The Gospel of the Nazirenes

Rating:
Summary: Italian version of The Gospel of the Nazirenes
Review: Gentlemen:

Please advise if an Italian version of The Gospel of the Nazirenes has been printed.

Thank you G. Ardesi Italy

Rating:
Summary: Italian version of The Gospel of the Nazirenes
Review: Gentlemen:

Please advise if an Italian version of The Gospel of the Nazirenes has been printed.

Thank you G. Ardesi Italy

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic book!
Review: This is a truly beautiful rendition of the Gospels. Havn't you ever wondered how much of the Gospels was a re-telling to suit the needs of a particular age or political agenda? Well here is a gospel that presents a truly peaceful and non-violent Jesus. One who loved animals as well as humans. It's the Jesus you always knew was really there.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic book!
Review: This is a truly beautiful rendition of the Gospels. Havn't you ever wondered how much of the Gospels was a re-telling to suit the needs of a particular age or political agenda? Well here is a gospel that presents a truly peaceful and non-violent Jesus. One who loved animals as well as humans. It's the Jesus you always knew was really there.

Rating:
Summary: New Vision - Same old Kings English
Review: This is the one book I would keep above all others. It access's the original 'other gospels' that the Nicean Council later burnt and suppressed, so that we were prevented from even seeing them and deciding for ourselves on the 'tough issues'. Now it really makes sense. Basically, it is a fuller illumination of the canonical New Testament, with all the parts that were edited out and suppressed by the Catholic Church of the time. I wanted to know about the real Jesus, and I wanted historical data from the actual first few centuries AD. I feel it is morally wrong that in these educated times, people still haven't been allowed to see Jesus's whole teachings - they are beautiful and so totally illuminating, without sexism or cruelty. The New Testament is an astounding document ofcourse, but others shouldn't water down it's content - we should be allowed to see all there is and decide for ourselves. There are profound revelations that were lost because of later changes, such as in The Lord's Prayer, God doesn't LEAD us into temptation; the original asked God not to LEAVE us in temptation. Big difference. Mary Magdelene has a greater part (and wasn't a prostitite!), as I always suspected. It answers SO many questions, yet uses authentic suppressed sources. If you want the whole picture and the real picture with authenticiy and are sick of being fed only so much or the 'party line', you will be so relieved to finally get hold of this gem - every one, especially women or nonracists should get to see this, and get to make up their own minds. (Notice how the 'Gospel of Mary', an actual gospel, was destroyed and now we only have part of it. I would love to see the whole!) You may also find Edmond Szekely revealing. Good luck, good reading and God bless, this is a wonderful book and about time too! I hope many more ancient texts finally resurface and we all get to see and read them. It's up to us I guess.

Rating:
Summary: how sad
Review: When I first heard about this book, I was intrigued, since I was aware of the Ebionites, a Palestinian Jewish sect in the second-century that had their own written gospel, were vegetarians, and followed the Torah (Jewish Law). The question of the rabbinic context of Jesus' teachings has been a source of interest for me as of late (for those interesed, see Lachs' _A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament_).

Unfortunately, this is not a "rediscovery" of this text or the equally obscure "Gospel of the Hebrews" but a compilation of the authors' (who are these people, anyway?) favorite quotes from already existing canonical and noncanonical Christian texts. Most of what's in here I have read in other noncanonical texts, like the Gospel of Thomas (an admittedly early text). The unfortunate reviewers below, however, are largely unaware of these facts, and think this is an authentic "translation" or "restoration."

Given that this is allegedly the "original" Gospel, the result of the "reconstruction" is to produce a surpisingly NON-JEWISH Jesus. Most striking is the inclusion of Gnostic, in this case dualistic theology (two becoming one), which is decidedly GREEK and not JEWISH, and the exclusion of everything that make Jesus a believeable JEWISH rabbi (e.g. discussion of sin). Ironically, people who love this book love just those de-Judaizing elements. They speak of the evil "Church" theology but the specific things they attack are actually JEWISH theology. You could even say it's subtle anti-Semitism.

There are some amusing and obviously modern additions by the "editors," too, e.g. the excessively inclusive language. We hear not only about the "Son" (a reference to the "Son of Man" in the JEWISH book of Daniel) but also the "Daughter," not only to the Father but to the Mother (but not as Holy Spirit, as in Gnosticism!).

The funny thing about this sort of thing is that someone "finds" a "very old manuscript" which they somehow manage to date, despite having no training in papyrology, and to translate, despite not knowing the language, and then, somehow, manage to lose the original manuscript! Oops! And surprise surprise, this "new text" agrees with everything we believe now!

This book, let is be said again, is not a translation of an Aramaic text. Surely critical biblical scholarship, papyrologists, and archaeologists would have known about this find. But this book is nowhere mentioned in the literature on this subject. The only conclusion a reasonable observer can come to is that this alleged "Gospel of the Nazirenes" is simply an excursus through canonical and noncanonical texts available to us now, altered here and there to soften Jesus into just what many twentieth-century Americans want: a New Age Christ (and it is in fact popular among New Agers). Isn't is a little unlikely that Jesus would have espoused views completely consonant with today's values, much less that he would have broken with his Jewish heritage so radically and embraced tenets of religious Platonism and modern New Age ideas? Or that these distinguished "translators" would have, perhaps from pure obscurantism, rendered this valuable text in ELIZABETHAN ENGLISH?

In their ignorance and prejudice against Jesus' rabbinical teachings (this is supposed to be a JEWISH gospel, after all), these "translators" have largely excised the "real" Jesus. How sad that seekers like the previous reviewers have been so badly misled by it.