labai juoda knyga, nedaug tokių esu skaičiusi.

iš esmės saramago paima mintį, kad jeigu dievas egzistuoja, tai jis blogas ir žiaurus, ir su šia mintimi perpasakoja visą kristaus istoriją. patiko, kad romane daug daugiau erdvės ir svarbos suteikta jo gimimo aplinkybėms, vaikystei ir paauglystei, santykių su tėvais psichologijai, o vėlesnis gyvenimas su visais stebuklais ir kančiomis yra tik pasekmė, dalykai, kurie buvo neišvengiami.

knygoje stipriausi trys paveikslai: kristaus, dievo ir liuciferio; kiti taip gerai neįtikino, pavyzdžiui, mergelė marija, ji išvis nustumiama į šoną, tai krinta į akis, nes knygos pradžioje jai teikiama labai daug dėmesio, pasakotojas pabrėžia neteisybę moterų atžvilgiu, mizoginiją, tai atrodė, kad čia į kažką išsirutulios. apskritai romano pabaiga man pasirodė šiek tiek suskubėta, išsiliejusi, nors paskutiniai kristaus žodžiai stipriai kerta.

skaitydama saramago supratau, kaip krikščionybė yra „pasisavinusi“ meilę ir gerumą arba kaip giliai įsismelkusi į mano kaulus. pavyzdžiui, jei knygoje įtaigiai pavaizduotas nesavanaudiškas gerumas, meilė, priešinimasis dogmai, tai knyga „krikščioniška“ - o gal čia tik aš taip pastebėjau, nes mano aplinkoje žmonės dažnai taip įvardina? po saramago atrodys kitaip.

dar netikėtai labai surezonavo su prieš tai skaityta le guin „kaire tamsos ranka“ – abiejose
knygose suskamba mintis, kad tikslas nepateisina priemonių. pradedu galvoti, kad gyvenime tai esminis klausimas: kas tau svarbiau – tikslas ar priemonės?

rekomenduoju perskaityti visoms/-iems, kam kada nors rūpėjo tikėjimo klausimai.


p.s. nepaminėjau teksto malonumo, jo čia gausu, nes zigzagu judantys sakiniai kartais sukelia svaigulį.

Τελειώνοντας το πρώτο μέρος του βιβλίου (πρακτικά την ιστορία του Ιωσήφ), πίστευα ότι είχα στα χέρια μου το κορυφαίο βιβλίο όλων των εποχών και όλων των πλανητών.
Δυστυχώς το δεύτερο μέρος δεν ήταν το ίδιο δυνατό. Λίγο το χιούμορ έχασε ''αυτό το κάτι" που είχε μέχρι τότε, λίγο το όλο πράγμα πήγε πολύ προς το μεταφυσικό, και τελικά η αίσθηση που μου έμεινε ήταν αυτή ενός πολύ καλού και καλογραμμένου βιβλίου - καλά για τη γραφή του Σαραμάγκο δεν το συζητώ, άφθαστος - που όμως δεν εκπλήρωσε τις τεράστιες προοπτικές που ο ίδιος ο συγγραφέας είχε δημιουργήσει στην αρχή του.

El estilo de escritura de Saramago, su firma, siempre supone un reto; pero me encanta. Siempre es bueno leer a premios nobel.

Me encantó este libro. En él se retrata un Jesucristo muy humano, muy real y sobre todo (desde mi ignorancia) muy apegado al trato real entre hombres y mujeres en esta cultura y en ese tiempo.

Al inicio, desde mi perspectiva católica, me pareció disonante el relato, acostumbrado a una mirada y una única perspectiva. Luego me dejé llevar y en serio, que bonita experiencia. De todo el libro mi parte favorita fue el pasaje de los 40 días en el mar junto al Señor y al Pastor. Es muy frío todo, pero la explicación que se da hace a uno como lector entender el porqué de todo.

A mi top de favoritos del año.

"..giacchè non c'era, che lui sapesse, alcun uomo in tutto Israele che potesse vantarsi di aver visto Dio ed esser sopravvissuto".

---ATTENZIONE SPOILER---
(...anche se questa storia la conoscono tutti)

Per oltre un terzo del romanzo, perchè di romanzo si tratta e non di saggio, l'evangelista racconta gli eventi che precedono la nascita di Gesù soffermandosi sulla figura di Giuseppe.
Molti di questi eventi ripercorrono quelli dei vangeli sinottici, aggiungendo e omettendo, lasciando gran parte del narrato all'inventiva dell'autore. La figura di Maria rimane sempre in ombra, confermando ed evidenziando la realtà sociale della condizione inferiore della donna dettata dalla legge ebraica del tempo.
Il concepimento di Gesù avviene con un rapporto sessuale tra Giuseppe e Maria, nessuna nascita verginale, il che porta il romanzo su un piano più realistico dell'originale. Realismo che viene subito interrotto dalla visita di un Angelo del Signore, denunciando così la presenza dell'elemento sovrannaturale e divino all'interno del racconto.

Sono presenti sia eventi storici non accertati, come la Strage degli Innocenti ordinata da Erode, presente solo nel vangelo di Matteo, sia eventi come la ribellione contro i Romani capeggiata da Giuda il Galileo, figura storica riportata in "la Guerra Giudaica" dello storico Flavio Giuseppe.
Assistiamo ad eventi canonici e non, sui quali Saramago ricama una versione fortemente romanzata come il tormento interiore di Giuseppe per il massacro degli innocenti o la dinamica della sua morte, altri eliminati del tutto, come il viaggio in Egitto o i re Magi.
Le situazioni si alternano continuamente tra la ricerca del realismo nelle situazioni umane dei protagonisti, il seguire il racconto canonico e l'elemento sovrannaturale, comunque sempre presente. Nulla di troppo distante dai vangeli, finora. Non è ancora chiaro fin dove Saramago voglia spingersi.

Poi finalmente si parla di Gesù e di Dio.
Gesù è ormai cresciuto; sofferente per il rimorso della colpa ereditata dal padre Giuseppe abbandona la madre e i suoi fratelli e parte per Gerusalemme alla ricerca di risposte e verità.
(Da notare che i fratelli di Gesù sono cosa ben nota, presenti nei vangeli di Marco e Matteo, ma non accettati dalla chiesa cattolica che preferisce usare il termine "cugini").
Giunto al Tempio di Gerusalemme trova la conferma al suo dolore: la volontà degli uomini è una manifestazione di quella divina, il libero arbitrio solo una finta certezza, l'uomo una marionetta al servizio di Dio. La colpa dei padri ricade sui figli.
La visita a Betlemme e alla tomba degli infanti uccisi alla sua nascita sono una conferma che pesa sulla sua coscienza turbata. Egli è la causa delle loro morti innocenti, anche se indirettamente, per questo dovrà pagare. La colpa degli altri come supplizio interiore da portare sulle proprie spalle, fino alla morte.

Si giunge all'incontro con il Pastore/Dio/Diavolo.
Finalmente c'è l'occasione per il vero confronto, il dubbio sulle certezze acquisite in anni di indottrinamento, la sfida all'autorità proclamata, inflessibile, e al pensiero stagnante. Ecco cosa aspettavo! Un pò di riflessione filosofica tra uomo e divintà.
Purtroppo Gesù si limita al silenzio, rifiutando il confronto.
Il Pastore rappresenta la volontà del cambiamento, fonte del dubbio, che permette alle menti aperte di porsi domande, vera linfa vitale della crescita.
Poi avviene l'incontro con Dio nel deserto e anche questo confronto è imbarazzante, volutamente breve e del tutto a senso unico. Gesù si rivela incapace, succube, chiuso nelle sue tradizioni e preconcetti, non si pone alcun dubbio. Obbedisce.
La reazione del Pastore al suo ritorno, senza la pecora sacrificata, è semplicemente da applausi.

"Non hai imparato niente, vattene"

Come dargli torto?
Rimane il dubbio sull'identità del Pastore e Dio, forse andrebbero invertiti. Io tra i due preferisco senza alcun dubbio il Pastore.

E cosi gli eventi si susseguono.
La pesca abbondante, il miracolo del vino, ecc.. sono situazioni che poco si discostano da quelle dei vangeli. Il Gesù uomo agisce sempre per volontà di Dio, volente o nolente abbiamo già appurato che l'uomo non decide nulla.
Eventi rielaborati come il rapporto intimo tra Gesù e Maria di Magdala ed altre situazioni non canoniche non sono una novità per chi ha già letto saggi "alternativi" sull'argomento.
Il Gesù di Saramago continua tuttavia ad avere caratteristiche mistico-divine facendo miracoli, anche se vengono evidenziate maggiormente le sue sensazioni ed emozioni umane, basate sulle responsabilità e le colpe, i dubbi e le insicurezze. Gesù non ha motivi per essere diverso dai suoi coetanei ma finisce per fare esattamente il volere di Dio.
E' un Gesù incapace di ribellarsi, legato alla volontà divina senza possibilità di scelta.
A nulla serve la sua non accettazione del compito assegnatogli, finisce per fare comuque quello per cui è nato, esattamente come nei vangeli. (rileggetevi i vangeli e la passione, poi ditemi se il Gesù canonico non trasuda umanità. Accetta il suo triste destino con spirito stoico o piange lacrime di sangue, disperandosi?).
Il Dio presentato qui non è diverso da quello del Vecchio Testamento, che di misericordioso non ha alcuna caratteristica. Egli è il Dio degli Eserciti, promotore di massacri. Obbedisci o Muori.
Nulla di nuovo.

Forse per chi ha come riferimento solo il catechismo e la dottrina cristiana, questo romanzo potrà sembrare originale, scioccante o forse addirittura dissacrante. Per me invece non osa abbastanza.
E' lo stesso Saramago ad affermare nel testo che non osa discostarsi troppo dal racconto originale.
Affronta l'argomento alla larga e forse anche con timore rispetto ad altri autori che vanno ben oltre le trovate "alternative" di questo romanzo.
Senza ricorrere ad Angeli, Dio e Satana, nei loro testi questi autori arrivano ad eliminarli del tutto.

Rimane quindi la bravura indiscussa dello scrittore di cui ho già apprezzato "Cecità", ma questo vangelo di Gesù Cristo lo reputo un testo troppo romanzato, troppo poco diverso dai testi originali, poco coraggioso. Il suo messaggio di umanità, impotenza e controllo divino, pur essendo chiaro non discosta troppo questo Gesù dal suo alter ego canonico.
Su questi argomenti "delicati" preferisco rimanere su studi filologici e storici, che mettano davvero in dubbio alcune "certezze" accettate a tavolino e imposte come vere da duemila anni.
E' li che si può rimanere davvero sconvolti.

-------------------------------
"..for there was not, to his knowledge, any man in all Israel who could boast of having seen God and survived."

---SPOILER WARNING---
(...even if everyone knows this story)

For over a third of the novel, because it is a novel and not an essay, the evangelist recounts the events preceding the birth of Jesus, focusing on the figure of Joseph.
Many of these events retrace those of the synoptic gospels, adding and omitting, leaving much of the narrated to the author's inventiveness. The figure of Mary always remains in the shadows, confirming and highlighting the social reality of the inferior condition of women dictated by the Jewish law of the time.
The conception of Jesus occurs with sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary, no virgin birth, which brings the novel to a more realistic level than the original. Realism which is immediately interrupted by the visit of an Angel of the Lord, thus denouncing the presence of the supernatural and divine element within the story.

There are both unverified historical events, such as the Massacre of the Innocents ordered by Herod, present only in the Gospel of Matthew, and events such as the rebellion against the Romans led by Judas the Galilean, a historical figure reported in "the Jewish War" by the historian Flavius Joseph.
We witness canonical and non-canonical events, on which Saramago embroiders a highly fictionalized version such as Joseph's internal torment for the massacre of the innocents or the dynamics of his death, others eliminated completely, such as the journey to Egypt or the Three Kings.
The situations continually alternate between the search for realism in the human situations of the protagonists, following the canonical story and the supernatural element, which is always present. Nothing too distant from the gospels, so far. It is not yet clear how far Saramago wants to go.

Then finally we talk about Jesus and God.
Jesus has now grown up; suffering from the remorse of the guilt inherited from his father Giuseppe, he abandons his mother and his brothers and leaves for Jerusalem in search of answers and truth.
(It should be noted that the brothers of Jesus are well known, present in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but not accepted by the Catholic church which prefers to use the term "cousins").
Having arrived at the Temple of Jerusalem, he finds confirmation of his pain: the will of men is a manifestation of the divine will, free will is only a false certainty, man is a puppet in the service of God. The guilt of the fathers falls on the children of he.
The visit to Bethlehem and the tomb of the infants killed at his birth are a confirmation that weighs on his troubled conscience. He is the cause of their innocent deaths, albeit indirectly, for which he will have to pay. The guilt of others as an internal torment to be carried on one's shoulders, until death.

He comes to meet the Shepherd / God / Devil.
Finally there is the opportunity for true confrontation, doubt about the certainties acquired over years of indoctrination, the challenge to proclaimed, inflexible authority and stagnant thought. This is what I was waiting for! A bit of philosophical reflection between man and divinity.
Unfortunately, Jesus limits himself to silence, refusing confrontation.
The Shepherd represents the will for change, the source of doubt, which allows open minds to ask questions, the true lifeblood of growth.
Then the encounter with God in the desert occurs and this confrontation is also embarrassing, deliberately short and completely one-sided. Jesus reveals himself to be incapable, submissive, closed in his traditions and preconceptions, there is no doubt. He obeys.
The Shepherd's reaction to his return, without the sacrificed sheep, is simply applause.

"You haven't learned anything, leave"

How can you blame him?
There remains doubt about the identity of the Shepherd and God, perhaps they should be reversed. Of the two, I undoubtedly prefer the Pastor.

And so events follow one another.
The abundant catch, the miracle of the wine, etc. are situations that differ little from those of the gospels. The man Jesus always acts by the will of God, like it or not we have already established that man decides nothing.
Reworked events such as the intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and other non-canonical situations are nothing new for those who have already read "alternative" essays on the subject.
The Jesus of Saramago, however, continues to have mystical-divine characteristics, performing miracles, even if his human sensations and emotions are highlighted more, based on responsibilities and faults, doubts and insecurities. Jesus has no reason to be different from his peers but ends up doing exactly God's will.
He is a Jesus incapable of rebelling, tied to the divine will without the possibility of choice.
His non-acceptance of the task assigned to him is of no use, he ends up doing what he was born to do anyway, exactly like in the gospels. (reread the gospels and the passion, then tell me if the canonical Jesus doesn't exude humanity. Does he accept his sad fate with a stoic spirit or does he cry tears of blood, despairing?).
The God presented here is no different from that of the Old Testament, who has no merciful characteristics. He is the God of Armies, promoter of massacres. Obey or Die.
Nothing new.

Perhaps for those who only refer to the catechism and Christian doctrine, this novel may seem original, shocking or perhaps even irreverent. For me, however, it isn't daring enough.
It is Saramago himself who states in the text that he does not dare deviate too much from the original story.
He approaches the topic at a distance and perhaps even with fear compared to other authors who go far beyond the "alternative" ideas of this novel.
Without resorting to Angels, God and Satan, these authors manage to eliminate them completely in their texts.

Therefore, the undisputed skill of the writer whose "Blindness" I have already appreciated remains, but I consider this gospel of Jesus Christ to be too fictionalized a text, too little different from the original texts, not very courageous. His message of humanity, impotence and divine control, although clear, does not differ too much from this Jesus from his canonical alter ego.
On these "delicate" topics I prefer to remain on philological and historical studies, which really question some "certainties" accepted at the table and imposed as true for two thousand years.
That's where you can be really shocked.

هعتبرها رواية خيالية بتحكي عن شخصيات بتحمل نفس الأسماء!, رواية أكثر من رائعة كعادة ساراماجو , للأسف مقريتلوش غير العمى والرواية دي ويس , هحاول أقرأ باقي رواياته خاصة اللي بتحمل أفكار عن المسيحية , طبعا ليا إعتراضات كتيرة عليها سواء من الناحية التاريخية أو الدينية بس مش هينفع أديها أقل من الخمس نجوم

Una lettura impegnativa, ma allo stesso tempo illuminante .

OK, I have officially given up on this book. I have 75 pages left, but I just can't do it. For the last few days, I have picked it up only to put it down again as soon as I read the first sentence five times. I feel stupid. This guy is a Nobel Prize winner, so that must mean I'm an idiot if I don't like him, right?

This book is smart, don't get me wrong. It's obvious a genius wrote it. But I don't read for intellectual stimulation unless I'm in a literature class. Perhaps that makes me a lazy reader. If I'm going to spend my little free time with a book, I need it to move me emotionally. That's just the way I roll. I feel like I should be ashamed of this. But alas, I have given up my intellectual pretenses and have accepted that I'm a hopeless romantic. I need a book to make me cry if I'm going to like it. This book made me think "ooh, isn't this author smart" but I felt nothing for the characters. And that's saying a lot because the main character is Jesus Christ, who you'd think would be a pretty dynamic character.

I'd love to know what other people think about this book if they've read it.

Δεν ξέρω τί να γράψω γι'αυτό το βιβλίο,ειλικρινά..
Τράβηξα την ανάγνωσή του όσο μπορούσα,δεν ήθελα να τελειώσει!Αυτό νομίζω τα λέει όλα.Η ιστορία γνωστή(αν και τα γεγονότα,όπως μας παρουσιάζονται εδώ,άγνωστα):η ιστορία του Ιησού από τη Ναζαρέτ.Τα πρόσωπα της ιστορίας παρουσιάζονται μέσα από ένα καινούργιο πρίσμα,οι χαρακτήρες του Διαβόλου και του Θεού με άφησαν άφωνη,και ειδικά οι σελίδες 389-429 είναι από τα πιο συγκλονιστικά αποσπάματα λογοτεχνίας που έχω διαβάσει.
Η ιδιαίτερη γραφή άλλο ένα συν,χειμαρρώδης λόγος,που όμως δεν κουράζει.
Ένας συγγραφέας που μπήκε στη λίστα των αγαπημένων μου,με ένα το�� βιβλίο μόνο.Τί να πω,διαβάστε το οπωσδήποτε,τρέξτε!Μακάρι να είχα τα κατάλληλα λόγια να περιγράψω τα συναισθήματα που μου άφησε!

O Evangelho Segundo Jesus Cristo não será o livro mais aclamado do Nobel Português, mas é, certamente, o mais polémico que escreveu, não só pelo questionamento da história bíblica de Jesus Cristo, mas também pelas consequências que teve na vida do escritor e da sua relação com o país que o viu nascer.

Saramago propõe-se aqui a reinterpretar a vida da figura central da religião mais importante da História da Humanidade. Ateu assumido, o autor foi acusado por representantes da Igreja e de outros católicos de desvirtuar os textos sagrados de forma abusiva e ofensiva, o que seria agravado pela sua condição de não crente. Eu diria que, para escrever este livro, terá sido necessário a Saramago não só um vasto conhecimento da Bíblia, como também reflexões profundas sobre a génese do texto e tudo aquilo que os seus ensinamentos implicam.

Opinião completa: https://www.estantedelivros.com/2021/01/opiniao-o-evangelho-segundo-jesus-cristo-jose-saramago.html

This was a nice read, at least for the first 300 pages. Saramago's very personal style, with its long meandering sentences and sarcastic remarks and witticisms, here really comes into its own. The book is above all the result of a rich imagination: Saramago reinterprets the Jesus story and fills in some gaps especially about his youth.

That he, as an atheist, presents a very human Jesus does not need to wonder. His focus is on the psychological struggle of the carpenter's son, a struggle first with the guilt of his father Joseph (who had failed to warn residents of Bethlehem for the coming infanticide by Herod), later a struggle with the fact that he appeared to be the son of God and had received a special assignment.

God, moreover, is portrayed very unflattering as a cruel potentate, who is tired of being only the god of a small pastoral people (the Hebrews) and through Jesus wants to reach a much wider audience, even if it means the death of millions of people in the wars and persecutions that will follow. Quite cynical, indeed. Saramago follows this path all the way and even presents the devil as a friendly, humane figure. These reversals of the usual perspective are quite entertaining (Mary is drawn as a stubborn and surly woman), and some of the chapters really are touching (some also rather shocking).

The pivotal scene - Jesus in a boat on the lake together with God and the devil - definitely is a classic, but I think a lot of the critical remarks on religion are rather commonplace. But then, in the end Saramago gets a little stuck and has to give his story a sudden turn to be able to make a point. Apart from this rather disappointing final, I think this is a successful book, especially through Saramago's inimitable style and formidable imagination.

n  “God will save you.
Surely you're forgetting that God saves souls rather than bodies.”n

i got kinda bored so i'm giving this a 3 but it's a really good book so ignore me. i kinda wanna give it a 5 because of the *cough* subject *cough* but i won't. i do think that it is a book that people should read tho. if u are a uwu cry baby don't because no one wants to read ur essay on how this is a blasphemy. it's not. if u think that it is u a just a pussy ass bitch. grow up i guess.
lowkey pissed that the spine is white and not yellow.
i kinda wanna rant about religion but i'm tired and i have to go to bed. may rant about it tomorrow when i get back from work. we'll see if i still want to bitch about it.

I wasn’t the right reader for this one, I’m afraid. I couldn’t have been raised further away from religion and catholic doctrines as I was, so I lacked the religious background, knowledge and interest to truly appreciate its nuances. Also I’ll have to say that I truly can’t figure out who the people were that turned this into such a controversial piece of writing. I lived in Portugal for thirty six years and never knew anyone who had actually read this novel (or any other Saramago by the way). I’m really struggling to believe that enough people actually read such an academic, dense and challenging book at the beginning of the 1990’s. Nah! I can’t buy any of that. At the time people were just too busy watching Brazilian soap operas and trying to survive till next payday to bother about Saramago’s views on religion and his interpretation (and rewriting) of the bible.

I truly appreciate the effort (and the great writing) but after turning the last page (of what felt like a million pages) I felt as cold, detached from and clueless about religious beliefs as I have ever been. Even more so, I dare say.

The black sheep is always going to be the black sheep, I reckon.