것이 주류이다.

한일장신대 차정식 교수는 김용옥 교수의 ‘도마복음’에 대해 일부 학자들의 의견을 대세인 것처럼 포장하고 있다고 지적했다.

차 교수는 “김씨는 도마복음이 영지주의 사상에 기초해 기존 복음서의 내용을 짜깁기한 후대의 외경문헌이 아니라 그것들 본래의 원형이라고 주장하면서 그 근거로 로빈슨, 크로산 등 서구 학자들의 의견을 내세우고 있다”라며 “도마복음이 예수의 본래적 원형을 담아내고 있다는 주장은 도올의 말대로 학계의 대세가 아니며 일부의 주장일 뿐이다. 그가 대부분 의존하고 있는 크로산을 비롯한 학자들은 북미 성서학계의 지극히 적은 일부 신약성서학자들 및 고대기독교문헌학자들이다”고 반박했다.

장신대 김철용 교수는 ‘도마복음’이 왜 정경과정에서 퇴출되었는가를 생각해야 한다고 주장했다.

김 교수는 “복음서가 네 권으로 형성된 것에는 ‘정경의 형성 과정’이 있었기 때문이다. 그 과정에서 ‘도마복음’은 정경에서 제외됐다. 오늘날 ‘위경이라고 한다. ‘도마복음’은 왜 퇴출되었는가? 다양성만 이야기 하지 말고, 통일성도 말해야 한다. 무조건 다양하다 해서 좋은 게 아니라, 전체가 동의하고 공감할 수 있으며 역사적 예수와 초대교회 성장과정에 대한 정확한 묘사가 있을 때 다양성을 인정받을 수 있다”고 전했다.

교계의 반발도 적지 않았다.

서울 큰나무교회 박명룡 목사는 모 기독교 매체에 실린 ‘기독교 안티에 답한다’라는 글을 통해 도올의 ‘동양적 범신론’을 경계해야 한다고 주장했다.

박 목사는 “그(도올)는 왜 기독교를 비판하는 것일까? 그 표면적 이유는 기독교가 너무 기득권층이 되었고, 하나님 나라의 복음을 올바르게 전파하지 못하기 때문이라고 말하지만 그보다 심층적 이유는 그의 철학적 전제 때문이다”라며 “도올의 신관과 기독교의 신관이 너무 다르기 때문에 그는 기독교를 철저히 비판한다. 도올의 신관은 ‘동양적 범신론’이라고 말할 수 있다. 그는 중국의 일원론 사상에 근거해 우주의 신령스러운 기운이 신이고 인간을 포함한 유기체로서의 전 우주 자체가 신이라고 믿는 범신론적 신관을 가지고 있다. 도올은 이 동양적 범신론적 신관의 잣대로 기독교 신앙을 비판하는 것이다.”고 주장했다.

들소리신문의 발행인인 조효근 목사는 “기독교의 보편적 신학에서는 오강남 교수의 이원론에 기초한 영지주의(Gnostic)적 견해와 단성론(예수는 피조물이다) 신학은 비(非)기독교 신학으로 이미 단정한지가 1천6백 여년이 지났다. 그래서 하는 말인데 오강남 교수는 자기의 비교종교학 실력으로 착하고 순진한 기독교 신자를 유혹하려들지 않았으면 좋겠다”고 경고했다.

도마복음은 1945년 12월 무함마드 알리라는 이집트 농부가 다른 몇사람과 함게 나일강 상류 나그 함마디(Nag Hammadi)라는 곳에서 땅을 파다가 토기 항아리가 있는 것을 발견했는데, 그곳에서 52종의 문서와 함께 발견된 것으로 예수의 열두제자 중 한 사람인 디두모스 유다 도마가 썼다고 기록되어 있다.

알라딘: 진보와 보수의 12가지 이념

알라딘: 진보와 보수의 12가지 이념

진보와 보수의 12가지 이념 - 다원적 공공 정치를 위한 철학   
폴 슈메이커 (지은이),조효제 (옮긴이)후마니타스2010-10-22원제 : From Ideologies to Public Philosophies



진보와 보수의 12가지 이념


































 미리보기
정가
35,000원
판매가
31,500원 (10%, 3,500원 할인)
마일리지
1,750원(5%) + 멤버십(3~1%)
+ 5만원이상 구매시 2,000원
배송료
무료 
11
8
양탄자배송
오전 11시까지 주문하면 오후 8시 퇴근후 배송
(중구 중림동 기준) 지역변경
Sales Point : 1,121 
 9.3 100자평(2)리뷰(1)
이 책 어때요?
카드/간편결제 할인무이자 할부소득공제 1,420원 
수량
1
 
장바구니 담기
바로구매
선물하기
보관함 +
전자책 출간알림 신청중고 등록알림 신청중고로 팔기 


기본정보
888쪽160*235mm1687gISBN : 9788964371251
주제 분류 
신간알리미 신청
국내도서 > 사회과학 > 사회사상/사회사상사 > 사회사상/사회사상사 일반
국내도서 > 사회과학 > 정치학/외교학/행정학 > 정치학 일반
국내도서 > 인문학 > 교양 인문학
국내도서 > 추천도서 > 외부/전문기관 추천도서 > 시사IN 추천도서 > 2011 올해의 책꽂이 명사 추천도..
이벤트

6월 특별 선물! 본투리드 보냉백(이벤트 도서 포함, 국내서.외서 5만원 이상)

이 달의 문장 투표

이 달의 적립금 혜택

이 시간, 알라딘 굿즈 총집합!
책소개<정치사상의 이해 I·II>의 폴 슈메이커가 집필하고 <인권의 풍경>의 조효제 교수가 심혈을 기울여 번역한 현대 정치사상의 교본. 이 책은 오늘날 지대한 영향을 미치고 있는 12가지 이념을 횡단 비교하고, 각 이념이 서있는 철학적 바탕과 논쟁적인 정치적 쟁점에 대해 각 이념이 취할 입장을 세밀하게 살핌으로써 이념과 이념 간의 관계를 총체적으로 볼 수 있게 한다.

진보, 보수 논쟁이 사람들에게 피로감을 주는 것은 우리의 삶과 사회를 개선하는 좋은 정책의 산출로 이어지지 못하고 ‘대결을 위한 대결’을 이어 가기 때문이다. 그렇다면 우리는 정치 이념에 관하여 얼마나 잘 알고 있는가. 이 책을 보다보면 이념에 대한 우리의 지식이 피상적이라는 점을 깨닫게 된다.

이 책은 먼저 각 정치 이념들이 등장한 역사적 과정과 그 중심 사상에 대해 서술한다. 그리고 정치 이념의 철학적 가정을 4가지 차원(존재론, 인간론, 사회론, 인식론)으로, 정치적 원리를 7가지 차원(정치 공동체, 시민권, 사회구조, 권력의 보유자, 정부의 권위, 정의, 변화)으로 세분해 살핀다. 16장은 한국어판에 특별히 실린 보론으로, 원서가 출간된 2008년 이후 미국에서 오바마가 당선되면서 변화된 상황과, 오바마 정부를 어떤 이념 틀로 바라볼지에 대한 분석을 다루었다.
목차
옮긴이 서문 13
서론 44

1장 공공 정치철학의 구성 53

1부 정치적 대화의 참여자들
2장 19세기의 주요 정치 이념들 95
3장 20세기의 전체주의 및 다원적 정치 이념들 128
4장 현대 정치의 급진적 이념과 극단적 이념 177

2부 철학적 가정: 정치적 원리의 토대
5장 철학적 가정 1: 존재론 232
6장 철학적 가정 2: 인간론 277
7장 철학적 가정 3: 사회론 317
8장 철학적 가정 4: 인식론 350

3부 정치적 원리: 합의점과 쟁점
9장 정치적 원리 1: 정치 공동체 404
10장 정치적 원리 2: 시민권 448
11장 정치적 원리 3: 사회구조 497
12장 정치적 원리 4: 권력의 보유자 547
13장 정치적 원리 5: 정부의 권위 592
14장 정치적 원리 6: 정의 643
15장 정치적 원리 7: 변화 703
16장 한국어판 보론: 오바마의 이념과 다원적 공공 정치철학 754

미주 776
참고문헌 820
찾아보기 841

접기
책속에서
본서는 정치 이론을 전문적으로 분석하기보다 (야심적이긴 하나) 전체적으로 개괄해 보려는 책이다. - 모찌모찌
다원적 공공 정치철학 내의 합의는 다원주의의 핵심 특성인 잠정성tentativeness을 바탕으로 도출된다. - 모찌모찌
정부가 자본주의 경제체제의 성장만을 강조하는 조건에 대해, 권력을 가진 사람들의 이해관계에 대해, 무지하고 선입견에 가득 찬 대중의 변덕에 대해 지나치게 너그러울 때, 흔히 정치 공동체의 삶의 질은 추락하곤 한다. - 모찌모찌
정치적 삶에 해를 끼치는 행위에 맞서기 위해, 정치 공동체 내의 거주민들과 통치자들은 거버넌스를 인도해 줄 정치적 원리들을 숙고하고, 이런 원칙들과 부합하는 정치 구조와 과정을 개발하며, 적절한 정책과 방침을 제정하라는 요청을 받곤 한다. - 모찌모찌
보통 정치 공동체란 사회적 재화를 생산하고 분배하는 행위를 조율하는 법률을 제정하고 그런 프로그램을 발전시키는 정부가 조직된, 영토적으로 일정하게 규정된 국가를 가리킨다. - 모찌모찌
더보기
추천글
시사인 <행복한 책꽂이> 2011 올해의 책으로 추천 - 원희룡 (제주도지사) 
정치에 대한 영원한 질문들 - 최재천 (민주당 전 국회의원) 
이 책을 추천한 다른 분들 : 
중앙일보 
 - 중앙일보(조인스닷컴) 2010년 10월 23일자
동아일보 
 - 동아일보 2010년 10월 23일자 새로나온 책
한겨레 신문 
 - 한겨레 신문 2010년 10월 22일자
저자 및 역자소개
폴 슈메이커 (Paul Schumaker) (지은이) 
저자파일
 
신간알리미 신청

미국 위스콘신-매디슨 대학에서 정치학 박사 학위를 취득한 후 1972년부터 미국 캔자스 대학의 교수로 재직해 온 원로 정치학자이다. 오랫동안 미국 정치의 체계적인 편향에 관심을 두어 왔고, 이를 토대로 다원주의 정치 이론의 재구성을 시도한 Critical Pluralism을 1991년에 출간했다. 이 책에서 슈메이커 교수는 지역 정치 공동체가 세 가지 정치 목표―정치 원칙과 정책의 융합, 책임 있는 대표성, 복합적 평등―를 달성할 수 있는 역량을 갖는가를 분석했다. 그 후 규범적 정치 이론으로 관심 영역을 확장하여 1996년에 <정치사상의 이해 I·II>(Great Ideas/Grand Schemes)(공저, 오름, 2005/2007)를 출간했다. 그는 또한 2000년 부시-고어 대선 논쟁 이후 대통령 선출 방식을 비판적으로 고찰한 Choosing Our President: The Electoral College and Its Alternatives를 공저했다. 2008년에는 다원적 공공 정치를 주창하는 <진보와 보수의 12가지 이념>(From Ideologies to Public Philosophies)을 출간하여 정치사상의 새로운 장을 열었다는 평가를 받았다. 현재는 중도 좌파의 관점에서 신자유주의의 대안을 제시하는 ‘진보적 다원주의’에 관한 저서, 그리고 정책 형성에서 윤리의 중요성을 강조하는 ‘도덕적 다원주의’에 관한 저서를 준비하고 있다. 접기
최근작 : <진보와 보수의 12가지 이념>,<정치사상의 이해 II>,<정치사상의 이해 Ⅰ> … 총 3종 (모두보기)
조효제 (옮긴이) 
저자파일
 
신간알리미 신청

성공회대학 교수이자 베를린자유대학 초빙교수이다. 런던대학 정치외교학 학사, 옥스퍼드대학 비교사회학 석사, 런던정경대학(LSE) 사회정책학 박사이다. 한국인권학회장, 국가인권위원회 설립준비기획단 위원, 하버드대학 인권펠로, 코스타리카대학 초빙교수, 세계인권선언 70주년 유엔 본부 학술대회 기조 강연자 등을 지냈다.
저서로 《조효제 교수의 인권 오디세이》, 《인권의 지평》, 《인권의 문법》, 《인권을 찾아서》, 《Human Rights and Civic Activism in Korea》 등이 있다. 역서로 《인권사회학의 도전》, 《인권의 대전환》, 《세계인권사상사》, 《거대한 역설》, 《직접행동》 등이 있다. 접기
최근작 : <10대를 위한 민주시민 교과서, 한걸음씩 시리즈 1~10 세트 - 전10권>,<탄소 사회의 종말>,<인권의 최전선> … 총 43종 (모두보기)
Editor Blog2010년 10월 5주_ 한발 앞서 만나는 인문교양 신간 l 2010-10-25
알라딘 인문, 사회, 과학 분야에서는 '한발 앞서 만나는 인문교양 신간'이란 이벤트를 상시 진행합니다. 매주 담당 MD가 10권 이내의 책을 소개하는 공간이자 예리한 관찰과 정확한 판단으로 누구보다 먼저 좋은 책을 알아보시는 독자께 조금이나마 혜택을 드리고자 마련한 자리입니다. 매주 월요일 새로운 책으로 페이지가 바뀌고 도서별 구매자 선착순 50분께 다음 ...

프레시안진보·보수 이념의 '뿌리'를 파헤치면… l 2011-03-08
이념 간의 대화폴 슈메이커의 <진보와 보수의 12가지 이념>(이하 <이념>)은 무려 1000쪽 가까이 되는 방대한 책이다. 더구나 정치 철학과 정치 이론, 이데올로기에 관한 난해한 쟁점들을 다뤘다. 그런데도 이 책은 '재밌게' 읽을 수 있다.이 책에서 슈메이커는 여러 이념의 논리 구조를 딱딱하게 해부하는 대신, 다양한 정치 이념이 현대...

출판사 소개
후마니타스 
출판사 페이지
  
신간알리미 신청

출판사 제공 책소개
자기 자신의 정치적 편향성을 의식할수록,
자신의 심미안과 지적 성실성을 잃지 않으면서도 정치적으로 행동할 수 있는 기회가 늘어난다.
-조지 오웰

오늘날 인간의 운명은 정치적인 방식으로 그 의미가 제시된다.
-토마스 만

4가지 철학적 가정, 7가지 정치적 원리, 12가지 이념
비교의 관점에서 본 현대 정치사상 교본
진보-보수 논쟁이 사람들에게 피로감을 주는 것은 우리의 삶과 사회를 개선하는 좋은 정책을 산출하지 못한 채 ‘대결을 위한 대결’을 이어 가기 때문이다. 이념 간 대립을 타개하는 활로는, 먼저 이념에 대한 올바른 이해에서 시작한다. 이 책은 오늘날 지대한 영향을 미치고 있는 12가지 이념을 횡단 비교하고, 각 이념이 서있는 철학적 바탕과 논쟁적인 정치적 쟁점에 대해 각 이념이 취할 입장을 세밀하게 살핌으로써 이념과 이념 간의 관계를 총체적으로 볼 수 있게 한다. 하나의 이념으로 전체를 설명하고 모든 문제에 해법을 내리려는 ‘신념’을 내려놓고, 여러 이념들의 장단점을 살려 공적 문제를 다루는 ‘유연함’을 선택했을 때 비로소 개인과 공동체의 개선을 기대할 수 있다.

0. 우리는 이념에 대해 얼마나 알고 있는가

옮긴이 서문에는 조효제 교수가 독자들에게 낸 퀴즈가 있다. 이념에 대해 많이 알고 있다고 하는 사람들조차 선뜻 답하기 쉽지 않다. 이 책을 보면 이념에 대한 우리의 지식이 피상적이라는 점을 깨닫는다. 시장을 선호하는 사람은 자유주의를 좋아하고, 시장을 비판하는 사람은 자유주의를 인정하지 않는다는 식의, 차라리 모른다고 하는 것이 나을 법한 방식으로 이념을 구분해 온 것은 아닌지 되묻게 한다.

1. 정치적 이성과 공적 이성을 인식론에서 발전시킨 정치 이념은?
① 신자유주의 ② 현대 자유주의
③ 마르크스주의 ④ 급진적 좌파

2. 국민국가 형성 및 존립을 정치의 선결 조건으로 간주하고, 국가적 정체성과 국가적 차원의 정책 의제를 중시하는 이념은?
① 보수주의 ② 급진적 우파
③ 공동체주의 ④ 자유주의

3. 고전적 자유주의를 계승하되 그것을 급진적으로 재구성한 이념은?
① 자유 지상주의 ② 현대 자유주의
③ 현대 보수주의 ④ 아나키즘

[정답] 1. ④ 급진적 좌파 2. ④ 자유주의 3. ① 자유 지상주의

1. 이념에서 철학으로

이념을 잘 이해하는 것은 물론 중요하지만, 그것만으로는 한계가 있다. 이 책의 원서명은 “From Ideologies to Public Philosophies”이다. 한국어판 부제에서도 다원적 공공 정치를 이루기 위한 ‘철학’[다원주의]의 중요성을 강조한다. 즉, 정치적 문제에 대해 이념이 아니라 철학으로 접근할 것을 권하는 셈이다. 대다수 사람들은 자신이 좋아하는 이념을 과도하게 평가해 다른 이념을 상대적으로 덜 평가하거나 배제하는 경향이 있다. 따라서 이념만을 강조했을 때 합의를 끌어내기 어렵다. 철학과 이에 바탕을 둔 정치적 원리가 공적 논의에 기여하는 바는 여기에 있다.
경험을 통해 검토할 수 있는 정치의 일반적 지침을 말하는 정치적 원리는, 특정한 목표를 달성하기 위해 무엇을 해야 할지를 가르친다. 따라서 정치적 원리에서 모색하는 목표는 ‘주어진’ 것이라 할 수 있지만, 그 목표가 바람직한지는 정치적 관점의 저변을 이루는 철학적 가정에 의해 결정된다. 이념의 표피에서는 날을 세우더라도, 이면의 존재론·인간론·사회론·인식론적 심층에서는 넓은 차원의 공감과 이해가 가능하다.
또한 판단 기준별 횡단 비교 없이 처음부터 하나의 이념만을 살폈을 때는 보이지 않던 각 이념의 장단점은, 이 책에서처럼 (철학적 가정과 정치적 원리라는) 공통된 기준으로 이념들의 유사성과 차이점을 살폈을 때 비로소 선명해진다. 어떤 공공적·정치적 문제를 다른 이념보다 더 잘 다루는 이념이 있다. 그리고 하나의 이념만이 모든 문제에 대한 해답을 갖고 있는 것도 아니다. 결국 인간 삶의 개선과 사회의 발전을 위해 이념이 존재한다고 본다면, 사회문제에 대한 더 나은 해법을 모색하기 위해 필요한 것은 이념들 사이의 대화다. 하지만 지금 우리 사회에서 공적 문제에 대해 적대적·배타적 논쟁이 있었을 뿐, 좋은 대화를 해왔다고 보기는 어렵다.

2. 대화의 전제, 다원주의의 인정

다음과 같이 반문할 수도 있다. 정치 이념들 사이의 대화가 무슨 소용이 있는가? 대화가 가능하기는 할까? 대화를 시도했다는 알리바이에 불과하지 않을까? 우려는 이해하지만, 반드시 그렇지는 않다. 정치 이념들을 이해한 후 서로 대화에 나서면 상대방의 주장에 완전히 동의하지 않더라도 그 배경을 알게 되어 상대방의 주장을 일률적으로 거부하지 않게 되며, 한층 더 정교하고 타당한 방식으로 자기주장을 제시하거나 자신의 주장을 수정·보완할 여지도 생긴다.
대화는 상대에 대한 인정을 전제한다고대 그리스의 폴리스에서 시민들이 모여 다양한 활동을 하는 집회장이었던 아고라 광장의 현재 모습. 현실의 권력관계를 은폐하지 않고, 대화에 참여하는 이에게 동등한 시민권을 부여하는지 여부를 통해 다원주의가 제대로 작동하는가를 확인할 수 있다.. 다원주의는 여기서 의미를 갖는다. 이 책에서 제시하는 이론 틀은 현대 정치사상에서 다원주의가 얼마나 중심적인 위치를 차지하는지를 알려 준다. (다원주의는 정치 이론에서 논쟁적인 용어이지만) 저자가 말하는 일반적인 의미에서의 다원주의는 각자의 이념적 입장을 분명히 인식하면서도 모든 정치 이념들의 저변을 이루는 합의를 모색한다는 점에서 일종의 메타 정치 이론이다. 그런 점에서 다원주의는 여러 이념들이 한데 모여 합의를 도출하는 데 필요한 원칙을 제공한다는 점에서 다른 이념들과는 다른 지위를 갖는다. 이 책에서 ‘다원적 공공 정치철학’이라는 말이 ‘다원주의’와 혼용되는 것도, 다원주의가 ‘그릇 이념’의 성격을 띤다는 사실을 드러낸다.
그런 점에서 다원주의는 일종의 규범적인 정치 이론이다. 그러나 다원주의가 가장 명확하게 지지하는 규범이란, 대단히 추상적인 차원에 속하며, 흔히 과정 지향적이거나 절차적이다. 다원적 정치가 추구하는 목적이라는 것은, 결국 그 다원적 과정에 참여하는 이들 각자가 적용하려는 가치와, 그들이 숙의를 통해 궁극적으로 지지하는 목표가 무엇인지에 달려 있다. 민주주의는 숙의와 의사 결정을 할 수 있게 해주는 공평한 절차를 제공하며, 바로 그 때문에 민주주의가 다원주의에서 주요한 절차적 가치를 이룬다.

19세기 자유주의가 현대 자유주의를 알아볼 수 있을까?

정치 이념을 몇 마디로 과감하게 요약하거나 정리하기는 어렵다. 정치 이념이 부단한 역사적 발전과 진화를 거치고 있는 현재 진행형의 현상인 까닭이다. 그런 진화 과정을 거치면서 특정 이념 내에서, 그리고 이념들 사이에서 크나큰 변화가 일어난 경우가 비일비재하다. 예를 들어, 전통적 보수주의가 현대 보수주의로 변하는 과정에서 엄청난 변화가 일어났고, 고전적 자유주의와 현대 자유주의는 그들이 도대체 같은 뿌리의 사상인지 의심스러울 정도로 현재 크게 다른 모습을 지니고 있다. 또한 고전적 자유주의와 현대 보수주의는 뿌리가 전혀 다름에도 오늘날 아주 가까운 관계로 발전했다. 이런 식의 역사적 변천상을 무시하고 그저 ‘보수주의’ 또는 ‘자유주의’라고 표현할 때 초래될 인식의 혼란과 폐단은 상당히 심각하다.
가령 현대 자유주의는 정부가 자유를 억압할 수 있지만 반대로 자유를 촉진할 수도 있음을 깨닫게 되면서부터 고전적 자유주의에서 떨어져 나와 발전했다. 고전적 자유주의자들은 큰 정부가 자유를 억압하고, 자유 시장 체제와 최소한의 정부가 개인의 자유와 행복을 가장 잘 보장한다고 가정했지만, 현대 자유주의자들은 순수한 자유방임 자본주의의 문제를 해결할 수 있는 것은 강력한 정부뿐이며, 정부가 모든 시민에 대해 더 많은 안전, 안정된 경제 발전, 더욱 평등한 경제적 기회를 부여해야 한다고 역설한다. 정치권력의 평등한 분산을 위한 다양한 정치 개혁과, 인종차별이나 성적 차별과 같은 각종 사회문제의 해결도 확장된 정부의 권위[권한]를 통해 해결할 수 있을 것이라고 본다. 이처럼 이념은 독자적으로 발전하는 것이 아니라 다른 이념과 영향을 주고받으며 새로이 형성된다. 역사적으로 봤을 때 이념은 ‘신념’보다 ‘유연함’이라는 말과 더 어울린다.

1930년대 대공황 시기에 무료 급식을 줄서서 기다리는 실업자들의 모습. 이념들은 역사적 사건에 대처하기 위해 변화를 선택하곤 하며, 이때 자신과 대립하는 이념에서 중시되던 가치를 받아들이는 극적인 결정을 내리기도 한다.

3. 비교의 관점에서 본 현대 정치사상

정치 이념을 다루는 개론서는 대개 두 가지 방식을 따른다. 플라톤, 홉스, 마르크스, 롤스와 같은 독창적 사상가의 고전을 읽게 하거나, 주요 정치 이념을 포괄적으로 그리고 개별적으로 설명하는 방식이다. 슈메이커의 비교 방법론은 정교하고 입체적이다. 5장에서 15장까지 정치 이념의 철학적 가정을 4가지 차원(존재론, 인간론, 사회론, 인식론)으로, 정치적 원리를 7가지 차원(정치 공동체, 시민권, 사회구조, 권력의 보유자, 정부의 권위, 정의, 변화)으로 세분해 살핀다. 철학적 가정들과 정치적 원리들을 모두 합한 11가지 판단 기준에 의거해 12가지 주요 정치 이념들을 횡단 비교함으로써 총 132개 항목에 걸쳐 정치 이념을 비교 분석한다.
각 정치 이념들이 등장한 역사적 과정과 그 중심 사상에 대해서는 2~4장에서 서술된다. 먼저 19세기와 20세기에 큰 영향력을 행사한 8개의 주요 정치 이념을 소개하는데, 고전적 자유주의와 현대 자유주의를 구분하며, 전통적 보수주의와 현대 보수주의를 구분한다. 아나키즘·마르크스주의·공산주의는 서로 구분되는 별도의 이념으로 다룬다. 파시즘과 나치즘도 전체주의적 이념이라는 유사성이 있지만 둘 사이의 차이점을 고려한다. 이에 더해 현대 정치에서 자기 목소리를 내고 있는 다양한 견해를 좌우 이념으로 구분하고, 이를 다시 급진적 견해와 극단적 견해로 세분해 소개한다.
16장은 한국어판에 특별히 실린 보론으로, 원서가 출간된 2008년 이후 미국에서 오바마가 당선되면서 변화된 상황과, 오바마 정부를 어떤 이념 틀로 바라볼지에 대한 분석을 다루었다. 이로 인해 한국어판은 본서의 개정판이라는 의의를 갖게 되었다.

4. 우리 시대에 맞는 새로운 정치 이념을 디자인하기

민주주의를 외치는 것만으로는 부족하다. 다원주의의 내용, 즉 다원주의를 구성하는 토대적 합의는 시대와 장소에 따라 신축적으로 구성될 수 있다. 그러므로 한국 사회에서 논의되는 이념이라면 의무적으로 받아들여야 할 다원주의의 토대가 무엇인지를 물어야 한다. 정치 이념이 다른 사람들일지라도 모두가 동의할 만한 공통분모, 또는 모두가 반대할 공동의 적이 존재할 수 있을까? 이는 우리 사회 전체의 ‘공공성’을 어느 수준에서 정할 수 있는지와 곧바로 연결되는 질문이기도 하다.
현실 정치에서도 이런 질문은 중요하다. 시민들은 산출물을 내지 못하는 진보-보수 논쟁에서 피로를 느낀다. 다원주의의 토대 없는 진보 운동 또는 보수 운동이 유권자에 대한 호소력이라는 측면에서 장기적으로 지속될 수 있을지, 그리고 그런 운동이 정치 공동체에 진정으로 기여할 수 있을지를 따져 봐야 한다. 기존의 여러 공공 정치철학들의 철학적 가정을 신중하게 평가하고, 또한 정치의 영원한 쟁점들에 대해 나름의 해답을 제시하고 있는 각종 정치적 원리들 가운데 적당한 것들을 취사선택하여 일정한 원칙의 테두리 안에서 통합하는 식으로, 우리 시대에 맞는 새로운 정치 이념을 재구성하여 끌어낼 필요가 있다.
그런 점에서 <진보와 보수의 12가지 이념>은 정치 이념을 창조하는 데 기여하는 좋은 교본이다. 성실한 번역을 통해 한국 사회에 의미 있는 제언을 해온 조효제 교수가 10년간의 번역 작업을 마무리하면서 이 책을 고른 이유이기도 하다.
접기
북플 bookple
이 책의 마니아가 남긴 글
친구가 남긴 글
내가 남긴 글
친구가 남긴 글이 아직 없습니다.
마니아 읽고 싶어요 (12) 읽고 있어요 (1) 읽었어요 (12) 
이 책 어때요?
구매자
분포
0.2% 10대 1.3%
6.9% 20대 14.2%
9.3% 30대 15.3%
10.8% 40대 20.3%
3.7% 50대 13.8%
0.9% 60대 3.2%
여성 남성
100자평
    
 
등록
카테고리
스포일러 포함 글 작성 유의사항 
구매자 (1)
전체 (2)
공감순 
     
여러 이념의 역사, 철학, 쟁점 등을 상세하게 다루고 있는 교과서 같은 책. 극단의 위험을 누르고 공공 정치철학을 만들자는 저자의 목소리가 우리 사회에 무엇보다 필요하다는 생각이 든다.  구매
킹킹킹 2014-03-04 공감 (0) 댓글 (0)
Thanks to
 
공감
마이리뷰
구매자 (0)
전체 (1)
리뷰쓰기
공감순 
     
[마이리뷰] 진보와 보수의 12가지 이념 새창으로 보기
저자는 역사적으로 일단 판정이 난 전체주의 이념과 일부 극단주의를 제외한 거의 모든 정치 이념들이 다원적 공공 정치철학의 지붕 아래에 모일 수 있다고 가정한다. 더 나아가 이 이념들이 다원적 공공 정치철학을 공유할 때 정치의 영원한 쟁점을 놓고 일종의 거대한 대화에 참여할 수 있다고 가정한다. 또한 다원적 공공 정치철학은 어떤 이념을 신봉하든 그것이 편의적이고 기회주의적인 동기가 아니라 확고한 철학에 기반을 둔 신념이어야 하고, 자신이 믿는 이념이 정치 공동체의 전체 선익에 나름대로 기여할 수 있다는 점을 입증할 수 있어야 한다고 주장한다.(p29)

다원적 공공 정치철학은 그런 ‘이익‘ 추구와는 또 다른 차원에서 모든 정치 이념들이 최소한의 토대적인 공공성에 대해서 동의해야 한다고 가정한다. 즉, 나의 직접적인 이익과 관계없이, 또는 나의 직접적인 이익이 단기적으로 침해받는 것처럼 보일지라도, 사회 공동체의 정상적인 구성원이라면 동의해야만 하는 합의의 영역이 있어야 한다는 말이다.(p29)

정치의 영원한 질문에 관한 합의점들을 모두 한자리에 모아 보면 다원적 공공 정치철학 pluralist public philosophy이 되며, 이것이야말로 오늘날 미국을 비롯한 세계 각국의 정치를 인도할 수 있는 가장 기본적인 철학이라고 제안하고 싶다.(p48)
- 접기
겨울호랑이 2019-10-08 공감(34) 댓글(0)
Thanks to
 
공감