The Gospel According to Jesus Christ

This is a bold fearless work and definitely not for the faint-hearted readers. I am not surprised that when this was originally published in 1991, it created lots of controversies with the Catholic Church condemning Jose Saramago for harboring anti-religious vision and his own Portuguese government asking the European Literary Prize to remove this from its shortlist because of the book’s offensive content to religion. Despite this book’s existence, Saramago won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature.

This is my third Saramago (Blindness, Double were my others) and my fourth book in what seems to be an unnamed genre: re-telling of the life of Jesus Christ. Last year I read The Last Temptation of Christ (1960) by Nikos Kazantzakis and Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt (2005) and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana (2008) by Anne Rice. In my “book,” Temptation came first and I am glad I read it first so the idea of twisting the canons by a mere mortal who lived in our generation is not new (translation: not shocking). For me, Anne Rice’s books now seem to be just afterthoughts of these two works.

But why re-tell the life of Jesus Christ? Because of the mysterious gap in his younger years? Because of the weakening fate of the believers? Because more and more people are now turning into atheism or other religions? This depends on what we believe or what each of us was taught to believe when we were younger. However, since this book is about the life of Jesus Christ who’s being venerated by more than half of the people in the world, then I don’t want to dwell on religion. I am leaving this kind of discussion on faith to some other forums like my review on my long staying currently-read book: The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Edition that I started reading in September last year and currently in The Book of Ezekiel and hope to finish all books before the end of this year.

I picked this book because I loved the two works of Saramago. Also, it is Lenten Season and I thought that a Nobel laureate like him would not blaspheme, paint false pictures or mock Jesus Christ. Yes, he did those in this book. I almost wanted to say that this should rather be called The Gospel According to Jose Saramago but for me, it is disrespectful to a great mind like him. After all, he is already dead, was an atheist and a writer so it is not nice for a mere literary enthusiast like me to criticize a dead person (who can no longer defend himself), argue with his beliefs (as he did not believe on any god and said to be a pessimist) and he can invoke poetic devise (twisting facts for the sake of telling a grappling story). In other words, he had or has all the right to come up with a work like this and his cries for oppression due to censorship when the Portuguese government or the Catholic Church called for banning of this are, in my opinion, all uncalled for.

Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene in the whorehouse without the blessing of marriage. The demon asking Jesus to use a sheep for sexual release. An angel posing as a beggar during the Annunciation scene. The same beggar-angel walking with Mary to Bethlehem provoking jealousy to the doubting Joseph. Three shepherds instead of 3 kings visiting the family in the Bethlehem. Joseph crucified and dying on the cross mistaken as a zealot. Jesus seeing God in the desert. Jesus riding on the boat with the God and the Devil. These are some of the shocking deviations from the story that Saramago imagined and incorporated to come up with an “irreverent, profound, skeptical, funny, heretical, deeply philosophical, provocative and compelling work.” (Source: Harold Robbin who says that this is his favorite work of Saramago. So far, I agree).

So, how do you rate a book with a disgusting content yet beautifully written? Think J. G. Ballard’s Crash, Marquis de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom or Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho or even Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. The first time I read them, I was totally disgusted and hated them to the max. Now I realized I missed the whole point. They are really written to shock so their authors can bring the message to the table.

So, what message does The Gospel According to Jesus Christ want us to realize? For me, it is beyond further humanizing Jesus Christ. It is more what choices, regardless whether he is man, god or a their combination, he had before he said yes to his Father for being the sacrificial lamb to propagate Christianity in the world.

But more than the message, one thing that I enjoyed reading this book is its storytelling style. Many parts are totally hilarious and that style when Saramago directly addressing the reader and he opens your thought by throwing contemporary works and philosophy is just awesome. I have never seen this in any of the works of novelists whose books I so far sampled.

I am rating this with a 4 (I really liked it) but will probably not recommend this to anyone. I'd rather that they decide for themselves. If they are as open-minded as my friend and reading-buddy Angus, then I would say go. If not, then check how strong is your faith as Saramago can sway you to question your long-held beliefs. It's like having an clever, sweet-talker and well-read atheist in your Bible reading group come one Sunday and he starts questioning what is written in the gospel but he is not obnoxious because he knows what he is talking about. If you are still in Cathecism 101, don't ever dare open this book.

Είχα καιρό να διαβάσω Σαραμάγκου κι είχα ξεχάσει πως οι προτάσεις του είναι σαν τον θειο μου τον ανακόντα, ένα πράγμα. Πας, πας, πας και τελειωμό δεν έχουν. Μαλωμένος ο Σαραμάγκου προφανώς εκ γενετής με τα σημεία στίξης και δη με τις τελείες, που αν πετύχεις πάνω σε τελεία, κάνεις το σταυρό σου, παίζεις κι ένα τζόκερ, γιατί τέτοια τύχη που θα την ξαναβρείς… Στις δέκα πρώτες σελίδες, τα ‘φτυσα… Είπα ‘φιδάκι μου όμορφο, πάει γέρασες, δεν είναι τα επικίνδυνα σπορ πια για σένα…’. Όμως όσο διάβαζα αυτός ο Πορτογάλος μάγος της λογοτεχνίας, που ούτε Πανεπιστήμια τελείωσε ούτε τίποτα [να τα βλέπουν αυτά κάποιοι λούμπεν κουλτουριάρηδες δικοί μας], με πήρε και με σήκωσε.
Το «κατά Ιησούν Ευαγγέλιο» είναι ένα «αιρετικό» ευαγγέλιο, είναι η άποψη του άθεου, κατά δήλωσή του, Σαραμάγκου για τη ζωή του Θεού και του ανθρώπου Ιησού. Όταν πρωτοκυκλοφόρησε, οι θεούσες της καθολικής εκκλησίας της Πορτογαλίας (δεν έχουμε μόνο εμείς το χάρισμα), τον έκραξαν, τον αποκήρυξαν και τον έστειλαν αυτοβούλως στο Λανθαρότε. Σαφώς, όποιος πάρει να διαβάσει το βιβλίο, περιμένοντας να δει τα γεγονότα όπως τα εξιστορεί η Καινή Διαθήκη, πράττει λάθος μεγάλο. Εδώ ο Σαραμάγκου αφηγείται την ιστορία αλλιώς, ξεκινώντας από τη σύλληψη μέχρι τη Σταύρωση, παρουσιάζοντας τα γεγονότα με τη δική του ματιά (σταύρωση του Ιωσήφ, ο θάνατος των βρεφών από τον Ηρώδη, το πρώτο θαύμα στην Κανά κλπ κλπ κλπ). Η συλλογιστική και οι πνευματικές ανησυχίες του Σαραμάγκου μου θύμισαν πολύ τον δικό μας Καζαντζάκη και κατέληξα στο συμπέρασμα πως τελικά οι ‘άθεοι’ αυτής της συνομοταξίας, είναι αυτοί που πραγματικά αγαπούν τον Θεό.
Ο Ιησούς παρουσιάζεται με όλες τις ανθρώπινες αδυναμίες του, με τις πνευματικές ανησυχίες του, με τα ηθικά του διλήμματα εάν πρέπει να ακολουθήσει το δρόμο που χάραξε ο Θεός για εκείνον, γνωρίζοντας το μακελειό που θα ακολουθήσει στην ανθρωπότητα για την εξάπλωση του χριστιανισμού. Η κοινωνική κριτική που ασκεί ο συγγραφέας, ιδίως όσον αφορά τη θέση της γυναίκας τότε και τώρα είναι διάχυτη σε διάφορα σημεία. Το χιούμορ, σαρκαστικό, ειρωνικό, λεπιδόπτερο (άσχετο αλλά μου άρεσε η λέξη) κόβει σαν χειρουργικό νυστέρι. Έπιασα πολλές φορές τον εαυτό μου να χαμογελάει με τις ατάκες του συγγραφέα.
Η μάχη του Καλού και του Κακού… η ύπαρξη του Κακού που είναι αναγκαία για να υπάρξει το Καλό… ένας Θεός Σύννεφο - Καπνός κι ένας Διάβολος Ποιμένας… η συζήτηση μεταξύ τους, από τα απολαυστικότερα σημεία του βιβλίου… Κι εγώ, ως όφις κατηραμένος, μαντέψτε προς ποιανού πλευρά έκλινα… Κρίμα να προδώσω και τη ράτσα μου…
Ένα βιβλίο απολαυστικό, χορταστικό, που το γέμισα κοκκινάδια (από το μαρκαδόρο υπογράμμισης – μην πάει το μυαλό σας στο πονηρό) για να μην χάσω καμιά από τις κρυμμένες σοφίες… ένα βιβλίο βαθιά πνευματικό, βαθιά θρησκευόμενο, ένα βιβλίο για όσους ψάχνουν το Θεό εδώ στη Γη ή στον ουρανό… ένα βιβλίο τόσο για ανθρώπους όσο και για φίδια με ή χωρίς ουρά…
Βαθμολογία: 10/10 Χ10 ω! 10
Readathon 2017: Ένα βιβλίο που ο πρωταγωνιστής είναι ιστορικό πρόσωπο [23/80]
http://skorofido.blogspot.gr/2017/06/...

Πανέμορφο, πανέξυπνα γραμμένο. Και η ιστορία σκωπτικά ειδωμένη από έναν συγγραφέα σκεπτόμενο και ευφυέστατο, ο οποίος τολμάει να γράψει αλήθειες που πονάνε και τσούζουν και προκαλούν.

Αιρετικό, όπως είναι άλλωστε, πάντα τα μυθιστορήματα θρησκευτικού περιεχομένου. Προκλητικό και "βλάσφημο" και προορισμένο να ανοίξει μάτια και μυαλά, να αφυπνίσει και να δώσει τροφή για σκέψη.

Από τα πιο ωραία αποσπάσματα, η συνάντηση Ιησού, Θεού και Διαβόλου, που πρέπει να σου επιβάλει μια παύση ανάγνωσης για να μπορέσεις να προβληματιστείς.

Πόσο τετριμμενο και παλιομοδίτικο πια, αυτό το θέμα της κριτικής της θρησκείας, θα μπορούσε κάποιος να σκεφτεί. Κι όμως, οι χαλεποί καιροί που περνάμε, μας αποδεικνύουν ότι η θρησκοληψία είναι εδώ, ζει και βασιλεύει στο Ελλαδιστάν του 2020 και ότι μόνο μπροστά δεν πάμε ως κοινωνία.

Everyone knows more or less about the birth of Jesus: the manager, the donkey, the ox, the three wise men, and all that. Adult life, too: without a Christian education, one has a vague idea of ​​preaching, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection. And between the two, childhood and adolescence? We don't know: the bible does not say anything about it, and no credible source exists on the subject (although some myths (trips to Egypt, Asia, and England) emerged later.
José Saramago gives us his vision of this unknown Jesus while reinterpreting some biblical subjects in his sauce. The result is probably not canonical since we see Jesus first educated by the Devil, then discovering sexuality in the arms of Mary Magdalene, a prostitute with whom he falls in love. However, I did not see any desire for satire; on the contrary, we discover a character torn by the codes of the society of his time, the gradual discovery of his identity, and above all, the feeling of being a toy of fate.
The author managed to get me interested in this character again, much to my surprise. Because my catechism lessons and then discussions with a few stubborn fundamentalists had given me a rather old-fashioned image: either a character of absolute drought or, on the contrary, sticky with marshmallow, his questions, doubts, and errors also ended up making him endearing. The story, strongly tinged with humor, also contributes to this, mainly when certain miracles represent a bit of common sense: thus, when Jesus brings out a demon from a man to move him into a herd of pigs, he must flee. The village is running, chased away with stones by the owners of the livestock, who are not very happy to lose their precious source of income. If the prestige takes a hit, one can only feel sympathy for this clumsy full of good intentions.
A wonderful moment in this book company started deliberately at the end of the year's holidays, but it finally fascinated me from the first page to the last page.

Early on, “Mary’s legs were now open, perhaps they had opened by themselves as she dreamed and she did not close them out of this sudden lassitude, or else from the premonition of a married woman who knows her duty […] the holy seed of Joseph poured into the holy womb of Mary” (13), sufficiently heretical without the immediate afterthought: “there are things God Himself does not understand” (id.). Don’t worry--this is merely prelude to Jesus & Magdalena: “Discover your body, and there it was, tense, taut, roused, and she, naked and magnificent, was above him and saying, There is nothing fear, do not move, leave this to me. Then he felt part of him, this organ, disappearing inside her, a ring of fire around it, coming and going, a shudder passed through him, like a wriggling fish slipping free with a shout, surely impossible, fish do not shout, no, it was he, Jesus, crying out as Mary slumped over his body with a moan” (237)--which is something of a miracle, as JC should’ve been like the 40-Year Old Virgin here instead of Ron Jeremy.

So, yeah, it’s that kind of book. Jesus is born in a cave (58). Some dicking around in the beginning about who actually knocked Mary up--Satan, YHWH, big Joe.

Running commentary throughout on gender politics, such as “Mary is neither upright nor pious, but she is not to blame for this, the blame lies with the language she speaks if not with the men who invented it, because that language has no feminine form for the words upright and pious” (16) or “we mustn’t forget that this whole process, from the moment of impregnation to the moment of birth, is unclean, that vile female organ, vortex and abyss, the seat of all the world’s evil, an inner labyrinth of blood, discharges, gushing water, revolting afterbirth, dear God” (54).

We get a Life of Brian joke: “The is not the only couple called Joseph and Mary expecting a baby, who perhaps two infants of the same sex, preferably male, will be born at the same hour and only a road or a field of corn between them. The destinies that await these infants, however, will be different” (52).

In addition to gentle political ribbing and express heresy, there’s effective satire throughout, such as the alphabetical listing of martyrs (321-25) and the history of Jesus’ foreskin (63) (I love the latter particularly because my own favorite internet alt 15 years ago was Christ’s Foreskin; it was the ideal prophylactic to slip on and penetrate online religious discussions.)

Basic engine of the narrative is that Joe overhears plans for Herod’s slaughter of infants and runs back to save Jesus, but doesn’t bother to warn anyone else, and thereafter carries guilt for this omission; novel intones “A father’s guilt falls on the heads of his children” (88), and so Christ carries this with him after Joe gets crucified by the bloody Romans (it really is very difficult to read this without thinking Monty Python.) There’s a great moment where Jesus literally steps into Joe’s shoes as a subrogee (137). Christ is haunted by dream visions of the slaughter of innocents, and author reminds us that “it may seem inappropriate to put the complex theories of modern thinkers into the head of a Palestinian who lived so many years before Freud, Jung, Groddeck, and Lacan” (162).

Anyway, “God does not forgive the sins He makes us commit” (127). And “man is free […] so that he might be punished” (171). But cf.: “your God is the only warden of a prison where the only prisoner is your God” (197). It is “impossible to tell the difference between an angel of the Lord and an angel of Satan” (213). (The Lucifer character is very interesting--not Milton-interesting, but alright.)

Overall, zips right along.

Recommended for those who learn that certain things can be understood only if we take the trouble to trace them to their origins, incubuses who violate women in their sleep, and readers who show that supreme indifference which we associate with the universe, or that other absolute indifference, the indifference of emptiness, which will remain, if there is such a thing as emptiness, when all has been fulfilled.

Caveat: This book has a very limited audience. Those with little interest in the Christian religion will find it a difficult and unrewarding slog. Conversely those with strong religious beliefs may be challenged or offended and avoid the book for those reasons. Additionally, the writing is very dense and somewhat difficult and will deter casual readers who may be otherwise interested in the subject matter (while the book is only 340 pages, the font is small and tightly packed, and there are few paragraph breaks and no line breaks for dialogue, so this feels more like a 500+ page book). This leaves a very narrow band of likely readers, namely mildly or formerly religious people who enjoy reading difficult literature. People like myself, who are for reasons of upbringing or possibly masochistic tendencies, cursed with a deep fascination of the subject despite believing not a word of it.

This is a masterpiece of historical and philosophical fiction. It is simply a beautifully written book, both in the style of prose and the content. Overall, it is very respectful to the source material. There is no overt mocking element; the writing does not look down on religion. The characters are very real and human, and are treated with seriousness and dignity. The subversive element is quite subtle (with the arguable exception of one chapter close to the end of the book), and on the whole arises naturally from the interactions between the characters and the situations in which they are placed. The characters are forced to work through difficult moral situations and in doing so bring to light the absurdity of the various doctrines of the religion. This is treated so lightly that I fear the moral questions raised are likely to be missed if one is not paying attention.

One thing I really liked was the way the book handled depictions of ancient Jewish life. The role of women being completely subservient to men: first to their fathers, then husbands, and ultimately to their own children, and the effect this had on their relationship with their families. It also depicted honestly the ritual of quotidian animal sacrifice - the absolute savagery, cruelty and waste of this practice, which is often overlooked when we think about that culture and that time.

If I have one small criticism, it is that the final two chapters appear somewhat rushed, as if the author has said what he needed to say in the preceding chapter (which is in fact the crux of the book and seems to contain the culmination of the author's message) and was simply trying to conclude the book. It's a pity because those final chapters contain some key events that were worthy of closer scrutiny.

El evangelio según Jesucristo: 4.5 ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Saramago, an atheist, attempts to retell the story of Jesus Christ in a manner that suits his religious and philosophical beliefs. Most of the strength of this novel lies with the realism of the story's setting (you can often see the dust of 1st century Palestine, etc.) and the occasional humor of Saramago's oft absent-minded, sometimes contradictory narrator.

The story begins with a foreword of sorts, describing a painting of the Crucifixion. Just a few pages in, Saramago's narrator claims that Jesus is mistaken to forgive the repentant thief while condemning the other thief on the cross. After this, Saramago tells the story (or at least his cherry-picked version) of the Anunciation, moving on to the Nativity, the death of Joseph, Jesus' coming of age, and finally, His ministry and crucifixion (naturally, Saramago leaves out the Resurrection, the great event that distinguishes Christianity from all others from both a theological and a historical point of view).

God in this novel is distracted, unloving, unjust, decidedly neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and clearly nowhere near God the Father as seen in the Bible. Jesus Himself is fallible (even error-prone on some occasions), sinful (He has lots of sex with Mary Magdalene out of wedlock), and, again, nothing like the Jesus we know from Scripture. And as for the Holy Spirit, well, He is hinted at as an impersonal force rather than a divine person.

Apart from being rank blasphemy (an obvious theological issue which all Christians should take into account), the novel has many problems. Saramago's characters often get into philosophical arguments, wherein his anti-God views also come out on top. The problem is that Saramago sometimes makes assertions without offering any sort of narrative argumentation (i.e. the narrator is basically telling the reader what to think without offering a "why"), and regardless of how the argument is made, he never seems to be uncertain. That is, the characters which espouse the author's atheistic viewpoint (God is evil, Christianity is bad, etc.) are never confounded are made to truly question their own beliefs. Unlike great authors, Saramago never offers much room for interpretation or the possibility of being wrong or even in doubt. There's nothing wrong with being firm in your convictions, but good fiction written for the literary set is not made of such one-dimensional thought.

Related to this complaint, Saramago paints a picture of Christianity that is 100% negative. Near the end, Jesus asks God to tell Him what will happen after the former's death on the cross. God goes on for about half a dozen pages naming martyrs and the ways in which they died for the gospel and then mentions the Crusades and the Inquisition. Religion in this novel is generally portrayed as a brutal, ignorant force. Saramago never even hints at incalculable good which Christianity has wrought upon the world (for starters, there's the Salvation Army, United Way, Heartland Hope, Open Door Mission, and thousands upon thousands of hospitals, shelters, and soup kitchens here in the US alone, and that's only scratching the surface). If Saramago had examined both the good and bad of Christianity and found the latter to outweigh the former, I can respect that even if I fervently disagree with the conclusion. However, to dwell on the bad without even hinting at or touching upon the good of Christianity is intellectually dishonest. Again, Saramago is only telling the side of the story that will prove his own point without suggesting even a hint of doubt about his beliefs.

This last criticism is more a matter of personal taste, but given how big a role it played in my reading of the book, I have to mention it: Saramago's idiosyncratic style and refusal to use quotation marks or italics or create indentations more than once or twice a page is, in my opinion, no good. Some critics may adore it, but I find it unbearable, annoying, and pointless (i.e. it added nothing to the book).

In all, Saramago's work has some slight positive elements, but on the whole, I simply find it lacking and will never read it again.